User talk:Vanished user skj3ioo3jwifjsek35y/Archive Nov 2007

Steven Weinstock
The article Steven Weinstock has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Alabamaboy 11:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please
Please see my note at Talk:Jew Watch. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR
You're likely to be blocked soon for violating our 3RR policy, which says that editors may not revert more than three times in 24 hours. Please review it carefully at WP:3RR. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. In the future, please solve editing disputes through discussion rather than edit warring. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Heimstern Läufer 23:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC) This block is totally unjustified.I have been added a section and important one that show the criticisms of Jew watch and that have been erased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs)
 * If you are really serious about participating in the project, may I suggest you spend some time learning about WP policies and improving your English (maybe get a spellchecker). ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You were warned about the three-revert rule, and then you just went ahead and reverted anyway. If you'd stopped after being warned, I'd have been hesitant to block you; since you continued, I had no hesitation about it. Heimstern Läufer 23:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The blocked have used has a weapons to force opinion of you on other. I will complain about your policy.You should not use in the block as a weapons to force opinion but only against vandalism.I have not erased any part of this article but just add an important information that you have erased.Shame on you.You should not be administrator at all.
 * Read WP:3RR until you understand it. Any of us would have been blocked for the same behaviour. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I mention true fact that the website quote the protocol and it was proved faked by the London time. Moreover you used the blocked as weapons in order to totally erase the criticisms.If you were honset you would have write your own version.but you did not. Instead you have used in blocking as a weapons.


 * Hi. I've blocked the accounts you created to evade the 3RR block you were serving. Please do not do that again. Thank you. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Moon God
Thanks for your note here where I have replied now. This moon god stuff is something which is really needed in Islam related articles. I'm sure there are many reliable sources that we can find for this. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Oren, thanks for your reply! Well yes, I also feel the moon god stuff should be mentioned. I mean the biggest thing is that Islam's symbol is the crescent moon. Criticism of Islam has been slow to seep into Wikipedia for many reasons, mostly because people wont agree with our viewpoints but slowly things are getting better. Just see if you can find a university professor, or a news website or a book that talks about this moon god stuff and then like other statements, just put it in and reference it like the others. People said that the bibleprobe.com is not a reliable source, they may be right. A reliable source is one that comes from established sources of information (see WP:RS for more info). The way you can go about this is, search e.g. "moon god islam" in Google and Google books or Scholars and you might find some sources talking about it. Let me know if you find a source that you think was reliable but was removed by other people. You'll find lots of people who might oppose your changes and then let me know and I'll support you if the source is pretty reliable. Just stay free from blocks, 3rr, personal attacks, sock puppets and use the article's talk page and you should be safe. I hope you can find a good RS now for that moon god stuff, that will be a great addition to Islam related articles. I'm sure someone has said something about it somewhere. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

soapboxing
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  ITAQALLAH  21:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * please stop misusing talk pages to propagate your own personal viewpoints. see WP:NOT, and WP:TPG. if you have any real suggestion concerning how to improve the article, you may do it without the spamming.  ITAQALLAH   21:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are making the arguments yourself there. All we do is report on the arguments made by reliable sources. Arrow740 09:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Criticism of the Qur'an. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. → AA (talk • contribs) — 16:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No.I am not part of any edit war.I removed the link to wikipedia.However as for the other link they are fine.

WP:3RR Warning
You have already violated WP:3RR on Criticism of the Qur'an article. Please stop now. If you continue then I will report you and you might be blocked. regards. --- A. L. M. 16:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * More precisely, you will be blocked. Along with any other accounts you use in the process. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am only mention fact.Just because some people don't like those fact, it is not reason to block me.first check what I have written.
 * No. Read WP:3RR. Now. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But I didn't revert it.I changed it and removed the link to the wikipedia article.It has also erased without any good reason.
 * OK, cease editing the Criticism of the Qur'an article for a period of 24 hours. If you revert again, you might be blocked. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  17:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Now you have made new accounts and editing from IP address too. Please give some source and we will accept your change. Do not misuse wikipedia. You are User:PaladinOfJesus and 132.72.149.74 Right. --- A. L. M. 14:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not made new account just haven't logged in and I am not User:PaladinOfJesus.

OR
Oren tal, I'm going to help you out here. Basically if your stuff is being reverted as OR, it means, you cant put in your own observations and inferences from something. It has to come from someone known, WP:RS and WP:OR apply. Do you see what I'm saying? Good attempt though. Stay in and let me know if you have questions. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What you added to Criticism of the Qur'an
I am struggling to figure out what the exact point of what you tried to add to the article. Prehaps if I knew exactly what you were trying to say, and where you got what from, I could rewrite it in a way that isn't OR, and add it back in. It does seem to be somewhat sourced.-- Sef rin gle Talk 04:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
I have temporarily suspended your editing privileges to prevent further disruptive edit-warring at Criticism of the Qur'an. Tom Harrison Talk 15:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Warnings
Do not remove administrative warnings from your talk page. Thank you. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 13:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is my page. What do you care if I remove it or not? there is no law in wikipedia that forbid me to delete it.That why I have the right to delete it. Just because you are administrator doesn't mean you are allowed to do anything. I want also to complain about your behavior. You have done injustice with me.Oren.tal 17:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Job
see Babylonian Talmud Baba Bathra 15b it states Seven prophets prophesied to the heathen, namely, Balaam and his father, Job, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, Zophar the Naamathite, and Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite --Java7837 00:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Also don't tell me you are a former Jew your English is horrible and knew less about Judaism than an average Hindu living in Bombay. --Java7837 01:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I kow about Judaism much more than you.Oren.tal 11:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You claim you were born in a Orthodox Jewish family so why would you leave Orthodox Judaism?

Are you an Atheist, Muslim, Christian, Pagan, Hindu, Buddhist, Karaite?

leave comments on the user talk page of Java7837

What caused you to lose faith in God? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.72.7 (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I was a reform Jew then atheist then I became an Orthodox Jew

leave comments on the user talk page of Java7837 --69.153.72.7 01:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I have seen you seem to be editing articles criticizing Islam I can help a lot see Ezra_in_Islam#Jewish_perspective here I have shown why all scholars know that Muhammad is a big liar--69.153.72.7 01:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

leave comments on the user talk page of Java7837 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.72.7 (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you need help on--69.153.72.7 02:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have listed a couple verses that may be of interst to you User_talk:Java7837

Here is the some strange verses

[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

[5.64] And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out, He expends as He pleases; and what has been revealed to you from your Lord will certainly make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; and We have put enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection; whenever they kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out, and they strive to make mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers.

[5.82] Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.

--Java7837 02:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Also watch http://youtube.com/watch?v=cd5aA_kIDzY --Java7837 02:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Islam
Oren.tal, please stop this tendentious editing over at Islam. the material in the #Qur'an section is subject to community consensus and of featured quality. you have been altering it, inserting poorly written passages as well as your own POV skew. you are misusing sources (some of which are unreliable) to give the appearance of contradiction with- as well as misrepresentation of- what scholar Francis Peters says. i request you restore the consensus version in good faith and suggest your changes on talk for community feedback before making them. thank you.  ITAQALLAH  17:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * that is talking about the Sana'a fragments discovered in 1972. Peters wrote in 1991 and later. if you try reading a little deeper about the Sana'a fragments you will realise that the differences were small (i.e. variant codices aka ahruf). nobody disputes that. i don't know why you are copy-pasting irrelevant quotes.  ITAQALLAH   17:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Different versions of the Quran
I have read the fact before that even during the time of the third caliph there was several different qurans i do not have on hand have any books that discuss this topic though--Java7837 (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam wikiproject
I have proposed a new wikiproject and was thinking you might want to join WikiProject_Council/Proposals --Java7837 (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Avijit Roy
stop putting articles for Avijit Roy, he is not reliable. (Imad marie (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC))

Please explain to me how is it that Avijit Roy is reliable (Imad marie (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC))
 * what make him not reliable.He is free thinker and explain the issue throw rational way.Second it is far more reliable than all your source that are Islamic web site and for that issue are not neutral or reliable.This all article will be removed before removing Avijit.Oren.tal (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oren, we should apply the policy uniformly. Avijit is not a reliable source or mukto mona and other Islamic sites are also not reliable. Take them out where you see them. Good work you did on taking out those dawah sites. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Najjar Link
I'm not sure if you are trying to be funny or you are serious when you are calling Najjar link a dangerous link. If you are serious you have to prove that for administrators. (Imad marie (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

Firefox extensions are not a wikipedia measurement for good links, please do not remove the link again or you will be reported (Imad marie 20:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imad marie (talk • contribs)

Is Najjar a reliable reference?
You are invited to participate here (Imad marie (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

English Language
Please make sure that your contributions and comments are written in good English so that other editors can understand you. (Imad marie (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

Off-wiki canvassing
Oren.tal, I have posted this on Talk:Islam as well, but I suggest you read WP:MEAT, and reconsider the off-wiki canvassing you have been conducting in order to enforce changes on articles that you are editing, like Islam and Qur'an and miracles. Please be aware that if this behaviour continues, you are likely to be blocked.  ITAQALLAH  20:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no behavior.I don't need to supply any explanation to you and I suggest you will refrain from accusing me.
 * I'm not requesting an explanation, I'm requesting you not do this in the future.  ITAQALLAH   19:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, Itaqallah, how do you know it is Oren.tal?  Yahel  Guhan  03:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So you don't believe that Oren.tal's edits on 31 Jan at 12:10pm on Qur'an and miracles correspond with his forum post dated 31 Jan, 12:18pm in which he campaigns about the same issues on the very same article (posting under the name "Secularist")?
 * Or don't you believe that Oren.tal's on-wiki support of here on 8 Jan at 3:26pm ("I am totally agree") corresponds to Oren.tal's off-wiki support of NineBerry here on 8 Jan at 3:34pm ("I saw you write it in the discussion in wikipedia. I agree. I think you are very right and that should be the accurate sentence.")?
 * There's a large number of giveaways, not least the generally semi-coherent English and consistent peculiarities in phrasing and language, or his editing on patterns on Islam which I am sure anyone familiar with Oren.tal's edits on that article will note.  ITAQALLAH   19:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * it is not me.Oren.tal (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I remain unconvinced. It could be any number of people who just read the article (wikipedian or not) for whom English is a second language. There are plenty of people who read wikipedia articles and complain about its bias who never edit the articles. The correspondence is very weak, and really doesn't really prove a connection.  Yahel  Guhan  06:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect: the poster makes quite clear that he edits on Wikipedia, that he is actively editing these articles and that he needs help in enforcing his changes ("I tried to change it but there are many Muslims there that turn it...", "So I ask help from people to remove this wrong sentence.I will appreciates every help."). It corresponds with the articles Oren.tal was editing, at the time he was editing them (see above), and involves the specific disputes Oren.tal himself was involved in. Oren.tal was the sole editor trying to enforce the change on Islam, and he notes that in his forum message too ("But the problem is that I was alone in this issue."). It also corresponds directly with Oren.tal's off wiki solicitation of Nineberry, Nineberry's on-wiki intervention and talk message, Oren.tal's on-wiki agreement (at 3:26pm) and immediate off-wiki thanks for Nineberry's intervention (at 3:34pm).
 * I really don't believe you should present yourself as an impartial adjudicator here given our history. If you want to contest my warning to Oren.tal in spite of the substantial evidence, then feel free to take it to AN.  ITAQALLAH   15:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He don't need to be part of it.Anyway it was not me and the people raise their points.who ever that one that edit before I don't care who he is.Oren.tal (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR
Please mind that. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please self-revert. I have no interests in reporting you. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what are you talking about.Oren.tal (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
 You have been blocked for edit-warring on Qur'an and miracles. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. --  tariq abjotu  21:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC) There is no reason for this blocking and it is unfair.I have only insert my edit after Imad insist to enter his edit.I was fine with no links but since he insert his links then I insert my.Note that he himself revert more than three time.

Idle threats
Please don't make idle threats.

Either report me or shut up. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Relax with the way you speak because I will report that also.Oren.tal (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you don't like my tone, stop threatening me. Put up or shut up. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't threaten you,I give you warning but I will report you.You have really arrogance to come here and to repeat your way.Oren.tal (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do. Or stop making idle threats. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I will do it and I will report you for spamming my channel.Now don't write any comment any more in my channel.Now I wont even talk to you but will just report you for spamming.Oren.tal (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't own your user page, and I'll respond to your threats if I'd like. I will tell you one more time: Report me or stop threatening me. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did NOT threat you.I gave you warning and I am going to report your spamming.I ask not to spam my page but you decided to do it anyway.You have no right to do it and I am going to report you now.Oren.tal (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have just reported you for spamming.You have no right to spam my page and I have asked you not to spam.Oren.tal (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this: I suggest taking a couple of deep breaths, reading through relevant policies (especially WP:CITE, WP:AGF, WP:UP, WP:CIV, WP:NLT, etc.) and cool down. If you still feel bad in a couple of days time, report this to WP:WQA, or possibly to WP:RFC. OK? &mdash;Gabbe (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Qur'an and science
Are you convinced about the edits you do? or you just want to object to what any "Muslim" editor does??? Explain to me, in good English, and in a logical way, why is Muhammed being illiterate is relative to the section that says that Qur'an is miraculous in its nature so that no human can write it (regardless if this human was illiterate or not). I remind you, use good English so that I can understand you... (Imad marie (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

9/11 warning
Please note that 9/11-related articles are subject to more restrictions than most articles, and failure to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines can be met by rapid blocks. Please see here for details. &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Threats
I've warned you before against making threats against me. Either report me (and make a fool of yourself) or stop. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Haaretz
Please stop trolling the internet for sources to push your POV. The majority of reliable sources describe Haaretz as "liberal." Please leave it alone. Thanks! Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as trolling the internet for sources.there are source that support the claim that Haaretz is left wing and that it.You should accept this.Oren.tal (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, you have found only one that says "left leaning" while you ignore all the sources that say "liberal". That is trolling. Boodlesthecat Meow?
 * that is not trolling,and it can be both.Oren.tal (talk)

don't forget to log in to Wikipedia
Especially if you are going to constantly revert and edit war--edits you make under your IP will count towards 3RR. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Einat Haran, Can you please help?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einat_Haran I see the attempt to delete the article about Einat as vandalism. It is a matter of fact that a search on google for "Einat Haran" comparing to search on the "Nasser Operation" Kuntar yields 6 times more hits. Her article is notable, because it is considered as the most brutal terror attack in the history of Israel (by not less then thousands of links!).On.Elpeleg (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * On.Elpeleg you are strongly mistake me with someone else.I didn't erased any article.Please be more specific.Oren.tal (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Geee... man I am asking for your help, not paranoia :-p I saw you were involved with the Samir Kuntar article, we need your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by On.Elpeleg (talk • contribs) 20:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yediot, Maariv, and Yisrael Hayom - tabloids
Please stop your disruptive edits to try and describe newspapers to your personal opinion. Until you can provide a reputable source to differentiate between tabloid, tabloid-style, etc... you should refrain from making this distinction which is your WP:OR. --Shuki (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * actually you should stop your disruptive edits.Most people here disagree with you.and if tabloid and tabloid-style were the same then B.B.C. would not use the word tabloid-style but just tabloid.What I say is not base on "my opinion" but on my knowledge since I live in Israel and read all newspaper on daily base including Yediot.Anyway I remove the word style in the article  Yisrael Hayom as I tend to agree with you about this.If your point is that  Yediot, Maariv, and Yisrael Hayom = The "Sun" then I think you don't know what you are talking about. Oren.tal (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because many people are misinformed does not make those people who do have knowledge about a certain issue the ones in error. Your opinion and knowledge (and mine) is WP:OR. Please read this important guideline. I think you are deliberately ignoring what I write and taking things out of context in a poor argumentative fashion that I might forget the discussion at hand.
 * You are in error with equating the word tabloid with 'the Sun'. In your opinion, only the Sun is a tabloid, the rest have other issues. Clearly, 15000 google pages are supporting Shuki's edits as opposed to your continued attempt to deny the truth.
 * Sending a reporter to a war zone does not contradict a newspaper's tabloid status. Using your meter, the Sun sends reporters around the world to bring it's readers the news.
 * Why did you remove the word 'style' from the Yisrael Hayom article? Frankly, the difference exists only in your lexicon. Please provide a reliable source to differentiate between tabloid and tabloid style. --Shuki (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * if tabloid style was the same as tabloid then B.B.C. would not use the word tabloid style.As for the Sun it send reporter maybe to Hollywood but not to nay war zone.And yes for majority of people tabloid is the Sun and by calling Yediot Tabloid you reduce it to the level of the sun.As for for your google search it doesn't support anything.It mean that there are many page in which the word Yediot and Tabloid appear not necessarily together.I give you full argument and I used Haaretz as reliable source.Haaretz that called the Sun tabloid in the same article called Yediot news paper and not tabloid.Moreover in all other article about newspapers the word tabloid is only in the descriptino box and that it.To be honest I try to answer everything you say if there is something I missed then let me know.I actually feel that you are ignoring from what I write.And I agree that we should not do according to what most people think but you are just ignoring from everyone and write your edit.When ever someone try to fix it you fix it back.I have the impression that you are from Canada (maybe I am wrong) but since I am from Israel from a long time and I used to read it Yediot for a long time I can say it is not like the Sun or New Your post.Oren.tal (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A quiet word of advice
Hi Oren. A few words of advice regarding debates on Wikipedia; Regarding the debate itself, I can make up my own mind without you explaining. I agree with Nudve that this is a borderline case, but if pushed I would have to say that Yediot is indeed a tabloid. What swayed me was the Daily Express article; the Express is not as sensationalist as the Red tops, but it is still described as a tabloid. Regarding the other points made against Yediot being a tabloid, even The Sun has some respected journalists and columnists writing for it. пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  08:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Don't write in capital letters. It is considered shouting.
 * 2) Don't tell people to stop it; we're not children
 * 3) Don't lie or exaggerate. You claimed on my talk page that "People explained him before that this is NOT tabloid but he just ignore". This isn't quite true; the only other editor involved in the debate is Nudve, who agrees that it is a borderline case.
 * in regard 3 I did NOT lied.You can see in the history that it was more than Nudve that told him that.And Daily Express give more volume to news about show business.Yediot is newspaper mainly about real news.

Unspecified source/license for Image:Yediot Ahronot.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Yediot Ahronot.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 23:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

More advice
Read the guidelines to WP, you are making a mess. You've been here a while, more WP ettiquette is expected from a responsible editor with your experience here. You refuse to reference properly, you revert valid edits, you do not make edit comments, you continue to edit based on your personal knowledge, you need to improve your English, you seem to not use the preview button to proofread your edits before saving and you simply need to mature more before contributing to WP. Please don't feel the need to update me with your faulty edits, I would like you to correct the above issues. And you feel that an article needs a minor improvement, do it, but do not accuse me of being partisan about it. --Shuki (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You behave like a partisan about this article.In any case i am not going to update you about anything.Oren.tal (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Except from the issue of the English in with you are right you actually talk about your flaws.You say that I am guilty in them.But I am the one that write comment.you are the one that ignore from comments and just go and revert.Oren.tal (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm serious
Please learn how to reference properly. What you are doing is simply lazy. You've been on WP for a while, please take it serious and try to improve the quality. About halfway down this page, you can find examples WP:CTT.--Shuki (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Protocols
Nice work in the external links section of the Protocols page. Just don't forget about WP:LINKFARM. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Show preview button
Please learn to use the 'Show preview' button. Your multiple edits for even simple and basic additions to articles clutter up the history pages. --Shuki (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * what are you talking about?Oren.tal (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Right next to the 'Save page' button at the bottom is a 'Show preview' button. By using it, you can review your edits to the page and verify they are what you want to save. Most of your edits seem to be: edit, save, correct, save, correct, save, etc... Using the history tab to review your changes, it is evident that for one small edit, it takes you multiple 'saves' to get it right. This clutters up the history pages and makes it harder to track changes.--Shuki (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Adnan Oktar
WP:EL: "Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not be placed in an external links section."

Best regards. --Adoniscik(t, c) 20:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to remove it then remove it.Oren.tal (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

B'Tselem
Hello. Please read WP:EL. Every newspaper article about the organization doesn't belong in the encyclopedia article as an external link. If the criticism of B'Tselem is significant, summarize it and include it in the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but opinion article about the organization do belong to the article.Oren.tal (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Significant criticism of the organization belongs in the article, not as external links. Please read WP:EL. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * an opinion article that relevant to the subject should be include according the wikipedia guideline number 4.
 * 4.Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.Oren.tal (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see #1 under "Links to be avoided": "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." As I wrote, if the criticism is significant, the criticism belongs in the article. If the criticism isn't significant, the link doesn't belong in the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * the site contain a unique resource beyond what the article contain.If you want to expand the criticism section then it is your own deal.I am not sure this article will help you much though.The fact remain that this article contribute view that is not mention in the wikipedia article.What you said is "Any site that does not provide ..." but this sit do provide.Oren.tal (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

re: B'Tselem
Hi, Oren. I was trying to be bold and settle the debate by including the link in the article. If you strongly oppose, you can revert. Currently, consensus seems to be against using it as an external link, although we could ask for further comments. I still believe that this opinion piece belongs in the text prose, since there's a paragraph dedicated exactly to this material (CAMERA's criticism). The article is not supposed to say "everything" the link says, but summarize the argument. Readers who want to follow up on it can simply click on the footnote and read it for themselves. Anyway, I was not trying to undermine you or circumvent consensus, and was operating in good faith. Cheers. -- Nudve (talk) 06:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Gush Shalom
Nobody is questioning the fact that they are left wing. Nobody has removed the assertion that they are left wing. The issue is the emphasis on that fact, and the clear consensus is that it doesn't belong in the first sentence.

Please respect the Talk page consensus even though you disagree with it. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no such consensus.
 * There are few people that object it and majority support labeled as left wing.
 * I don't see any reason to continue this debate.You have just violated wikipedia rule.Oren.tal (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also I have explained my position in the discussion and no body argue about this.


 * There is a clear consensus to state at the end of the paragraph that Gush Shalom is left wing. Please stop this silliness. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * no silliness.There are many people that mentioned them as left wing in the first line and you reverted them.The fact is that most people support mention them as left wing in the first line and you can see this by looking in the history.In any case there are reliable sources so I don't understand what there is to debate.No body deny the source so the case is closed.Oren.tal (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read the Talk page carefully. Nobody says the article should use "left wing" in the first sentence. Nobody. Nobody but you keeps putting the phrase "left wing" into the first sentence. Only you. Please stop it and respect the consensus. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * People put left wing in the first sentence and then removed it for the lack of source.I have put a link for that edit.No we do have source so it should be in the first line.In any case you miss the point that there are reliable sources about this claim and more than enough.Oren.tal (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of sources. The issue is whether it belongs in the first sentence, and the consensus is no. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The consensus is NOT no and the history of this article prove it.There is you and few other against all the other people who have edited it.Oren.tal (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus or history of the organization being described as "left wing" in the first sentence. Please read the recent Talk page discussion. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * well I suggest you look again in the history because everyone else can and everyone else see that I am right regard this issue.Oren.tal (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In any case I have explained in the talk page why it should be described as left wing and no one debated this.Oren.tal (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Everybody agrees that that group is left wing and they agree that the statement belongs at the end of the first paragraph, not in the first sentence. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * well you just repeat yourself even though I have proven you wrong.Second as least one of the comment say it should be mentioned in the first line.There is only one comment that say it should not be in the first line.But the point that I have many sources to support the label as left wing and I have explained why it should be mentioned in the first line.needless to mention that in most of its history the article mention it in the first line.Do not comment if you only want to repeat yourself.Oren.tal (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll repeat myself as much as I'd like. The consensus is that it doesn't belong in the first sentence, and the fact that you don't like it doesn't change the consensus. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no such consensus/Also the fact that you don't like the fact that it is a left wing organization doesn't change it.There are reliable sources.


 * You keep writing about reliable sources. Nobody has disputed the existence of reliable sources. The issue is whether the phrase "left wing" belongs in the first sentence, and the consensus is that it doesn't belong there.
 * PS: You have no idea what I like or don't like. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can have a fair idea about what you like and you have used that phrase first.Second from viewing the history the consensus is in the other way.Please stop spam my page.Oren.tal (talk) 21:54, 7 December 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. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but if you look history then you are the one that broke that law.I have reported you about this.And the only reason why I undid your edit was because you had broken the three-revert rule.
 * by the way do NOT use legal threat.You know well it is forbidden as you are the one that told me that.


 * First, you should read WP:3RR. There has been no 3RR violation.
 * Second, there has been no legal threat. If you think there has been, please report me at WP:AN/I. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * yes there was 3RR violation.
 * Also you should read what you write.You threaten me with blocking.Oren.tal (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)