User talk:Ykantor/Archive 2014

=british diplomacy in support of the arabs=

Thank you (british diplomacy in support of the arabs
Thank so much for bringing this matter to my attention. Thank you also for your valiant efforts to keep good content on that page. That British policy leaned towards the Arab side, especially Jordan during the 1948-49 war, that one of the factors behind the pro-Arab neutrality was anti-Semitism that equated Jews with Communism that was common amongst many British officials of that age, and Bevin himself shared these prejudices are fairly well established facts that would not mean with objections anywhere, but Wikipedia, which often puts a strange gloss on events. I really must confess that I am deeply disappointed by the actions of the others, which seems to be motivated by what can be can best described as a certain ignorance of how historians work, and at worse might be considered to be outright malevolence.

All historians are biased in some way, which Wikipedia’s much vaulted neutrality at least as far as history is bunk. History involves the assessment of facts, such was a particular occurrence a good thing, a bad thing or someone in between, and all historians are influenced by their views when making such assessments. As someone who is familiar with Karsh’s writings, it is correct that say that he is very pro-Israeli (the fact that he is Israeli probably has something to do with that) and that in his account of the Arab-Israeli conflicts, I don’t think there is any doubt about whose side he is on. But I don’t see why that disqualifies him as a source. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a deeply polarizing dispute as you must know, and there simply are no neutral historians writing about it. There are some historians who more neutral than others, but ultimately any historian has to address the question about whatever they think that Israel is a good thing or a bad thing, which is why the historiography relating to Israel is so starkly polarized. Karsh should be only disqualified as a source if can be established that he had engaged in scholarly misconduct of some sort. In fact, Karsh has been accused of such misconduct, especially in regards to his Palestine Betrayed, which has received savage reviews from historians’ sympathetic to the Palestinian side, and positively growing reviews from historians’ friendly towards the Israeli side. I have not read that book, so I am not qualified to pass judgement on these matters, and as far as I can tell, there have been allegations of misconduct, but that these allegations have not been established. Regardless, that has nothing to do with The Palestine War 1948, which Karsh wrote 8 years earlier or the section dealing with British diplomacy in 1948. Unless it has been proven that Karsh in some way distorted the record, which I don’t believe to be the case, the section should go back in. If someone is really concerned about neutrality, then can cite a historian who has a different interpretation of this matter. As I have learned from experience, it is best not to contribute to talk pages when one is angry, so I will post something on the talk page this weekend, when my temper has cooled. Thank so much for efforts to wage the good fight, and please have a wonderful day!--A.S. Brown (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Ykantor

Thank you again for all your kind words and excellent work! I might take a stab at editing that page soon, but since I suggested that to address the concerns of the opposition that the works of other historians be brought in, I might want to follow my own advice. I suggested treating like a historiography section with viewpoints of different historians being brought in-a procedure that is awkward in the extreme, but is probably the best compromise. Personally, I'll rather like Karsh, since so much of what he writes is grounded in reality and makes sense, but the problem with trying to defend Karsh, so the historiography is so divided. Through you are right that it is rather odd that there is not much in the way of specific objections to Karsh other than he is Karsh. I could easily bring 100 rave reviews of Karsh, and I could just as easily bring in 100 damning reviews of Karsh. Through I am personally sympathetic towards Karsh, one is going to get bogged into an endless debate about whatever Karsh is a RS or not that will lead no-where. For every positive review I can find, the opposition will be able to bring a negative one. This just going to go no-where, and is going to waste a great deal of time. As I see it, the best solution for resolving the dispute and keeping the good content in, is to have the section say that historians are divided about this topic, and Karsh says this and so-and-so say that. This is not I would had preferred, but at least one cannot say it is not neutral. Sometimes one has to do that with there is no consensus within the historiography, but it is a cumbersome way of doing things. Sometimes, that is not necessary and other viewpoints can be safely ignored because they are dead wrong. For an example, at present the article on the Wehrmacht says that the International Military Tribunal ruled at Nuremberg that the Wehrmacht was not a criminal organization, which in fact what the I.M.T ruled was that the Wehrmacht lacked sufficient homogeneity to be classified as a single organization, which is something rather different. The fact that I.M.T refused to rule on whatever or not the Wehrmacht was a criminal organization because of very technical, legal grounds has been widely abused to make the utterly false claim that Hitler's military was a "untarnished shield" that fought a "clean war", an appalling whitewash that one sees way too much of on Wikipedia. The historians who say that I.M.T. ruled that the Wehrmacht was not a criminal organization are idiots who don't know what they are talking about or are just lying. I wish that there was a sufficient historical consensus in support of Karsh to score a similar knock-out blow, but there is not. So the best thing to do is summarize the viewpoints of different historians. The reader can then decide for himself/herself which of the dueling historians is the more closer to the truth. In a different context, John Milton once wrote: "Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?" Wishing you the best, thank you again for all your good work and please have a wonderful day! --A.S. Brown (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC) =all sort of points=

I noticed that you are interested in the British role during 1948 Palestine War
http://www.aish.com/jw/me/Robert-Kennedys-1948-Reports-from-the-Holy-Land.html --Michael Zeev (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

thank you. It is very interesting. Ykantor (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
smileguy91talk 02:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
smileguy91talk 13:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles of interest to you are covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA
Please be aware that 1948 Arab-Israeli war and 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine are two of the articles tagged under the WP:ARBPIA decision. Administrators are allowed to take action under WP:AC/DS if they notice that an editor, despite being warned, repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Without looking into the details, the harsh tone of the dispute at Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War suggests to be that not all the participants there may be fully using their diplomatic skills. Take a look at our page on WP:Dispute resolution if you have not already done so. I became aware of this situation by seeing a post by a DRN volunteer at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1948 Palestine war, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages IDF, ALA and Manara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

1948 Map Israel / Palestine

 * Great work !
 * Nevertheless, FYI :
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=573067435 your edit] to Water politics in the Middle East may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Danny, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Piat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "1948 Palestinian war discussion". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! The Historian (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

(tiny bit clunky). I've provided some clarification and guidance on the questions I posed in the "1948 Palestinian war" dispute, since you seemed to have trouble with them. I've put struck out the answers that are defective (i.e. that don't answer the question or are otherwise not very relevant). I am not making a judgement on you, and I don't intend to do so until 1) you have rewritten your ansers according to the guidance given; and 2) Pluto2012 has answered the questions posed. --The Historian (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested
=zero=

Abuse of editing privilege
Adding the same extended text to 7 different articles is really quite outrageous. Zerotalk 14:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. I didn't know that it is forbidden. Would you mind to instruct me what is the correct way to re-write it? thanks. Ykantor (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, I have found this rule: If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary. Anyway, I will add links, although it is not necessary. Note that the inline text is 19 words long only, and the rest are quotations in the foot notes. Is there more problems with this text duplication? Ykantor (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Any form of partition plan...
I don't know why you keep adding the same text with the same sources that don't support it. Maybe it is due to English not being your first language? For example the sentence "The Arabs rejected the United Nations Partition Plan so that any comment of theirs did not specifically concern the status of the Arab section of Palestine under partition but rather rejected the scheme in its entirety." means that the Arabs rejected the UNSCOP partition plan altogether and were not just complaining about the details. It doesn't say anything at all about other potential partition plans. The other sources you bring have the same problem. Zerotalk 08:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a matter of logic and not of a language. The used quotes like: is logically leading (in my opinion) to the equivalence rejected any kind of partition.
 * 1) "The League demanded independence for Palestine as a “unitary” state"
 * 2) "prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine"

Anyway, instead of "rejected any form of partition", we may write "The Arabs demanded independence for Palestine as a “unitary” state and rejected an establishment of a Jewish state". Would it be better in your opinion?
 * Yes, that would be better (not agreeing yet to any particular implementation of this..). Zerotalk 14:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

What is your opinion concerning this article statement:" but Arabs have always reiterated that it was rejected because it was unfair:"? In my opinion it is a misleading sentence, since the Arab rejected any Jewish state, which means they would not accept even supposedly "fair" partition.

I apologize for my English. I try to write as concise as possible. Ykantor (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no contradiction, since the Arabs of Palestine considered that the excision of part of their country to form a Jewish state would be unfair to them, because they felt that it all rightfully belonged to them. Of course the strength of this feeling of unfairness would have depended on how great the loss would have been, and for that reason they might focus on the part of any plan that seemed to them the worst (such as the loss of the Galilee in the Peel plan). I don't see two different explanations for Arab opposition that we have to choose between. I only see one. Zerotalk 14:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no argument that the Arabs considered it unfair. The problem is that there is no connection between the fairness and between the rejection. The Arabs rejected any size of partition, even if the proposed Jewish state would have been extremely small. The Arabs wanted unitary state only. It seems clear to me, but may be I do not explain it well. Ykantor (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The Arabs are not one entity.
 * Referring to the '48 war there are at least 5 more or less independent groups of Arabs :
 * the Arab population of Palestine
 * the Arab Higher Comitee (their representative) ruled by al-Husseini
 * the opponents to al-Husseini (Nashashibis)
 * the Arab League
 * Abdallah of Transjordan
 * when somebody writes "the Arabs", he should specify which ones.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * quotes:"The Arabs opposed partition and continued to demand independence in all of Palestine, promising to respect the rights of the Jewish minority.[36] The Arabs argued that it violated the rights of the majority ...The Arabs argued that it violated the rights of the majority...". Apparently you do not have any problem with these quotes, although using the term "Arab" as one entity. Anyway, if a majority here would accept your note, I will modify it as well. Ykantor (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

=Trahelliven=

The Arabs stubbornly repudiated any compromise that provided for a Jewish state, no matter what its borders were to be
We have had a family crisis and looking for an appropriate quote has been the last thing on my mind. Without necessarily agreeing to your suggestion, I shall see if I can find one. Trahelliven (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

traherliven-still opened discussions
"The Arabs stubbornly repudiated any compromise that provided for a Jewish state, no matter what its borders were to be "

I have offered you a compromise at 10Aug 2013.

Talk:United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine What do we do further? ,Usually editors are accepting Gelber as a main stream historian. His Judgement is correct ( in my opinion) and shared with other Main stream Historians. If you do not agree may add another quote, which is correct in your view, together with Gelber quotation. Will you accept that?"

=nishidani: still opened discussions= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War#A_general_discussion-_1948_Israel_Arab_war

to Nishidani: Let us advance the debate concerning your previous notes, before extending it to the question if the Israelis felt that the Arabs intend to slaughter them. Would you accept that this notes are incorrect:

The Soviet Union appears also to have denied permission to Prague to sell arms to the Arabs Britain curtailed arms shipments to the ME from February on, which hurt the Arabs more than the Yishuv community. By the summer, Czechoslovia had supplied Israel witrh 84 fighter planes, 22 tanks, 16 artillery pieces, 60,000 light arms, and tens of millions of rounds of ammunition.(partially incorrect) the only problem Israel had was with Jordan, with its advanced, integrated army under British military supervision. (you are heavily underestimating the Egyptian army) The results were known before the declaration of the state of Israel.(Ben Gurion was told by his generals that the chances are equal,up to the arrival of the arms shipment)

"the boys couldn’t restrain themselves and kissed the guns, which were still coated with grease". I do not see any supposedly Israeli propaganda benefit out of this story. why this real revolutionary situation is so hard to believe in?. Ykantor (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC) --

= Quotes in citations =

...are usually not needed. If included, they should be brief. 5KB just for quotations which the user won't see anyway is just a waste of internet bandwidth. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You are generally right, but this case is different. Pluto deletes most of my writing, and other users keep challenging me for any slight difference between my writings and the cites, including false accusation that the quotes does not exist. So I have to cover myself with a lot of quotation. If and when the dust will settle down, I will cut most of my quotes. Ykantor (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If the aim with the quotations is "to cover yourself" then they don't fulfill their function. They just make it more difficult to see what text you've actually added, as it gets lost in the sea of quotations when using the diff tool. Please don't do that. It just makes everyones job harder. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I am looking at a method to move the quotes from the inline text, and avoiding "gets lost in the sea of quotations when using the diff tool". Ykantor (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * to Frederico: Will you please have a look in my sandbox where the quotes are pushed to the section end? please have a look at first at the bottom here. Ykantor (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ykantor,
 * I had already explained that the quotes are not needed ! You didn't believe me and went to another place where exactly the same was told to you but you kept adding these. This is a WP:POINT.
 * More, you don't say the truth when you say that I "keep challenging [you] for any slight difference between [your] writings and the cites" even given I asked you to stop with these quotes.
 * What I have asked you here above is to comply with NPoV and to provide *all pov's* by yourself but you refuse. I also explained you that taking quotes to push one point of view is not the good way but you went on when it is required to give a fair *global* view. You just add quote to justifiy the pov that you want to push.
 * More, Zero0000 told you that in some cases the quotes you provide do not support the nuance you want to add.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You recycle the same arguments, so I have to repeat my replies.
 * quotes: Those "explanatory notes" are acceptable practice, to which you have been referred ( link).
 * "keep challenging [you] for any slight difference between [your] writings and the cites"- if you wish, I will attach some relevant links.
 * "to comply with NPoV"- I try to provide an objective opinion, which is based on RS. In those cases you mentioned (e.g. "Any form of partition plan was rejected by leaders of the Arab community"), I do not know about any other well supported views. ( which means avoiding Pape, Shleim or Karsh etc. interpretations ). If you are aware of such an opinion, you may add it to the article.
 * "Zero0000 told you that in some cases the quotes you provide do not support "- well ,there is an argument here. BTW For this specific case, you yourself accepted that the Arabs rejected any form of partition. Ykantor (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Quoting sections of the sources you've used is no bad thing (for one thing, it makes the job of other editors easier), but if the quotes are for the benefit of editors rather than readers, it would be better to insert them on talkpages rather than the articles themselves. Perhaps a way to go is to include comments pointing to the talkpage along with citations (say, something like ). An advantage of putting them on the talkpage is that they shouldn't be deleted.       ←   ZScarpia  16:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It is an interesting proposal. it might be a good idea to insert the quotes at both places; the article and the talk page. BTW a talkpage section is not usually deleted  (unless Pluto is close by) but it is archived after a while.
 * Will you please have a look in my sandbox where the quotes are pushed to the section end, and compare it to the original section where the quotes stay in line. ?
 * I will start with the sandbox alternative disadvantage: at the section last sentence, there is an accumulation of qt marks (e.g.: ...the other Arab states.[qt 1][qt 2][qt 3][qt 4]) which belongs to previous sentences, and not to the last one. However,the readability of the DIFF end EDIT pages is significantly improved, while retaining the the capability of hovering around the quote mark and watching the quote window pop up, so it is easy to read without leaving the section. What's your opinion? Ykantor (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It was because of talkpage archiving that I suggested putting the date of talkpage content in comments placed in the article which point to the talkpage. Giving the date gives editors an idea of where to search should archiving be carried out.
 * I've bookmarked your sandbox and will try to comment on its content in reply to the last message you addressed to me on the 1948 War article's talkpage.
 * 19:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

To ZScarpia, Frederico: The Explanatory footnotes (long quotes) of 1948 Arab–Israeli War  has been moved out of the article to the "quotes" section, using the "List-defined references with explanatory footnotes using a separate reference group" method.

ZScarpia, will it be possible for you to help me in putting it in the talkpage as well? I am not sure how to do that. Ykantor (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC) --- =Pluto=

Pluto
I take back what I said about Pluto being a reasonable editor you can find compromises with. He's completely out of control. I just saw that he removed sourced material over a technicality (the format of the ref) and in another article he claimed consensus without even checking the talk page while saying where a person was born and where they died "is not relevant for the lead" of their biography. I wish I could tell you what to do with this, but I get the impression the admins are not interested in dealing with the situation in the topic area right now, so I guess you're screwed. Sorry. These are bad times for wikipedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Pluto is routinely deleting most of my edits, but I still hope that there will be a Wikipedia solution to this problem. thanks Ykantor (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the citations, you can start with WP:Reference. Notice that not only does it not say that an editor is allowed to remove sourced material because they don't like how the reference is formatted, it quite strongly implies in the lead that experienced editors are expected to fix this sort of thing. Removing properly sourced and relevant material used to be a big no-no in this topic area, but that was in the good old days when the admins still cared. I'm not very optimistic about a "wikipedia solution" at this point, but good luck. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Harriet - BBC World Service
I write usually in 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. I am not sure if it is interesting for you. As an Israeli Sometimes I feel outnumbered, since in Wikipedia everyone can delete anything. There is no use to enter cycles of deletion and un-deletions, so a lot of my contributions are deleted, because of some vague reasons e.g not neutral, undue weight etc. I do not agree, since in my opinions it is well supported, concise and objective. Let us take as en example the deletion of the "british diplomacy in support of the Arabs". I have not written this section but I have checked it carefully and all of it's factual statement are correct. A pro Arab guy (and his friends) has deleted it, while claiming that it is supposedly not neutral. (They did not found any error there). However, even if it is not neutral, it should not have been deleted since a Wikipedia rule is "do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.". As you can see in the Appendix, I have tried to find a solution by using some Wikipedia mechanisms, and I still hope for a correct solution. BTW people in the Hebrew Wikipedia claim that the English Wikipedia is a lost case for Israel.

Appendix: the previous reporting of the problem.

NPOV Noticeboard

Dispute resolution noticeboard

help desk

help desk

Ykantor (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Pluto routinely deletes

 * deletions:


 * An unjustified text deletion. when I added  "any form of partition was rejected by the Arabs" it was deleted with the reason that "already written in the article "firmly opposed" or "opposed to any form of" means the same but without poved and useless nuance. style is better.". This reason is looking reasonable at a first glance, but actually, there is a big difference between:
 * "firmly opposed", which is misleading. it hints that the Arab could have accepted a better partition, which is not correct.
 * "opposed to any form of partition" which is clear and correct, but was deleted


 * An unjustified image deletion. his reason:" With the children, this pictures is totally unappropriate"


 * An unjustified text deletion. his reason: "information already in the article ; better not to use Pappe's Ethnic Cleansing". His purpose is to delete my contribution:"Any form of partition plan was rejected by leaders of the Arab " (the deleted text first words) which does not appear in the article. He deleted the same words in other articles too.


 * An unjustified text deletion. his reason: "there is still a disagreement between Zero0000 and you about this". This reason is not justifying a deletion of a correct, concise and well supported text. (the referred disagreement is stuck with my proposed compromise not answered). Moreover, even he (user:pluto2012) agreed that it is correct to say: "The Arabs have not accepted any form of partition".?????????


 * An unjustified text replacement. replace "defenders" with "soldiers". reason given:"not neutral" . but they are defenders, as in the photo.


 * An unjustified deletion of most of the text. his reason:"npov". there is an ongoing discussion in the talk page where he attack me personally, have cryptic replies, and does not respond to my proposed compromise.


 * An unjustified text deletion. his reason: "no need to attribute this. The information is more relevant than the people who state it. It is attributed in the reference". Here again he use the same tactics. i.e he deletes few sentences and explain why, but only to the other text. He does not explain why my contribution ( "However, more than a half of the proposed Jewish state is the arid Negev desert"} is deleted. His 2nd step is to replace it with :the plan allocated to the Jewish State most of the Negev desert" which at a first glance seems to be OK. However, there is a big difference between the versions. The rational: the section says that it is unfair that the the majority (the Arabs) are allocated less than the minority (The Jews). He does not want the  reader to know that "However, most of the Jewish state is the arid Negev desert."


 * An unjustified text deletion. his reason: "already in the article the line just above", which is not correct. The rational: the section says that it is unfair that the the majority (the Arabs) are allocated less than the minority (The Jews). He does not want the reader to know that "However, most of the Jewish state is the arid Negev desert."  (Note that a similar text appears in a previous section).


 * Deletion of my long quotes


 * talk pages:
 * Accusing me for nothing. e.g "Band" or "Arabs" on one side versus "the boys" on the other side is a basic pov pushing . But I have never used the term "bands, except of a direct quote of a respected historian.


 * telling wrong "facts": "because the adversary were not the Jews as an ethny". but when I prove that it is an error, the only reply is blaming me " you're blogging' on general issues again, not sticking to the section heading. We are here to resolve specific editing problems, not to descant on Zionism vs Palestinians" the Talk page

Pluto comments

 * Hi,
 * You already have been explained not to personnalize your comments and avoid WP:Personnal attacks. The purpose of a talk page is not that one.
 * You have complained nearly on all Noticeboards of wikipedia and was not followed.
 * You also complained and critized my edits on different talk page where you was not followed and even more criticized by contributors.
 * It is now maybe time that you stop and just try to comply with what was asked you at the very beginning of your arrival and disruptive behaviour : to study in deep the topic on which you want to edit wikipedia (and not just googlesearch) and not to see wikipedia project as a tribune where so-called "sides" could come and defend a pov but on the contrary as an encyclopaedia project where contributors report the different points of view (or narratives) on the topics that they edit.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 05:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This list will be presented to a complains forum when it is ready. Your factual responses are welcomed. Ykantor (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:STALKING
Hi, you like rules and processus. I permit myself to inform you of this one... Pluto2012 (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * you mean "Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding" (WP:STALKING is not used). It says: "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."


 * Since my post does not mention you or your writing, I do not think it is included in that category. Moreover, my view is concise ,relevant to this RFC, and add another new view to the discussion. Ykantor (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 🇦🇹: It works both ways, buddy! You just blatantly stalked Ykantor's edit on the 🇦🇹 article. I say blatantly, because that's the only edit you've ever made to the article! Sure, it's always hard dealing with nationalists (in this case an Israeli one, dearest Ykantor), since they invariably try to minimise or whitewash their country's crimes here on Wikipedia—but that's still no excuse! Two wrongs don't make a right, old bean! Anyway, Roosevelt has an atrocious record where the Holocaust is concerned, so I don't know why you're attempting to defend him:
 * In 998 press conferences, during more than a decade in office served wholly within the Nazi era...
 * LudicrousTripe (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * LudicrousTripe, I didn't stalk him. I saw this first with this made by Zero0000 and then I discovered this by Malhik Shabbaz and the oters by Ykantor.
 * I don't attempt to defend Roosevelt. I don't see what crimes Ykantor would try to minimize on wikipedia.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Latrun - p.319
On p.319, Morris refers to another comments of Ben Gurion *after* the decision not to attack Samaria was taken. He said that now that the decision to attack Egyptians had been taken, if the Arab Legion would intervene, it would be attacked too. But the idea to attack Latrun and the remaining of Samaria wad discussed at the cabinet and rejected but that he expected to do so.

Pluto2012 (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not accurate. I have read p. 319 again. According to Morris, although Ben Gurion hoped that the Iraqi army to intervene (and saw it as an opportunity to take over Samaria too), it is said clearly that if other Arab army will not intervene, Israel will not attack Samaria. He had practical consideration (Bernadot, British army possible involvment etc.) and realized that he have to compromise.
 * The present article statement :"Ben-Gurion ratified the decision as bechiya ledorot ... in considering that Israel could never renounce its claim in Judea, Samaria and over Old Jerusalem" leaves a wrong impression that the rejected plan included conquering Samaria in any case. It should be modified  as to say that Samaria occupation was planned only if other Arab armies would join the fighting too. Ykantor (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You should read p.317 and p.318 before p.319 !
 * Different targets were possible : Galilea - Samaria - Negev
 * Only one was possible.
 * Ben Gurion wanted Samaria and Judea (totally or partly)
 * Another one was chosen by the cabinet (7 vs 5)
 * He said it was a bad decision
 * Ben Gurion stated later that if Arab Legion would support Egyptians, IDF would attack Arab Legion and Samaria (anyway) and if not, they would leave them alone.
 * That is what is referred to p.319.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Pov pushing
You are a biaised editor :. Removing Jordan to talk about invasion of Israel is WP:OR. You are perfectly aware that Gelber titles his chapter on the events "invasion of Palestine" and if you check the conclusions of Morris you will see that he talks about "contingents". I will revert you in 24 hours. You can open a DRN. This has been discussed long ago. You cannot change this by yourself. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

= Request for mediation rejected =

to John Carter: Editor of the Week: comparatively fewer individuals on the not-favoring-Israel side?
Insert non-formatted text here

Editor of the Week: comparatively fewer individuals on the not-favoring-Israel side??
 I am sorry to read your sentence: " the POV pushers on the other side tend to outnumber by big numbers those comparatively fewer individuals on the not-favoring-Israel side" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nishidani#Editor_of_the_Week). I am an Israeli and I wonder what is the source of this view?

I am sorry to say that Arab - Israeli conflict Articles here, are full of Anti Israel POV. e.g. "Plan D"-the article has POV and "dubious" problems. It is a straight forward job to list such problems in the other Arab - Israeli conflict Articles. However, I realized that a lot of my well supported editing is deleted by pro Arab users, so it is a waste of my time to list those problems.

Some of those pro Arab users tactics are on the verge of WP policies or "petit crime" (WP rules that no one care about it). They use:
 * 1) The rule is: do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage. an example Diff page. the deletion reason:blatant pov ; wp-undue. Even if the reason was correct, it should have been rewritten. But it was deleted, and during the last 4 months an important section the is missing. I guess it will take some time before it will be re-written.
 * 2) removing a well supported sentence and replacing it with an unsupported one. an example Diff page.
 * 3) remove a long quote of a respected  (by both sides) wp:rs for no reason (I consider "useless" = no reason). an example Diff page.
 * 4) While I try to focus the argument, some of them tend  to do the opposite: generalizing, accusing me of writing sentences which are not mine, reply to my (supposedly) claims which are not mine etc. I feel like being in a war of attrition.

Those users take advantage of inactive WP dispute mechanisms. In my limited experience WP:Dispute resolution is useless. (sorry for the harsh words).e.g. This is my experience during the last months:
 * 1) DRN expired with no solution. The other side changed his mind and left the discussion.
 * 2) DRN expired with no solution. The other sites respond was not what he was asked for by the volunteer. The volunteer could not continue.
 * 3) DRN expired with no solution. No volunteer.
 * 4) "Requests for mediation/Kfar Etzion massacre" have not started The other side declined.
 * 5) DRN expired with no solution Futile, no participation by one editor; has been refiled at WP:3O
 * 6) "1948 Arab–Israeli War" DRN expired with no solution. The volunteer could not continue

I am probably wrong sometimes, but as my edits are deleted because of bizarre reasons (e.g. bad grammar, because I am required to prove what the Arab people thought as opposed to what their governments said), I do not think that I am the problem.

I do not know which sides have more POV pushers (if at all) but the results is definitely anti Israeli POV, in which the anti Israeli fighting include all sort of tricks. Ykantor (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

= "well known obvious sock"? =

FYI (=for your information):

I have never called anyone a  "well known obvious sock" (as you  falsely claim here ... I  have called someone   "one who has been called an "obvious sock".  And from the  circumstances it should be obvious that it is   who has been so named  (Ahem, read his/her talk-page) (s/he was the one who added  what I removed) ...  sorry to disappoint you: not you.....

And you have not yet explained what on earth the quote you reintroduced has to do with ALA? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If it was not towards me, than let us forget it. I guess that the book author mentioned ALA in order to let the readers to know more about Qawuqji. However, in this article, the readers are are familiar with Qawuqji role , and I do not care if you delete those words from the quote: "soon to be named the head of the Arab League's volunteer army in Palestine, the Arab Liberation Army (ALA)". Ykantor (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Quotes
Did you read this : "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?"

It was already told you by several contributors that your quotes were useless for what you wanted to source. If you go on with this, it will be a proof that you just want to provocate.

The best is that you discuss each case before introducing this in an article.

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You have not understood. He was against long quotes because of copyright problems. It has nothing to do with long footnotes, which are very useful in my opinion. Ykantor (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Up to now, each time you claimed somebody didn't understand, it was said that you did not understand and this is the case once more. There are 2 explanations : the world is against you or you are just wrong. Read Occam razor.
 * The adviser told you not to use excerpts (ie quotes) from a source (ie non-free content) when it is not required ("Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all ?") That is the case each time you introduce your material in the "quotes" section. The author and the book is more than enough. I helped you regarding the way to provide sources long time ago. Copy/paste the excerpt doesn't help and if you are challenged, just add it on the talk page, as it was advised to you too.
 * I am 100% fed-up of your importation of the I-P conflict on wikipedia. We are not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. We are a project to build a free encyclopaedia. You are lucky that an administrator decided to help you in closing the WP:A/E just after your WP:NPA here because you should be topic-banned and that's what will happen if you don't change your behaviour by 180°.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not the first time that you ignore whatever you do not like and respond to something else. You continue to cheat as I have shown. e.g. a Deception: You quote: "that (...) was generally skeptical of the Arab's ability to defeat (...) the Yishuv". You omitted the more important words, that clearly shows your error. You try to keep an erred article sentence ("they were well aware they could not defeat the Jews") by omitting the those words, that clearly show it was king Abdullah only, and not the Arab leaders, as in the article.
 * Will you please do me a favour, and stop annoy me here, in my talk page. The articles talk pages are opened for everyone. Ykantor (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Sock
Here you repeat the wild claims from a blocked sock: not good. Please stop. (If, in the future, you want to write that editor A or B have been sanctioned, then you better link to where it has been done. Accusation, without any diffs to back it up, might boomerang.) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It is a pity that you react although you apparently have not read my question. I questioned whether Pluto has been sanctioned, as someone else said. Ykantor (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have read your question. And no, AFAIK, Pluto has not been sanctioned. That "someone else" you referred to is a blocked sock. Anyone can create a sock, and claim  vile  things about other editors: that does not make these claim true.  I thought this was rather obvious?   An unsubstantiated  claim  from a blocked sock....: someone is dredging the sewers here!  Cheers, Huldra (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It is a pity that you react although you apparently have not read the Sockpuppet investigations/Noisetier/Archive, in which the administrator user:FT2 said about Pluto (under his previous name). (e.g. ''" threats to sock and be a "wikiterrorist", claims of harassment with evidence links that didn't actually show harassment when examined, and claims of bad faith against another user for which evidence was quickly requested and action promised if justified, but Noisetier didn't send any evidence. Noisetier had also lied to users on-wiki (as Noisetier he claimed he had only "contributed with IPs" when asked if he had a prior account and claimed he only edited for 1 year when it was much longer), engaged in a quick return to disturbing conduct in the exact same old topic area within weeks of creating his new account, and then denied editing on the I-P conflict and tried to argue that his editing history wasn't on WP:ARBPIA topics anyway. Since a quick check showed he had edited extensively on the Mandate era, Palestinian refugee related topics, events affecting Palestinians in the 1948 wars, current Israel-related articles affecting Palestinians, and hard core I-P topics from 1948 to 2000, his previous edits weren't outside ARBPIA as he claimed. They were central to it. Ykantor (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yes: I did read the above. But I know my wiki-history,    (And try googling FT2 and "anvil email".)  Statements from FT2,  (or anyone else) without diffs, are just that: statements.   Cheers, Huldra (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I did not know it is not permitted. Ykantor (talk) 05:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

repeated ArbCom candidate questions
I'm not sure it really matters, but thought I would let you know that on some candidates question pages you have repeated your questions two or even three times. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I have deleted the repeated questions. Ykantor (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit comment accusations of vandalism
Calling another editor's edits vandalism, unless they clearly are, isn't a good idea. See WP:Vandalism - How to Respond to Vandalism, WP:Avoid the Word "Vandal", WP:Civility - Identifying Incivility.    ←   ZScarpia  01:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. You are right but unfortunately Traheliven does not listen. I have told him few times to ask the help desk because he ignores the rules, but he continues unabated. Ykantor (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

ser talk:Pluto2012|talk]]) 07:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=590227057 your edit] to Hasan Salama may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * including 2000 gold coins and a quantity of poison." Israeli journalists [Michael Bar-Zohar] and Eitan Haber report that this poison was intended for the Tel Aviv water supply.  and by preventing supplies from reaching isolated Israeli settlements; occasionally, they opened

Hitler led...
Please sign your random additions to this section as your failure to do this makes some us feel you are stifling critical replies by making it hard to follow your argument. As no-one else seems to want your change anyway you might be better off finding something useful to do, there's plenty here. Britmax (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to sign, of course The additions are according to the timeline, making it easier to follow What is the reasons for the negative opinion? Ykantor (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Warning
Your edit this morning to 1948 Palestine War is clearly in breach of the 1RR ruling on this article. I advise you to self-revert in order to avoid a request for arbitration enforcement. RolandR (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That was discussed on a talk page. If you don't agree with me, get a consensus.
 * You quarrel with contributors on all article on which you intervene.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Olive branch
I appreciate the fact that you're reasonable in the latest discussion. I, for one, was mistaken in taking an overly hostile tone to you for the past few months. I hope you understand that I view with great suspicion editors with strong Israeli POV for a number of reasons.

In any case, here is to hoping we have an improved and neutral Wiki!

Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 23:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the ordinary people, Jews and Arabs are suffering because of their leaders. However, in the 1948 war, we Israelis have been unusually lucky with the leadership of Ben Gurion and Weizmann, but the ordinary Arabs fell victims to bad leaders, and suffered a lot. The Arab leaders could have adapted the advice of the first important Arab voice who supported the partition, the influential Egyptian daily "Al Mokattam": "We stand for partition because we believe that it is the best final solution for the problem of Palestine...rejection of partition...will lead to further complications and will give the Zionists another space of time to complete their plans of defense and attack...a delay of one more year which would not benefit the Arabs but would benefit the Jews, especially after the British evacuation.". Note that the paper have not said that the Zionist are right, but took the'practical view. I wish both sides would adapt the practical solution, rather than continuing the futile ideological clashes. Ykantor (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you're completely right. In 1948 Arab calculus, they had much to gain (100% of the area) if they win, and somewhat little to lose (lose whatever the UN gave them, <50% to start with). To accept that partition deal at that time would require an extraordinary foresight or total insanity. It's hard to blame them then. It's only when the losses started piling up that you wonder why the practical approach wasn't taken to cut the losses instead of going double-or-nothing every few years or so.
 * Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 03:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Concerning "they had much to gain..if they win", war are always very costly (soldiers are killed and wounded, and the cost is huge) so the best is to avoid wars unless the alternative is a catastrophe.
 * The Arab states leaders received (as usual) lot of warnings and confusingly some overly optimistic assessments.
 * take for instance, the rather pessimistic Iraqi general Safwat report: "It is clear from the above comparison that the Jews at present enjoy significant superiority over us in terms of manpower and arms. This being the case, the following question comes to mind: Why have not the Jews embarked on wide-scale operations and struck as hard as they could at the Arabs, considering that they have the forces necessary to do so? I believe the answer can be summarized as follows: 1. Despite the fact that skirmishes and battles have begun, the Jews at this stage are still trying to contain the fighting to as narrow a sphere as possible in the hope that partition will be implemented and a Jewish government formed; they hope that if the fighting remains limited, the Arabs will acquiesce in the fait accompli. This can be seen from the fact that the Jews have not so far attacked Arab villages unless the inhabitants of those villages attacked them or provoked them first. 2. Their fear of the intervention of British farces prevents them from using large forces or heavy arms on a wide scale. 3. The Jews expect that—following the end of the Mandate, of course—the Arab countries will mobilize large forces to wage major battles" (http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/military/Khalidi,%20Selected%20Docs%20on%201948%20War.pdf, p. 70, on 23 march 1948 )
 * Some Egyptian generals had overly optimistic views, and predicted an easy drive within 2 weeks to Tel Aviv (according to Benni Morris)
 * A leader who face such contradicting views, should be very careful, and try to minimize the risk. e.g. The invading Arab armies could have declared that there aims are limited to the protection of the Arab Palestinians only, and try to avoid military clashes for other purpose.
 * An Israeli examples:
 * The Israeli prime minister in 1967 was Eshkol, a rather careful person, who was not convinced by the generals who demanded an immediate and supposedly successful attack (end of May 1967), and preferred diplomatic steps. He agreed to the war after about 3 weeks of negotiations that have not helped.
 * The The Israeli prime minister in 2006 was Olmert (a corrupted and bad leader) who believed the stupid Generals and attacked south Lebanon immediately, with no real planing e.g. purpose, territory involved, for how long etc. Ykantor (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

 * Hi, I notice that on the Hitler mediation page you reply to comments attributed to me: "Paul B" (which is how my signature appears, though my user-name is "Paul Barlow"). In fact I have yet to write anything there. You are replying to comments written by "Nick-D". Paul B (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Origins of the 1967 War
Hi Yankor, regarding this edit, I checked the relevant section of the English edition of the source (Morris, B Rightous Victims.. 2001 pp 155-160) but I could not find any material that would support the statement you reintroduced to the article.

WP:Verifiability: says "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. In this case there is an English language edition, which would be a better citation for the English language Wikipedia. Perhaps you would be able to cite the page reference for the section of the English edition of Benny Morris work that would support the passage you reintroduced to the article? Dlv999 (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I will appreciate it if you find the English edition page number. It appears at the end of Chp. 4 "The Arab rebel",based on ref. no 231. Looking at the reference it says:" there, p. 104-105 ; Zweig. pp4-5". thanks. Ykantor (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, I found it page 159: "Capping it all, the Permanent Mandates Commission of the Council of the League of Nations rejected the White Paper as inconsistent with the terms of the Mandate.227" Dlv999 (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I am updating it. Ykantor (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 12 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=595185480 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F595185480%7CUnited Nations Partition Plan for Palestine%5D%5D Ask for help])

sourcing bias
I don't think you should be using Jewish newspapers to make unattributed claims against Arabs during the 1948 war. The bias there is quite obvious and this is an abuse of a primary source. At a minimum you should say "according to the Palestine Post". Zerotalk 01:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * OK. I will add the "according to the Palestine Post". Generally, I am not aware of any RS who deals with such small scale events. I thought that the "Palestine Post" was relatively reliable (with some errors), as said: "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)., although less reliable than Reuters, AP etc. Ykantor (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Golda Meir (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Washington


 * Jarring Mission (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Washington


 * Rogers Plan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Washington

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

=Behaviour=

You keep pushing your points of view in the articles without taking care one second of the other contributors and despite all warnings.

It is really up to you but for your information, all the pov pushing that you are currently adding will be removed tomorrow.

If you don't get a consensus on the talk page you should refrain yourself.

Pluto2012 (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=611417922 your edit] to War over Water (Jordan river) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2013|date=25 May 2011|publisher=Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group|isbn=978-0-307-78805-4|pages=304 }}

Palestinian incitement
Hi. I see you are kind of active in this topic. After I watched this horrible video, I wanted to ask you if we could make an article on Wikipedia about Palestinian incitement? It's not the first time I watch a video like that in the Palestinian media, that's why I'm asking. Thanks.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's do it. How about "Criticism of Palestinian Media?". Palwatch.org is a great site for that stuff. Fatah and Hamas are awful and totally brainwash Palestinians. --monochrome _ monitor  22:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't know where to begin. There's so much material about this stuff that should be reflected in an entire article, regardless of the title. Most sources came from Palestinian Media Watch and MEMRI, as well as newspapers from all over the world. Could you start? I'll try to help.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Origins of the Six-Day War
Hi, I see you stopped discussing your proposed edits on the talkpage, waited a while and then tried to simply insert them back in the article. The problem here is that you seem to be on a mission to blame Egypt for the Six-Day War, and try to cram in articles everything you can find that supports that, and to remove from articles everything you can that doesn't support that. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that's fundamentally at odds with the basic purpose of Wikipedia, and you need to modify your behaviour accordingly. You seem to have a lot of energy and I believe that you can work with other editors on this project, but you need to step back, take a deep breath and think critically of your motives. It's not a bad thing to have an opinion on something, but as editors we need to be aware of those, and not let them inform our editing. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I wrote a response to you on my talkpage. --Dailycare (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 7 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * On the 1948 Arab–Israeli War page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=624591711 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F624591711%7C1948 Arab–Israeli War%5D%5D Ask for help])

Talk:Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries
. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Ykantor, I think we're making progress on all points except that one sentence in the lead. The problem is that it's not an issue of fact or sourcing we are debating, but style. Which is inherently subjective.
 * Please could you continue the discussion on this style point with me at Talk:Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries?
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Please revert ScienceAuthority
Watch this article. Apparently he can break 1RR as many times as he want, but I'm not entitled to do anything to protect the page. This user is dragging me to an edit-war. Take a look at this.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Will you please email me through Wikipedia? Thanks Ykantor (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=629954968 your edit] to 1950–51 Baghdad bombings may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Israel could not cope with so many immigrants and limited the rate of the flights from [Iraq]. by early January 1951, the number of Jews who registered to leave was up to 86,000, only
 * THEIR EXODUS BY 'FLYING CARPET' ... This time Iraqi's Jews Are traveling in four engine Skymasters C-54sl of the Near East Airlines"}}

WP:AE misrepresentation/exaggeration on Hebrew/Israeli quotes and comparison between Arab-Israeli matters and the holocaust
Though there was no direct reply on my querry, two AE executives is enough input for me. See block-log update. According to this, it is appears preferable that future allusions and intentional misrepresentation of Israeli sources should be ignored. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

it was impossible, whatever boundaries we might recommend, to set up an Arab State which should be self-supporting
What do you think you are doing? You add the same quotation to at least 17 different articles. You are becoming a worse editor every time I look at you. Zerotalk 05:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be bad enough if it was a fair summary of the source but actually you extracted a passage out of the middle of the report without any regard to the context and presented it as if it is a reasonable summary of Woodhead's recommendations. But it isn't. It is a distortion of the source. Zerotalk 05:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * -Please tell me what is wrong in my contribution? Why it is not a fair summary? Where is the distortion? I tried to use the original Woodhead sentences, while concising them, in order to be as close as possible to the source.
 * - What is wrong in fixing multiple articles? previously the articles were contradicting each other or were mistaken. Some articles wrongly claimed that the Woodhead report rejected the partition proposals. In my opinion the present description is definitely better than the previous versions.
 * - Previously you were similarly angry about my contribution of "The Arabs rejected any form of partition" into multiple articles. Eventually, wp:dr approved a very close sentence. I am not sure why you were against this sentence, as well as the present sentence.
 * - Concerning the extraction from the middle of the article:
 * - It is important to explain the conclusion's vague passage:"subject to certain reservations," . The needed explanation is the sentence:"it was impossible, whatever boundaries we might recommend, to set up an Arab State which should be self-supporting", extracted from the report body.
 * - This sentence is positioned as "reported", because it is taken from the report body. The next sentences are "proposed" since they are part of the conclusion.
 * - I will appreciate it if you stop using this humiliating description: "worst editor". I use only respectable sources, unlike some editors with bad sources like Bayliss. I usually quote the source in the footnote, making the verification easier. In disputed articles I try to minimize editing opinions and to contribute mostly factual sentences. I am not cheating or lying like one of your favorite editors.
 * -Let us try to find a fair solution together. Ykantor (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You didn't comment an important question:
 * why did you put this in 17 articles ?
 * And I have another one :
 * it is a personnal synthesis of a primary source not supported by secondary sources... Don't you know it is WP:OR ?
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I invite you to a discussion
Hi. A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gaza beach explosion (2006) should be moved to Israeli bombing of the Gaza beach (2006). I would like to know your opinion about this issue.--Mevarus (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate linking
hi, you left a message on my talk page. according to wikipedia's manual of style, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article", not my bold: WP:OVERLINKING. Moshe Dayan is still linked 3 times in the article including in the infobox at the top. Tom B (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I did not know that. thanks. Ykantor (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Email
If you have something to ask or discuss with me, please do so in public on my talk page. I'm not interested in discussing anything in private. Number  5  7  16:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry..
Sorry for reverting you on Talk:Six-Day War: I have absolutely no idea as to how that happened. Though I (mostly) disagree with every one of your POVs on I/P issues, I never revert talk-pages unless it is pure nasty vandalism. Which your edits certainly are not.

The thing is; have have gotten a few new "shiny buttons" this autumn (mainly to deal with this charming fan of mine) .....this makes rv´s super-quick, and sometimes, like on Talk:Six-Day War just now: too quick. Again, sorry! Huldra (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

What "vandalism"...
...did you find at Israeli Declaration of Independence from me? Please apologize ASAP. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

...is involved in my collpasing your quote farm at Talk:Six-Day War. Your section has no dialogue with any other user. It is just your personal repository of references which no one else has an interest in. It clutters up the Talk page - you are abusing use of the talk page. If you accuse me of vandalism again (check the meaning in WP:VANDAL) I will take you to ANI. DeCausa (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)