User talk:Onceinawhile/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Oncenawhile, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Jerusalem

Hi, Plz bring sources and propositions of modifications for the article Jerusalem. Thank you in advance. --Helmoony (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

first Qibla

		The Islamic Barnstar
		For your constructive and encyclopedic contribution to Islamic heritage at Jerusalem article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to copy to your your User page. You deserve it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Previous account(s)

What was the name of the previous account you used on Wikipedia (either the English one, or others) ? HupHollandHup (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Israel. Thank you. I'm referring to "what I personally suspect to be coordinated Astroturfing" . Marokwitz (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Israel edit

On such a contentious article, I think you ought to make that case on the talk page before adding large amounts of content to the article. Since quite a lot has been written on the subject of Israel, I think substantiating your claim that every source considers Israel to be disproportionately criticised will require a lot of research and talk page discussion. I would suggest that there are sources that do not support this claim, it's just that they are not the one's you selected.

Just to let you know, in case you are new, Israel-related article are under special admin sanctions, so be careful about getting into edit-warring. --FormerIP (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a fair point that you did present sources on the talk page. But the Israel article is a very obvious flashpoint within WP, so I think it would be better to have given fuller details about what the changes you proposed to make were. I actually don't think your changes were all that bad, but 10K of text in one go is a lot and I don't think it's realistic to expect it to just be accepted without comment. It is rather obvious that you've exercised a preference for pro-Israel sources, and I also don't think it is realistic to expect a whole section of an article to be accepted on that basis. The thing about "disproportionate" is it seems obvious to me that there are many sources that criticise the international community for not being critical enough of Israel. All mainstream points-of-view need to be represented. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Criticism of Israel for deletion

The article Criticism of Israel is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Israel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

How did you find Mel Etitis' deletion?Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Israel

Please stop trying to insert a section concerning "International criticism" until you have built consensus to include it in the article. Continuing to do so while the topic is under discussion is disruptive and may be considered edit-warring. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi. Your recent edits appear to be contrary to the Wikipedia MOS. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking), from which I've selected the following bullet points:

• Section headings should not themselves contain links
• Items within quotations should not generally be linked
• In general, link only the first occurrence of an item

Please try follow the MOS in the future. Also, you may wish to consider fixing the overlinking in articles you've already changed. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Article links

Hi. Regarding this edit to the Tony Judt article, please note that, per WP:REPEATLINK, a link should generally only be provided on the first mention of another article topic. I've therefore removed the second and third links to criticism of Israel. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Your comment on my talkpage

Hi, and thanks for your kind words on my talkpage. I agree that tagteaming is a problematic issue and tagteams are too rarely exposed and banned (although that too has happened). In principle I think the best way to counter them would be to expose the tagteam and block the editors, but this is difficult as they can use non-wiki channels to coordinate their actions. I've sometimes thought that wikipedia should have a few editors with the permission and task to try to infiltrate and then expose tagteams. Absent blocking tagteams, something that can help is to invite broader participation from the community (for example via RFC) so that the "team" is rendered in the minority. This only really works for more key issues. Thinking of BLUDGEON, on the other hand if the tagteam is there, they're unlikely to be persuaded by any arguments so replying to all won't likely resolve the issue. What do you think? --Dailycare (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you make a good point that I hadn't thought of, namely that a tag team wouldn't need to coordinate offsite. I've always understood offsite coordination as a key feature of tagteaming, and if we consider a block of "patriotic" editors (for example) a tagteam it complicates the issue. One thing that could work is discussing the matter until the ninjas' arguments are plainly in sight. To keep withholding consensus they have to repeat them, and if they're rubbish arguments the ninjas can be blocked for tendentious editing. If their arguments make sense, on the other hand, then they should of course be incorporated in the editing process. Of course, initiating a process to get editors blocked for tendentious editing sort of spoils the "good faith atmosphere"... --Dailycare (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Orthographic suggestion

I think you want "corrolory" to be corollary. --Noleander (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Israel article

Will you be doing more editing on that article? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of the Israeli government

Hi. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's rules concerning free images (those unencumbered by copyright) and the fair use of non-free images. We can use a photo of a book cover only to illustrate an article that discusses the book, and even then the image needs a fair use rationale. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Note to Once: There are fossils of various types in the area, but
when referring to the past 99 centuries, 'fossil' would not apply.

Request for sources in Talk:Palestine

I'm on the road and can't remember my password, which is not stored in this laptop.

To incorporate all those points in the article, with references, would require substantial editing, which I predict would be resisted.

Also, I would prefer if the article was defined, and its structure stabilised before these points are added.

What do you think? Koakhtzvigad 58.178.163.234 (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I had in mind that if you could source those statements and the underlying conclusion, we would be able to build consensus to use it to structure the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Jewish revolt against Heraclius

Following your work on Nehemiah ben Hushiel, I created a page on Benjamin of Tiberias. Let's keep on this project and thank you for cooperation.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Made general updates on Jewish revolt against Heraclius, you are welcome to contribute more.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Onceinawhile. You have new messages at Talk:Ottoman Land Code of 1858.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Juedeo-Aramaic on Bar Kokhba coinage?

I'm at a loss to understand why you keep pushing that label on the coins. You provide two refs, yet neither uses that term. Then there are other sources which explicitly place the text as Paleo-Hebrew: Bar Kokhba Coins from Masada, 132-135 CE and Bar Kokhba Coin, 132-135 CE. Any reason not to revert? Poliocretes (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

I have noticed you changing multiple links on Wikipedia from History of the Southern Levant to History of Palestine. Here, here, here as well as here where you rather directed away from the page. I understand that you are upset that your name change was not successful, however to simply change all of the wikipedia links to your new article is WP:Disruptive Editing Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don't_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_make_a_point Drsmoo (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that these links were changed, but your understanding of the rationale is not correct. You will be aware that Southern Levant defines a wider area (or set of areas) than Palestine, and that certain articles are more relevant to former rather than the latter. The three articles in question all discuss topics which are more relevant to Palestine than the Southern Levant as shown below:

• Archaeology of Israel - includes two references to Palestine, and discusses the West Bank, but does not mention Southern Levant anywhere
• History of Zionism - includes over 100 references to Palestine, as Zionism and the concept of Palestine are intrinsically linked. No mention of Southern Levant
• History of the Jews in the Land of Israel - includes 35 references to Palestine and only one to Southern Levant. The article is about the historical narrative of zionism, and therefore as above is intrinsically linked to the concept of palestine
• Land of Israel#Historical Kingdoms - this link was changed to History of ancient Israel and Judah, not History of Palestine - if you read the article you will note that such a link is more appropriate.

Please could you kindly self-revert?

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Southern Levant is synonymous with both Israel, Palestine and Jordan, a history of the Southern Levant includes a history of ancient Israel and Palestine, which is the reason the links were chosen. Substituting the links from a History of the Southern Levant to a History of Palestine only provides less relevant information, as for example, the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah extended into Jordan and Syria. You could have simply added a link to the History of Palestine, it's the replacing of one link with the other which I find confusing. Drsmoo (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your last point - I was thinking that when I saw you do exactly the same with your reverts. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If you agreed with my last point then you shouldn't have done it in the first place. I simply reverted the edits because it was quicker. If you had added a link to History of Palestine without removing anything, I wouldn't have changed it. Nor will I change it if you add the links now/in the future. Drsmoo (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Template moving

I just saw what you and TheCuriousGnome did this evening. While you may blame TheCuriousGnome for starting it, you should not have reverted. I reported TheCuriousGnome at WP:ANEW; I have half a mind to report you too. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Malik, ok thanks for letting me know - am sorry to hear that. Please could you explain why I should not have reverted - I honestly thought i had been acting as a model wiki-zen? Oncenawhile (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry if I came on too strong. You had no way of knowing how TheCuriousGnome would respond, but your revert seems to have provoked a strong reaction. I guess it's a good thing you stopped when you did. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be best if everybody stopped worrying about the name of the template and tried to focus instead on its content, don't you? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I think you should heed the advice User:EdJohnston gave at WP:ANEW: "Anyone who proposes to reorganize templates in the I/P area needs a lot of patience and ought to listen carefully for consensus."

But move it if you must. I won't interfere. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've already explained why I don't think it should be moved. On top of that, anybody who types Template:Palestine topics is redirected to the new name. If you feel so strongly about moving the template, please find another administrator and convince her/him to move it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

RM alert

There's a move request discussion going on at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority#Requested move, with which you were previously involved. I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new discussion. Nightw 08:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of the region of Palestine

Since I know you have a lot of knowledge in the subject matter I would gladly appreciate any help you can provide in improving this article (which I have recently created). TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

TCG, thanks for your message. I saw your new article, which I think is a good idea. I can add a lot to it pretty quickly, but I have a few reservations. Firstly, the name, which I would prefer to be consistent with "History of Palestine", but could live with "History of Palestine (region)". Secondly, there are a few (not many) statements in there at the moment which are wrong, and I do not want to get into another edit war with you. I am still very disappointed with what happened with Template:Palestine topics - our positions were not far apart, but our interaction undermined the template rather than improved it. So I am in two minds... Oncenawhile (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed this is not an easy topic to cover. I want this article to contain all major events in the region of Palestine which are significant to ALL parties. This is a task which I would not be able to achieve by myself - I need the assistance of many contributers from many different backgrounds to work together to achieve this goal. Since I know you have a lot of information in this field, I was hoping you would be able to cooperate with me to achieve this goal. All the events which are currently covered in the article (as well as the phrasing of the sentences) are open for further discussion among the contributers of the article, especially in any future cases of disagreement among contributors, in order for us to achieve an accurate, well written, comprehensive article which would be phrased in an unbiased way. I myself am also still unhappy with the recent difference of opinions and related edit war over what content should be included in the namespace "Template:Palestine topics". Either way, I would completely understand if at this point you would choose to decline my offer. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Pally people

Don't throw around accusations like vandalism. All the material I removed was POV and unsupported/based on poor sources.

All the things I added was good, encyclopedic info.

Am I mistaken? Can you show me what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.54.164 (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

RM alert

The move request at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority was closed, so we're now taking suggestions for an alternative. As you were involved in the previous discussion, I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new one. Please lodge your support for a proposal, or make one of your own. Nightw 04:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Bar Kochba Coins

Sorry, changed my mind. I don't see why a fringe theory should receive such prominence. If you believe this is not the case, feel free to provide references to support your position. I have started a discussion on the article talk page and will notify the relevant wikiprojects. Poliocretes (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Demographics

Hy Oncenawhile Yes I made two corrections.Fist I corrected the name of the chapter as all sources given indicate eighter relative or absolute Jewish majority.I don't see any conflicting results given.Second the reference Harrel and Stendel, 1974 was quoted twice,once correctly which I left and second time incorrectly,(showing two different results).I removed it. Third I didn't remove the only source indicating Muslim plurality in section 1830-69: Conflicting estimates regarding Muslim or Jewish plurality ref Yigal Shiloh, 1980 [11]although the page given is nonfunctional. There was one additional quote given which didn't match the source which was given.I would like to see that quote on the page,but given correctly without misleading interpretations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 18:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Palestine

There was no reason to revert the page... It was only a few sentences and before that there was only three or four words mentioning the Achemenid Empire or on Persian influence over the area while mentioning a lot of the Roman and Arab influence. Please do not revert a page simply based on your own opinions as you did on the article Palestine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xythianos (talk • contribs) 19:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Who is a Palestinian? for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Who is a Palestinian? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who is a Palestinian? until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Who is a Palestinian?

Your article, Who is a Palestinian? may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion under CSD A10. Please follow the provided link for more information. Thank you. ♠ 23:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Al-Sinnabra

An article that you have been involved in editing, Al-Sinnabra , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sreifa (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Merging

Please express your opinion over the relisted suggestion to merge the article Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both articles are substantially the same, and shouldn't exist in separate. You can participate in the discussion here Talk:Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict#Merging with Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

==History of the name Palestine==

Hi Oncenawhile

I do not see any reason for removing my section to this article. All sources are well documented and are strictly related to this subject.You can edit, expand this section and merge it with my text. The etymology section, is the first chapter in every Wikipedia article, relating to other nations as well. I strongly believe that there is need for this chapter, as this is the only place were details regarding the etymology of the name Palestine can be explained. The fact that parts of this section may relate to the Philistines doesn't exclude the need for the existence of this chapter here. Therefore, please do not delete my contribution but expand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 09:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette discussion board

Hello, Oncenawhile. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

False edit summary

In this edit summary you accused me of not participating at all at the talk page. Your accusation is false. Please refactor your accusation and your edit once you're at it. Thanks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Siege of Jerusalem

Hi Oncenawhile, thank you for taking the time to add to the article, but I do feel that much of the detail is rather irrelevant to the subject matter. It turns the background the into the heart of the article. For instance, I don't see how the carving of Judea into 5 districts has anything to do with the siege. I'm therefore removing certain setences, but I'll be sure to leave informative edit summeries if you with to contest my edits. Poliocretes (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Made a dispute resolution request

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "History of pottery in the Southern Levant, History of pottery in Palestine". Thank you.

I shouldn't.... but ...

... LOL ... talknic (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem: Abode of Peace

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Jerusalem: Abode of Peace". Thank you.

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Demographic history of Jerusalem, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Plurality (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) 11:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian Citizenship 1925

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palestinian_Citizenship_Order_1925.jpg at the top of the document Palestinian Citizenship 1925 Does it really matter if the remainder of the document is in Hebrew? A translation will not change the document's English ... talknic (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem

Hi, I've put up a proposal re: Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Naming_Conventions_for_Locations_in_Jerusalem) and would very much appreciate any comments you have on this issue. BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Truman trusteeship proposal

The article Truman trusteeship proposal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Merge into History of Palestine; not notable enough for standalone article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zzarch (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Truman trusteeship proposal for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Truman trusteeship proposal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truman trusteeship proposal until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Zzarch (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Edits on Palestine

Hi, I'm the admin who fully protected Palestine. After reviewing the edit history a second time, I notice that your edits are just barely within what is allowed at those articles. That is, all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict are under what is called general sanctions and 1RR as a result of the arbitration decision found at WP:ARBPIA. While your edits never cross 1RR, you came very close. Between the first edit and the the second one there was a period of just over 27 hours, and between the second and the third one was a period of less than 25 hours. It looks like you're trying to "get in" your one edit per day as soon as possible. Please note, though, that even though 1 revert per day is the limit, it's not an entitlement--you can be blocked for showing a period of edit warring over time. Please consider this a formal warning under WP:ARBPIA (which I'll log), and know that any further disruption can result in your account being blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page OETA (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) 10:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Mandate Palestine

Thanks for including the sources. I had been meaning to include them somewhere, but hadn't quite worked out how. Dlv999 (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

League of Nations journal

You have mail... Zero^talk 09:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Palestinians are not Arabs?

"The name Palestinian applies in contemporary times to Muslim and Christian Arabs who inhabited Palestine."[2] An Arab is, "a member of an Arabic-speaking people."[3] Kauffner (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. When you recently edited Timeline of the name Palestine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berosus (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) 11:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian Infobox

Hi Oncenawhile, my current edit back to the Palestinian Infobox including St. George has met reverting, I have removed Saint George from that collage for now and re-uploaded it under that same file name, I was wondering if you would care to edit it on the article back to the infobox, revert Shrike, and state that we removed Saint George pending consensus. Because currently Shrike has reverted the infobox back to a version from 2 years ago that only contains 8 palestinians. Lazyfoxx (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian People

The article is semi-protected.

There are numerous counter-exemples of People who have a national identity much older than 250 years.

• English
• Spanish
• Slavic Peoples
• Mongols
• French
• Japenese
• ...

There should be two articles. One about the Modern Palestinian People and one about Unhabitants of Palestine. 81.247.85.132 (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but you are wrong. Please research the articles on nationalism I pointed to before discussing this further. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"Dear Jayjg, I am so sorry - i must have hurt your feelings. Please respond to the following questions which go directly to article content: Do you agree with the statement that "no ethnicity in the world can claim a national conciousness more than 250 years old"? If so, how come most other wiki-articles about national people are able to include figures from before the age of nationalism? Oncenawhile (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)"

Of course. It is not because it is written in wikipedia that [deep] national [feeling] started with French revolution that there was no national identity before.

For what concerns another of your comment about the priest of 1300. Since that time an even before, there was a Kingdom of England that was a very precise geographic and political entity with a King of England to whom all citizens refer.

I add that according to this "argument", Jesus is no Palestinian either.

81.247.76.22 (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

See my comment to Anonmoos in the chain further above starting "But reread your post above and you'll see the issue - who are you or I to be deciding what factors make a historical person a Palestinian. We are just wikipedians. We have to let RS decide. My explanations about nationalism are just to help you understand why RS call Jesus and St. George Palestinian - because "nationalism" is more an artform than a science. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)" Oncenawhile (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no wp:rs who call Jesus a Palestinian in the sense of a member of the Palestinian People.

They call him a Palestinian in the sense of an unhabitant of the area of Palestine.

81.247.219.50 (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean in reference to other Wikipedia articles about a national people? A few examples would help. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is an exemple of a very young nation : Flemish people

Here is one of a very old nation : Han Chinese

91.180.122.229 (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The Flemish people article does not have a list of people. So let's look instead at List of Flemish painters. For example, did the Bruegel family consider themselves as a "member of the Flemish people"?. The Chinese people article is the same - did Confucius or Sun Tzu consider themselves members of the Chinese people? The answer to both questions is a resounding no. So if the Breugels did not consider themselves "Flemish" and Confucius did not consider himself "Chinese", and we are ok to call the Bruegels Flemish and Confucius Chinese, can you explain your why it should be relevant whether Jesus thought of himself as "Palestinian"? Oncenawhile (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

How do you figure Confucius wouldn't call himself Chinese? He knew he was writting the Chinese language. He worked for one of the many states of China that existed at the time. After leaving his job, he toured around an area that he most likely thought of as "China" teaching his philosophy to his "people," the Han. Do people need political unity to be a people? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what to say, as your post contains so many misunderstandings about chinese history, identity and language. Every statement you made was incorrect! Let me start with the basics. Confucius was from the state of Lu - his allegience was there. There was simply no concept of "China" at the time. The "Han" dynasty hadn't come into existence yet, nor had the "Qin" dynasty (from which we take the name China) unified the country. We have no idea what language Confucius spoke (the Chinese script is ideographic) and most scholars do not believe Confucius wrote the books attributed to him (chinese script was not uniform at that point). Now what? Either you take my word for it, or you go and read a bit about chinese historiography. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I think your confusion about Chinese history stems from your lack of understanding of the difference between the Chinese words "zhong" and "han." You say that Qin is the basis of the English word China. You do know that the Chinese had a written character for "zhong" and "han" at the time of Confucius, right? The language wasn't uniform, but was close enough to be called the Han script (that's what its still called today). The ethnic group "Han" isn't uniform today or back then either, but the Han people realized that they were a group, different from the people around them. The Han dynasty was named after the Han people, not the other way around. They had a name for themselves, their language, and their land. Hanpeople, Hantalk, Hanland.

The modern country of China is different from Hanland. China is what a bunch of greedy commies were able to grab, it includes other people's land and culture. But the Zhou dynasty (that Confusius lived in) was more or less Hanland, the ancestral homeland of Han people. The Chinese word "zhong" translates into English as "Chinese." It, unlike Han, can mean anything related to the modern PRC or it's ancestors. But the word Han means ethnic Han people, their language, land, and identity. Although the White Man's idea of what is "China" has been in flux, Chinese people know what is the Han nation. They know it's history is over three thousand years old, and it includes Confusius. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do some proper research before you question this again. Again you have thrown out a bunch of statements which are simply incorrect. I do not have the inclination to continue teaching you about Chinese history.

Perhaps the most absurd was your statement "The Han dynasty was named after the Han people"! I have never heard anything like it! The term Han comes from Hanzhong, the city where Emperor Gaozu of Han stayed before the Chu–Han Contention began. During and following the Han Dynasty, it became a term to differentiate between "civilized people" and "barbarians" - much like the terms tangren and huaxia were used. And Zhong means "middle" (the full word you were referrring to is zhongguo or "middle kingdom") - again, it was used historically to refer simply to what was seen as the civilized world.

But back to the point - Confucius lived 300 years before all this, during the heavily fragmented Spring and Autumn Period. He could not possibly have considered himself Chinese or Han.

If you want to continue this debate, please do some research first. A source showing scholarly debate around the existence of "Chineseness" during the Spring and Autumn Period would be helpful to support your statements. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to wrap up this semantics argument, because it is apparent that you aren't familiar with Chinese writing. The Chinese character "zhong (中)" is a pictogram for middle. It is also a rebus for the word that means "Chinese." This is why zhongguo means China-kingdom. America is called meiguo, which means "beautiful kingdom," or America-kingdom. France is faguo, which means "law-kingdom". A rebus is put before the word for kingdom or country.

Sometimes China (Zhongguo) is a political term. What about the main language/writing/food/ethnicity/art of the people of China? Can that be described with zhong? Yes, but it's better to use "Han (汉)", especially for the writing and ethnicity. 3000 years ago, the genetics for both Han people and Han writing (Chinese characters) was mostly formed. During the Spring and Autumn Period, the people recognized that their society had been going to tatters. This is why Confucius travelled and spread his word. He loved his people and wanted it whole again. He read the history books of his time that spoke of the earlier dynasties and their order and law. He was a reviver of earlier morality (like Jesus or Buddha).

Like you point out, zhongguo means "middle kingdom." You say everyone else was a barbarian. Han also differenciates from the others. Exactly. Now you understand what I said. Han and zhong mean Chinese. They knew they were different from the people around them. In Confucius's day, he knew the People, the middle people, the Han were the only ones consistantly making use of rice cultivation and written records. This is civilization. The Chinese had it 3000 years ago, no matter their political Peking Operas. They had it and they knew it and they made a name for it. Han

The Han dynasty was established when Gaozu became the top regional power. But he, unlike past rulers, didn't name his dynasty after his hometown. He gave the dynasty one of the general words for "China" that existed at the time. "zhong" and "han" are two of those words. They predate the city of Hanzhong, which basically means "China heartland." So yes, the Han dynasty is named after the Han people, not the other way around. In Confucius's day and before, what you see written all over the top of the take-out menu is called 汉字, Han characters. Han dynasty didn't invent Han characters, you can't even get a real Chinese dynasty off the ground without a palace full of literate civil servants, who've passed a civil service test you'd obviously fail.

So the Han have a history, written language, and identity that extends for thousands of years. It doesn't matter that Nationalismdidn't come but a few centuries ago. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

To coin a metaphor, it appears you are shooting a machine gun blindfolded. I can see you're trying though, so I will try to continue to humor you until you get bored. To explain, once again, all of your misunderstandings:

• Meiguo and Faguo are words from Transcription into Chinese characters, not rebus's put before the word Kingdom. As with many transcriptions, they were chosen to have additional relevance in their meaning. But your statement misunderstands the order in which these words were created. Anyway, this is not relevant other than to show that you have no idea what you are talking about!
• The character you showed for Han is the simplified version. The relevant version here is the traditional character 漢. As you can see from the Radical (Chinese character) on the left, this originally related to something to do with water (i.e. the Han River (Yangtze River tributary). If you want to double check, look at the Shuowen Jiezi. My copy explains the etymology as follows: 漾也。東爲滄浪水。從水，難省聲。㵄，古文。呼旰切〖註〗臣鉉等曰：難從省，當作堇。而前作相承去土從大，疑兼從古文省。 Unfortunately this is classical chinese so my ability to read it is limited, but there are enough readable words to know that this refers to a province near water.
• You say that Gaozu "gave the dynasty one of the general words for "China" that existed at the time". These sources disagreeHanzhong governmentEncyclopedia Britannica

If you want to keep on pushing this, please bring sources which support your statements. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate you doing all this wikiresearch to try to pretend to read Chinese characters just to have an argument with me. You see, the radical of Han in its simplified and traditional forms is water. This doesn't disqualify it from being the word for "China" or "Us non-barbarian people." The rebus technique was used extensively during the classical Chinese period you've been furiously googling. Althouth it is reasonable to believe that the character "han" uses the water radical to refer to Han people, since Chinese are the People of the Yellow River.

You're reference to the Shuowen Jiezi is almost self-defeating. The Han dynasty didn't suddenly emerge from nothing, it embodied the Han people and culture that had been there. This is proven by the rich body of literature produced before the Han dynasty. You've already admitted I'm right. You already said that people in Confucius's time called outsiders "barbarians." You are exactly right. Remember, "zhong" means middle. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I notice you have not commented on the sources I provided. Your comment suggests that you disagree with them with your key statement " The Han dynasty didn't suddenly emerge from nothing, it embodied the Han people and culture that had been there." Since your statement is utter nonsense, I would be interested to see the source which backs it up. Or do you not have a source for it? Oncenawhile (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Your copy/paste quotation of "classical chinese" is very telling about the continuity of Han culture through its script. A good number of those characters, hanzi(Han characters), are identical to the 1950's simplified script. There are many Chinese scripts, but they all decend from the same set of pictograms and rebus's used by Confucius.

We were arguing about Confucius. I still argue he, and the literati before him, concidered themselves Han, if not the rice farms too. But forget that fortune cookie writer, you got in such a tizzy about this that you proved the original point of this section. To quote your Hanzhong government source...

Since then all the other ethnic nationalities around China revered the Han Dynasty’s power and prosperity, they addressed the Chinese the “Han People”, their characters the “Han Characters”, their language the “Han Language”, etc. No wonder even Encyclopaedia Britannica recorded that “The Han Nationality emerged in the Han Dynasty.”

So as long as we understand that "Chinese" is an English exonym, we understand "han" as a Chinese character (again, a hanzi, Han characters) endonym for the same thing. So, can the Chinese (Han people) claim a national consciousness older than 250 years old? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The question of the formalisation of the "Han" identity at the end of the 19th century in order to undermine the Qing ruling class is interesting. If we get in to that, you will understand where you, once again, are missing the key information.

For now though, let's please finish on Confucius. You reiterated your belief that Confucius considered himself "Han" 300 years before the Han dynasty came in to being. Please either provide a source for this ridiculous claim, or retract it. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

So now that I've gotten you to prove the IP's original argument, with sources, there isn't much need to continue. Before you were saying very clearly that the Han nation began in the Han dynasty, but when it fits your needs the Chinese people weren't Chinese until after the Qing? What were they during the Qing?

As for Pappa C, he lived during a period of political instability. Just cause they was fighting, doesn't mean they didn't acknowledge their shared history and culture. Are West Bankers and Gazans different from each other. In your logic, the Palestinian nation aint born yet.Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way to make remove the semi-protection on the talk page. That is discrimination versus IP ! ;-) 81.247.214.96 (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

John Ball illustration

Thanks for http://molcat1.bl.uk/IllImages/Ekta/big/E025/E025825.jpg link... AnonMoos (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree that it's far from ideal that Jayg is letting cut-and-pasted-in "I'm offended" templates partly take the place of discussion by him... AnonMoos (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

Hi. When you recently edited Han Dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Han people (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) 18:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I handled this one for you. By the way, jiang is Chinese for river, so Hanjiang River means Han river river. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I made a userbox for you. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but, whilst it was funny, I am not stubborn. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

British Mandate relisting

In looking at the discussion, there is support for the move as proposed and for the alternative proposed late in the discussion. Given the history of the article, I would rather way and make sure that we have consensus for the proposed name. What is clear is that there is a consensus to move it from the current name to one of the proposed names. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Mandatory was only raised today so allowing more time to consider if that is the best option sounds reasonable in my mind. Waiting a week at this point should not present any problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not willing to budge. If you can find an administrator who thinks I'm being overly cautious here and wants to close with a move, I'm not going to object. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, let me try it this way. I see a clear consensus to rename. However I do not see a consensus as to what the target should be. At first it was 'mandate' but discussions on the last day raised 'mandatory' which knocked mandate out as the consensus choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, at the time of the close, there was no consensus for either of the two options. I don't know how I can make that clearer. I know that you are willing to have a bad close so that it can be moved a second time if that is where consensus winds up. But we really only want to do moves to correct targets and if allowing additional discussion gets us to the best solution that is what we should do. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. When you recently edited Balfour Declaration of 1917, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British (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) 11:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

1929 Palestine riots (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Staves

Antiquities of the Jews (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Greek

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Please self revert

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 18:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Report of the Commission on the Palestine Disturbances of August 1929 (Shaw report)

Hi. Any idea where I can get a copy of this report? I have been searching everywhere for some work on the 1929 Palestine riots article but have had no luck. Any ideas appreciated. Dlv999 (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, much appreciated. Dlv999 (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

1929 Palestine riots

I doubt that Sela needs attribution since this observation is widely accepted.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 19:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Common ground at last!
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 20:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Oncenawhile, there is a discussion at WP:RSN that you might be interested in. Dlv999 (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. When you recently edited Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Lang (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) 11:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Notification

This AE relates to you.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Help Oncenawhile. I'm hopeful you will add your own statement to this AE complaint. Technically you do appear to have broken the WP:1RR. The ARBPIA 1RR tends to be taken very seriously. If you will give suitable assurances about your future behavior, it is possible that admins might close this with no action. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If you will accept a voluntary restriction from the topic of the I/P conflict for one month the case might be closed with no block. EdJohnston (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

In letting you escape this without a block, the community has, in effect, given you a vote of confidence conditioned with a very strong note of concern, and has apparently done so largely on the strength of my faith in you. And I do have a great deal of faith in you because I believe you are trying to do the right thing in the right way but, at the risk of being overly dramatic, I also have to remind you that I have not done you a favor, but have instead placed an obligation of honor on you. As with Bishop Myriel telling the police that he has given the thief Jean Valjean his silver plates and giving Valjean the silver candlesticks in the police's presence, "It is your soul that I am buying for you." Feel free to interpret that in a secular way, of course, to mean that I have put my reputation on the line for you and that you now have an obligation of honor to pay me back for my faith in you by becoming and remaining an upright Wikipedian. In Les Misérables the musical, Bishop Myriel sings:

But remember this, my brother
See in this some higher plan
You must use this precious silver
To become an honest man
By the witness of the martyrs
By the Passion and the Blood
God has raised you out of darkness
I have bought your soul for God!

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi TransporterMan, thanks for your message. I understand and acknowledge it. To put it in my own words, I believe the best way that I can repay your support is to continue to learn about and ensure full compliance with all of wikipedia's rules and principles. You have my word that I fully intend to honour this.

I have been thinking about all this over the last couple of days, in particular regarding two statements you made in the AE discussion: "lack of a lot of warning templates on his talk page even though he works in a highly disputatious area" and "In my experience working in dispute resolution, figuring out how to best approach a situation like this is sometimes beyond the ken of editors with far more experience than Oncenawhile." These really hit home for me, because it seems impossible to avoid these difficult situations in an area where editors often have extremely strong views on what NPOV looks like. I have been focused on taking things slowly and keeping and disagreements to talk. What I haven't worked out is how to deal appropriately with those editors who are more aggressive than me but know the rules inside out, if you know what I mean. Until I fully understand the rules myself I will be more cautious than ever. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Onceinawhile. You have new messages at AnkhMorpork's talk page.
Message added 22:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Onceinawhile. You have new messages at TransporterMan's talk page.
Message added 13:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please read my response there and, if appropriate, respond at the article talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA violations

Make another WP:POINTy edit like this, and it's off for administrative action. Your choice - how important to you is maintaining that personal attack ? Jayjg ^(talk) 11:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read my edit comment. Someone else started that section with that title, and another editor amended it. I simply reverted back to the original. I then explained why I think WP:AGF is being followed by all parties. And I don't think there have been any personal attacks, other than the threat you have just made. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, i'd be interested to hear your thoughts on a comparison of relative "pointyness" versus this edit. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

1929 Palestine riots

Hi,

I think you inadvertently removed a section of Ankh's comment in the process of quoting the comment. [4]

Whoops - thanks - looks like i cut and pasted rather than copied and pasted.... Oncenawhile (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You love the racial rainbow

from black to yellow. I could tell when you said, "...by trying to demonise a whole race you exposed innate racism." So now you will be laying off the Jews/Israelis? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You made a very serious implied accusation. Please substantiate it or remove it. You have two years of edit history at your disposal. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Because an editor was adding information about the perceived sexual picidillos of British Pakistanis, you made a very serious direct accusation of racism. Yet you use a signifigant period of edit time either adding hurtful or removing flattering info about Jews or Israelis.

I didn't think it was racism, until I saw your quote above. Your ability to link other people's edits with their innate qualities and prejudices is impressive.

But I'm misunderstanding the whole situation. You don't hate Jews, you have legitamite greivances with the State. Also, the editors trying to add unflattering material to British Pakistanis shouldn't have their motives doubted either.

Please AGF and love each other. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Please remove the lie written in your second sentence above. I have never made any edits which bear resemblance to what you described. As I said above, you have two years of edit history at your disposal to confirm. If you knew anything personal about me you would know there is a good reason why you won't find any such edits. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a lie, it's a value-judgement. It can be neither right nor wrong. I don't care about anyhthing personal about you. Nothing personal, but nothing personal about you could make you immune to racism, nor to hypocracy. You tried to pull the R card on the BP spill. Re-read my first comment, then your first response. Then tell me what the liturgical language of Hindu Hippos is.

Give up?

Hippokrit Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a very specific statement, and it is wrong. You are unable to substantiate it. It is unacceptable to be making such statements when no evidence exists.

Ankh make edits which were judged by me and others to have been racist, even though I suspect Ankh didn't realise it at the time he made the edits. Your attempt to suggest hypocrisy is not based on any of my edits, or any evidence at all for that matter. It is an unfounded and unacceptable slur. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Racism is a slur. Ankh didn't realise that you had judged his edits racist? Who made you race-master? Think about edits like [this]and [this]. They aren't racist in and of themselves. Also, having a two year history in the I-P area is not, in and of itself, proof of bad motive. But it suggests that you live in a glass house when it comes to linking criticisms of groups and the motive for why. You shouldn't play that game.

Calling you a hippokrit isn't a slur. It's fair. Take the criticism and move on, with a little more sympathy for Ankh and Shrike, how are just trying to bake the same love cake with you using different ingrediants. I know that too many cooks spoils the cake, but that's because the cooks start cursing at each other when the Italian chef won't let the Chinese touch the side dish. The Chinese is just trying to save 面. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I am all for WP:wikilove. So I agree with your underlying point.

I also take your failure to find any edits in my history anywhere close to your previous accusation as an unsaid retraction of your accusation, and perhaps even an implicit apology.

By the way, if you spoke Chinese you would know that that 臉 is the common character for face. Unless you meant that the Chinese is just trying to save noodles.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a pun. 面 is a fine way to say face, and noodles (which the Chinese and Italian chef might fight over). I never made an accusation. I said, "Yet you use a signifigant period of edit time either adding hurtful or removing flattering info about Jews or Israelis." I stand by this statement. I'm not calling you a racist, just saying you have a pattern that might open you up to attack if you start throwing around a race accusation. I spent about 3 minutes looking for diffs that would support my point and got bored by how inconsquential so many of your edits are.

Why are you accusing me of not speaking Chinese, we both know it's you who can't read Hanzi. But that is in the past, and love is in our future.Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

So you looked for diffs that would support your point, didn't find any, but still stand by your statement?

I know you think you were defending someone else, but two wrongs do not make one right. Throwing around baseless accusations is unacceptable. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

"Throwing around baseless accusations is unacceptable" Too true. Ankh.Morpork 16:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Oncenawhile thank you for your encouragement. Padres Hana (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

SPI

"If there is any resumption of anonymous edits from a Rogers customer in the Toronto area with a keen interest in I/P controversies, someone might consider reopening this report. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)"

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Breein1007/Archive

Sean.hoyland - talk 17:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Socks

If you want to talk about suspicious, you can start with this SPA [5] Or perhaps with this IP [6] whose first ever edit was to IPCOLL. Or maybe this user would be of interest [7] Just getting started. Any hints and tips for a newbie would be very welcome. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. To cast dispersion over people only because they don’t agree with your worldwide view, while ignoring the shenanigans of those who agree with you undermines your sincerity.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The assumption of bad faith in editors who you disagree with seems to be a defining characteristic of your edits from what I have seen JJG. Dlv999 (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Long overdue

		The Original Barnstar
		For your ongoing fine contributions to a topic area that is not easy to be productive in. From the creation of well-researched articles like Timeline of the name Palestine to your latest formatting and organizational fixes and expansion of List of Palestinians, your hard work is appreciated, even by those of us who have opted out for the time being. Thank you and happy editing. Tiamuttalk 18:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Please see this thread.Ankh.Morpork 21:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

resource request

Hi,

I've uploaded an article that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find a link to the article on that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy to help provide access to sources. GabrielF (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Appreciation for your gracious reply

Hi, Once. I want to acknowledge you for your reply at ANI. It's never easy to hear criticism without responding defensively, as if one's worth or value as a person is under attack, especially when one is already feeling chafed.

So thank you for that, and for the humility of your reply. Modern culture doesn't understand that humility is a sign of strength, of internal integrity; it confuses the exercise of the trait with diffidence, which is another animal entirely, of course. I'll write an essay about that one day, mostly just to remind myself of it, but for now just know that I honour you for the character of your reply, as you honoured the intention of my own comment, by exercising the patience to understand it.

I'm kind of wiki-bonked at the moment, and short of time, but let's meet up at WT:SPI in a day or two, to follow up. The community really needs to come up with a much better way to deal with short-term-use accounts and IP hoppers, as I see it. The topic area is awash with them. Maybe we can all help deal with the current proliferation at the 1929 riots article, too; I'd like that. Best, --OhioStandard (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Quick update: Thanks for your kind words at my talk. Just wanted to touch bases to let you know that I haven't forgotten WT:SPI, and to say that I intend to post there within 24 hours ( although you're welcome to go ahead, of course, if you'd prefer to do so yourself ). Apologies for the delay; RL responsibilities have been more time-consuming than I'd expected. In any case, there are at least two or three other people I've talked with in the past that I know are also vitally interested in the problem. I'll notify them of the discussion, once we initiate it there, and hope they'll want to contribute, as well. In haste, --OhioStandard (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Update 2: I allocated time for this, but thought I'd do well to start by looking more closely at the edit history of the 1929 riots article. That was two hours ago; I can't think of an article in recent memory that's been more rife with socks. You should receive a medal for putting up with that as patiently as you did. The IPs going are especially interesting, I see, but I suppose you already knew that. I did find, among many other interesting results, that 74.198.87.103 is on 14 blacklists, which ( assuming I understand correctly; I know little about sock detection ) implies it's an open proxy ... other evidence points to edits from that IP as belonging to the extremely prolific IP-hopping, scrutiny-avoiding editor, Breein1007 ( see his SPI page ) that I see Sean Hoyland also mentioned to you above; one editor whose judgement I respect believes he resides in Israel, incidently. I'm afraid any post by me to WT:SPI is going to have to wait until tomorrow, however, since I've now spent so much time looking at accounts and IPs, especially, starting from that article. --OhioStandard (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ohio, it is very interesting isn't it! Whoever is behind all the socks on that article hasn't made a huge effort to hide things, so surely must have left a trail somewhere. Perhaps they have exposed a new way of IP hopping that the clerks aren't aware of. I really think that it warrants a proper investigation, as it seems like a perfect case study of multiple sock abuse which might help expose new loopholes.

I started the discussion at WP:STI - hopefully I have set it out appropriately and hopefully it will generate some interest. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentation

I have waited a week to see if anyone has any objections to adding content based on two sources that were recently confirmed at RSN to be reliable. In light of no response, I sought to implement this. You have reverted me and I await an explanation on the talk page. Ankh.Morpork 11:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ankh, are you refering to this comment? Nowhere in that comment did you make a proposal for what your edit would look like, despite the two months of discussion over this single sentence. You made a point which was very broad and ignored most of the rest of the discussion to date. In addition, you did not suggest that you intended to unilaterally implement the amendments again if you didn't get an answer. The key issue is that there are so many other open questions on the page which you have not responded to.

I believe we can find common ground here, but in order to bring the discussion to consensus you will need to make very specific drafting proposals on talk, and listen carefully to the counterarguments being made.

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is the comment I was referring to. I specially consulted the RS/N to address your "weak tertiary sources" claim and therefore have have been careful to be only include satisfactory sources. Since then no policy objection has been made to using these two sources and yet you persist in "your await consensus" reverts. I request that you respond to this comment on the talk page and explain why there might not be a consensus in light of me efforts to improve the sourcing. Ankh.Morpork 11:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have done as you requested. We have debating this single sentence for two months - to reach consensus without annoying other editors you must first propose the drafting on the talk page itself. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Appreciated. Ankh.Morpork 11:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You have continued to remove content and still have not suggested a counter-proposal on how to use this information. If you think it should be totally omitted, say so. If you have a way in which it can be presented in a non-misleading manner, say so. But if you continue to revert and entirely remove reliably sourced material without even suggesting s suitable way to include it, I will take administrative action. Ankh.Morpork 20:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be reacting to my reversion of an SPA / sock. It had nothing to do with you, unless you wish to confirm otherwise. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

You seem to be experienced enough to know what vandalism is. Please don't call an editor a vandal over a simple content dispute. Saying an edit is pov is ok, saying it's vandalism, at least as I just saw you doing, is not. Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I agree with your underlying point, although i'm not sure it's fairly applied here. I called it "vandalistic", by which I meant although it wasn't technically vandalism, it had the effect of the same.

In other words, if the editor in question had just blanked the section in a single edit, it would have been a clear case of vandalism. Because the editor did the same via a large number of good faith edits, it wasn't vandalism but had the same effect - hence vandalistic.

You probably think that is a tenuous explanation, but that is how i thought about it at the time. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

But none of that qualifies under WP:Vandalism. Edit summaries were given, for instance. It's a content dispute. Dougweller (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring notice

I don't have an exact count at the moment, but it appears that you removed the same materiel from 1929 Palestine riots over a dozen times and have reverted between 5-10 different editors. Is this the truth or close to it?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read the talk page at the article. Big of you to admit that there is an edit war at the article. You have been supporting an absurd edit war to force in some POV text without consensus, and you have contributed nothing to the actual debate. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"From Dan to Beersheba"?

Hey, Onceinawhile, I wanted to ask you about this article. Is the phrase used at all outside the Bible? It doesn't strike me as particularly notable as a phrase unless it's become idiomatic as a result of its being in the Bible. I mean, there are a lot of phrases used multiple times in the Bible, so I don't know why this one is any different. Do you have any more insight to this? (Just FYI, I'm thinking of sending it to AfD for notability concerns, but I wanted to hear from you first.) Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(reply to this on my talk page) Ah, okay. I'll leave you to it, then. Thanks, and sorry for the interruption! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Timeline of the name Palestine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Palestina and Dalmatian

Blowback (intelligence) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Counterpunch

Coele-Syria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pliny

Ras Kouroun (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mount Casius

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The article Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah

Which "Western literature" are you talking about? Even if he is referred as being mad in western books, don't they mention his name alongside? Besides, he's not known as "the mad caliph", he might be said to have been mad by his dissident rivals and subsiquent patron historians. Our aim is to be accurate while being neutral.

Encyclopedia Britannica's page concerning "Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah" is not accurate and is highly misleading. Please don't use that as a source.

How do you know of al_hakim being "extremely well known by this name"? Britanica? That book about crusades? Both are thoroughly unreliable.

My edit is not vandalism, it is a correction. PukaChAo 03:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DistributorScientiae (talk • contribs) 03:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion to Talk:Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah to centralise the debate Oncenawhile (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1033 Fez massacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berber (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) 16:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

list

Do not re-add that material. It never had a consensus and it still doesnt. The scope of the article is defined by Palestinian people, not the multiple definitions of Palestinian. nableezy - 13:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You're edits allow others to redefine the scope of the page so as to deny a Palestinian identity to the Palestinians. Because you have opened the scope so far others feel entitled to say that the people listed are not Palestinians but rather people associated with Palestine. My problem is the denial of that identity, and your edits enable that denial. nableezy - 14:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Oncenawhile. Regarding the concerns you raised at ANI, you may be interested in this discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Rachel_Corrie where another editor was facing issues of tag team edit warring of content leading to the skeweing of an article away from NPOV. I don't really know anything about what goes on at ANI, but I certainly think if you have this kind of concern, raising it with the wider community is a sensible and legitimate course of action. It seems to have been a positive move in the discussion that I linked in any case. Dlv999 (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Map

Both me and No more nice guy objected to the map because it shows West bank and Golan Heights, as was pointed out at the talkpage.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Palestinians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ascalon (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) 15:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Revert

I've responded on my talk page (short version: done as requested). --Jethro B 23:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian Authority issue

Dear user, since you participated on a geopolitical context discussion on Palestine [8], you might be interested in expressing your opinion on a reformulated discussion Talk:Palestinian National Authority#Palestinian Authority - an organization (government) or a geopolitical entity?. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Tiberias/Safed

I have reopened a discussion at Talk:1660_destruction_of_Safed#Merge that you were involved in before. Zero^talk 06:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

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.

Talmudic Academies in the Land of Israel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Romans and Byzantines

Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Peter Lang

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Your input

As former participant of discussion regarding "Palestinian National Authority and Palestinian people" template at Template_talk:Palestinian nationalism#Proposed_merger, you may be interested in participating in discussion over its rename at Template_talk:Palestinian_National_Authority_and_the_Palestinian_people#Requested move.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Onceinawhile. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 11:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Definitions of Pogrom, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Henry Morgenthau, Minority and David Engel (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) 11:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Limerick Pogrom

Hello, there is an RFC at Talk:Limerick Pogrom about a proposed change to reduce the amount of detail given to discussion of the term pogrom. Everyone who's been involved in this discussion is receiving this notice. Your input is appreciated, thanks. Zad68 04:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Definitions of Pogrom for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Definitions of Pogrom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of Pogrom until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. IZAK (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Notability

Part of the problem seems to me to be that notability basically requires more than a subject meaning mentioned in, for instance, several books, even if the material in those books is of some length, but that the topic in and of itself be discussed as a separate idea at enough length and in enough sources for notability to be established. This does get a bit complicated, unfortunately, and it seems to me that maybe, giving my own occasional ineptitude at speaking, that maybe the best way to illustrate the point is by an example.

We previously had, for instance, discussion on one of the noticeboards regarding the Raelians, and the number of articles we have and have had related to that group. Now, I want it understood that I am in no way prejudiced against that group. But, unfortunately, we found that there has been, to date, only one book from independent reliable sources which really deals with the group in a substantive way, and a very small collection of generally short articles in newspapers, magazines, and the like. I and a few others basically realized that, in effect, the assertion of notability for several of the articles we had at the time was, basically, that those topics were discussed at the length of a rather few pages in that single book, and that they were also mentioned, generally in what might best be called a passing way, in a few articles. That isn't enough to establish notability of a topic, unfortunately. Lots of things are discussed at some length in books, but we haven't yet come to the point that even a whole chapter on a given subject relating to a topic in one or more books dealing with the broader topic is enough to establish notability of the given more focused subject. So, for instance, even if multiple biographies of Martin Luther have separate chapters on his pre-adolescence (and they almost certainly do, given the number of biographies of him that exist), that isn't enough in and of itself for us to have a separate article on the pre-adolescence of Martin Luther. Now, if there were enough independent RS's dealing primarily or exclusively with the subject of his pre-adolescence, like in academic journals, that would establish notability, but even extended discussion on a specific subtopic within a longer work devoted to a broader subject isn't.

So, for example, the case I mentioned of how to define new religious movements points out what seems to me to be a different case. There have been, that I have seen, several articles in journals and elsewhere discussing primarily if not exclusively how the term is defined and used, and how the authors or those works and others think it should be defined and used. Those articles, given their limited focus on the specific matter of the definition of the term, rather than discussing the broader subject and within that broader context discussing the definition, would be enough to establish notability for that topic, because it is the primary subject of multiple independent RS's. I hope that makes sense.

By the way, I am myself of the opinion, FWIW, that there is a possibility, given the broad number of articles out there, that in time the subject might be proven to be sufficiently notable and to have sufficient encyclopedic content related to it (which is another valid concern), that maybe, eventually, its independent notability could be established. There is a lot of material out there on virtually any subject, after all, including this one, and I don't think anyone can even guess just how many articles on such specific topics exist. I am myself trying, right now, to go through various encyclopedia related to religion, and for all I know it may well be true that I can find sufficient content, and possibly sources, in one or more of them to verify the independent notability of God knows how many subjects. It is taking a while to go through them, but I am trying to do them all as quickly as possible. That being the case, I do think that you would be more than justified to maybe, if you want, request the userification of the page, or, maybe, depending on the age of some of them and whether or not they might be public domain, to perhaps post quotes from them, or maybe even the whole length of the works involved, at WikiQuote or WikiSource or wherever, where the information would still be available to be consulted by anyone interested and also be available in the event the subject's independent notability is established. Just an idea, anyway. John Carter (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Onceinawhile/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 04:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vali (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) 01:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Judaea

Hi, I happened to be in the library today and looked up the Cambridge History of Judaism (vol 3) reference to support the statement "The Judean (Jewish, see Ioudaioi) control over the wider region resulted in it also becoming known as Judaea, a term that had previously only referred to the smaller region of the Judean Mountains". Unless I missed something, the reference says nothing about the term "Judeae" and its meaning at that or any other time. I've therefore removed the sentence from both Palestine and History of Palestine articles. Poliocretes (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I added the quote supporting it. I accept it's not word-for-word. Are you questioning whether the concept is true? I think it's a very helpful clarification for a reader, as there's lots of confusion out there as to when and why the word Judea (and its cognates) were first applied to the wider region. I can find an even clearer source if you like? I would like to understand whether you are questioning the fact or just the sourcing though. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Both. I don't know that the whole area discussed in the quote ever came to be known as Judea. When was the Galilee ever known as Judea? The ref simply does not say what you think it does. It talks about identity, it says absolutely nothing about geography. Poliocretes (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Josephus referred to the whole area as Judea when talking about the Hasmoneans. See for example AJ 14.5.3:

So Gabinius left part of his army there, in order to take the place, and he himself went into other parts of Judea, and gave order to rebuild all the cities that he met with that had been demolished; at which time were rebuilt Samaria, Ashdod, Scythopolis, Anthedon, Raphia, and Dora; Marissa also, and Gaza, and not a few others besides.

None of those cities are in Judaea-proper, and Scythopolis was in southern Galilee. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I've found and added a much clearer source. A History of the Jewish People, edited by Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson, page 226. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, that second one is good. I would put that in the article. Neither the Cambridge nor Josephus ones support the statement. Scythopolis, btw, is most certainly not in the Galilee. It stands in one of the valleys that separate Samaria from the Galilee, and is in fact closer to the former than the latter. Poliocretes (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syria (region), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French (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) 12:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ways to improve List of Late Roman provinces

Hi, I'm Surfer43. Oncenawhile, thanks for creating List of Late Roman provinces!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Consider adding references to List of Late Roman provinces.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Surfer43 (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

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.

List of Late Roman provinces (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Baleares and Hispania Nova

Muqawqis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sham

Persian Gulf naming dispute (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Khaleej

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Flag of the French Mandate of Syria (1920).svg

Sounds like you want the file deleted, which doesn't have much to do with cache-clearing purging in the technical Wikimedia sense. It's been discussed before, and the result of those discussions is that there's some evidence that the flag was used for a few months in 1920. And FOTW isn't always correct, but it's not a "random flag website"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:State of Palestine

I responded to your post at Talk:State of Palestine. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I responded to your second post. I wasn't sure if you were expediting me to leave a note on your talk page when I responded, I gave you the last one because I had responded 6 days after your post. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bubastite Portal may have broken the syntax by modifying 10 "[]"s and 6 "<>"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 my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kurkh Monoliths 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• first translation of the Shalmaneser Monolith was provided by James Alexander Craig in 1887.<ref>[http://archive.org/details/jstor-527096 The Monolith Inscription of Salmaneser II, (July 1, 1887),

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of artifacts significant to the Bible, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Judah (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) 10:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Limerick Pogrom page to be renamed Limerick Boycott?

I've posted this in the Talk page of the 'History of Limerick' page but I thought I would engage with yourself about it as well to see what you think.

Without wanting to diminish the significance of a dark chapter in Irish History it must be noted that there appears to be some facts excluded from the 'Limerick Pogrom' article which would certainly warrant a revision of the description "pogrom". Creagh indeed sought a Pogrom but what ensued was actually a boycott that did not drastically reduce the numbers of the Jews living in Limerick.

According to RIC reports only 8 of the city’s 32 Jewish families had left by March 1905 & just 5 of these ‘directly owing to the agitation’. The 1911 census records that, not only were 13 of the remaining 26 families still resident in Limerick six years later but that 9 new Jewish families had joined them. The Jewish population numbered 122 persons in 1911 as opposed to 171 in 1901. This had declined to just 30 by 1926.

It's also interesting to note that one of the Jewish lenders who was operating in the city (P. Toohey) in 1904 is still doing so 8 years after the Fr. John Creagh boycott. If you look at the front page of nearly every Limerick Leader in 1912/1913 etc. you will see his advert.

P.S.: for those arguing otherwise on that page , Creagh's language towards the Jews was rabidly Anti-Semitic. He attacked them on religious grounds, denouncing them as Christ-killers, ritual murderers & ‘the greatest haters of everything Christian’.

P.S.S: I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if I'm going about this i the correct manner, any and all advice is appreciated.

Huxley10 (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Huxley, thanks for your post. I had left an open question about this in April, and after your prompt I have now changed the name.

You appear to be knowledgable about the subject - do you have sources which satisfy WP:RS to support your additional facts above? If not, there are some good sources in the article and talk page which may include the relevant points. If so, perhaps you could add to the article content, with clear references. Importantly you must not make edits in order to build a story, but simply to add facts wherever you notice that they are missing. And in doing so, facts from both sides of the story must be used so as not to create an inherent POV by omission. I'm happy to help with hopefully constructive comments. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. As you can see all of the sources are primary - census, newspaper cuttings, RIC reports etc. I'll gather them up and begin editing when I get the chance. As an aside I browsed the Talk page for this topic and I was confused that the term 'Pogrom' remained due to a deference to Dermot Keogh, who actually named his book 'The Limerick Boycott'. P.S: The beginning of the article says that 80 Jews fled the city. but there is no source attached to this statement. How do I query their source? The RIC Report from March 1905 says that a total of 32 Jews left the city due to the boycott.

Huxley10 (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Huxley, looking at the article I agree there is no source for that figure. Most of the article seems to have come from Keogh, so if you can't find it in there I suggest you follow the advice in WP:BOLD and change it. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for all your advice. Wikipedia is quite intimidating to grasp at this early stage! Huxley10 talk 13:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you review my edits to the various pages if you get the chance. I added links to the census re: Montefiore which I know is a WP:PRIMARY but it's relevant since Keogh did not use that resource despite it being relevant re: the claim that most Jews fled Limerick due to the boycott. Huxley10 (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Huxley, I have read them - I think that is great work and some interesting additions. The area I suggest you look at again is whether anything breaches WP:OR. The two pieces of information that jumped out to me as potential breaches are (1) the census reference - i don't see where it confirms that those named were Simon S-M's ancestors / g-g-grandparents, and (2) your reference to "most notable supporter" is a judgement made by yourself, unless you have a source to support it.

Whether WP:OR or not, your point that parts of Simon S-M's family history may be more legend than fact is interesting. If you can find a source supporting this more directly you should add to the articles, else I think the reference will need to come out. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, it's appreciated. The source for the g-g-grandfather (Benjamin Jaffé)claim is Montefiore's own article on this subject published in the Spectator in 1997. I'll dig it out and add it to the references. Point taken re: Griffith I will now edit that. Huxley10 (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

What should we do about the History of the Jews in Ireland page? The section there on the 'Pogrom' seems to have been lifted verbatim from an older version of the Limerick Boycott page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huxley10 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, I think you can edit in following BEBOLD, as you have on the other articles. And well done for rectifying the points above.

I noticed your IP address on one of your edits on the page, which leads to Limerick County Council - could i suggest you consider WP:COI#Declaring_an_interest?

Oncenawhile (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Will do. My declaration of interest is that I live in Limerick City, and use the Wi-Fi in the public library system. Is that what you mean? Huxley10 (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok that's fine! If you had worked for the council PR department, then it would be something to discuss. But living in the city is not really a conflict, other than i'm sure you take pride in the city's history! The good news is you must have access to all their archives! Oncenawhile (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It's reassuring to know that this is the kind of thing picked up on by Wiki editors. I'm so impressed with how this all works. Huxley10 (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Palestine Main article and History of Palestine

G'day Oncenawhile. I took on board your suggestions re brevity in the main article and added a much-reduced piece, then transferred the (original) longer bit to 'History of Palestine' as per your suggestion. Many thanks for your advice and assistance to this noob. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Eric, thanks for doing that - I think it now works very well. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sebek-khu Stele may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• outside Khu-sobek's tomb at [[Abydos, Egypt]], and now housed in the [[Manchester Museum]].<ref>[http://emu.man.ac.uk/mmcustom/Display.php?irn=107040&QueryPage=/mmcustom/narratives/index.php
• in Asia). The text reads "Then Sekmem fell, together with the wretched [[Retenu]]", where Sekmem {s-k-m-m) is thought to be [[Shechem]].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Timeline

Hi, it has been some time since i dealt with the issue, but now i issued merger proposal at Anti-Zionism. Since we once had a discussion on this, i think i should inform you. Cheers.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of artifacts significant to the Bible, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thebes (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) 13:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Padiiset's Statue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Middle Kingdom (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) 11:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of the name "Palestine", you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyre (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) 11:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of artifacts significant to the Bible, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Megiddo (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) 12:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Egyptian–Hittite peace treaty 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | location = [[Istanbul Archaeology Museums]]) and [[Precinct of Amun-Re]] in [[Karnak]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you being serious?

where did you see i mention shlomo sand ? i was referenning to the "palestinian nation" and other propaganda-like theories by the plo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorpwnz (talk • contribs) 20:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

And now tell me , what i dont know? you said i dont know anything as a response to my comment without being very informative. so respond to my comment. will you ? i am willing to change wikipedia in the positive way . a fiction nation based on murder is something very recent . have you heard about the bus stab attack recently?

this is why i am willing to improve the information.--Dorpwnz (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of events named pogrom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Engel (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) 09:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

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.

1945 Anti-Jewish Riots in Egypt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Coptic

1948 Cairo bombings (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Karaite

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 13 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Pogrom page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Editing warring over a long period of time, such as you have at Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries, will result in sanctions if it continues. Please discuss the issue on the talk page until there is a consensus version rather than revert each other. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Callanec, thanks for your response to the WP:AE request re the Jewish exodus... article.

Please could you give me your blunt advice as to whether my behaviour on the article has been reasonable to date? I am particularly keen to understand how to move forward in the right way on the article. At the moment, Greyshark's most recent revert remains, and i am awaiting expectantly for him/her to explain the rationale for each of the c.15 edits reverted. If he doesn't explain, or perhaps only explains a couple of small points, we can't reach a consensus version, so how should i move forward?

Oncenawhile (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:Dispute resolution is the best bit for how the process works. But if one side doesn't respond on the talk page and you have agreement from other then that is the consensus version. If no one responds then it might be worth either starting an RfC or requesting input from one or more of the WikiProjects. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I tried DRN already but they told me to come to AN. RfC, 3O or similar won't work because most of the edits are boring fixes rather than something which will pique other editors' interest. There are already other editors around the page but noone is interested in getting involved in this mess.

Surely if someone repeatedly reverts without explaining, and particularly when they revert numerous edits in bulk, they are contravening normal editing practice. This has been going for two months. Please help me!

Oncenawhile (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but I find it very hard to believe that no one who is a regular on the page has an interest in which what the text says. Yes it would be a violation of normal editing practices to constantly revert without engaging in discussion, which is why I warned all of the involved users. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks. So assuming i can't get anyone else to get involved, at what point can I move forward with the article again? At the moment i am stuck because I am waiting for greyshark to explain the revert. What if Greyshark never comes back? What I tried to do previously was wait 1-2 weeks, and in the absence of response I would revert the revert (or partially revert) and continue working on the article. What do you think? Oncenawhile (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, ask the other two people (GreyShark included) to expressly comment in a section on the talk page about the edit in question. If neither of them does (or do and agree with you) you can take that as tacit consent to your edit. Then if either of them reverts without starting or commenting on the talk page discussion, let me know and I'll deal with it. Also, I'm watching your talk page so don't worry about the talkback template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, many thanks - i'll do exactly that. What do you think is a reasonable time to leave it before taking tacit consent? A week? Oncenawhile (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd say about a week, but you should probably leave a note on the other two user's talk pages to let them know that you've proposed a change. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is Oncenawhile, trying to delete maps of Palestine from a Palestinian article? DigDeep4Truth (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC) ~ I was in Error. He was posting to let people know there was a vote being held in secret. PLEASE DELETE, I apologize. DigDeep4Truth (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your hard work on the "Etymology of Palestine", currently (2014 02 01) labeled. Timeline_of_the_name_"Palestine", may you be made an Admin on Palestine articles. DigDeep4Truth (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Definitions of pogrom for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Definitions of pogrom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions_of_pogrom_(2nd_nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Nomination of List of events named pogrom for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of events named pogrom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of events named pogrom until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Definitions of pogrom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Morgenthau (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) 09:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of pogrom (2nd nomination). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I asked you on the other AFD page to withdraw your accusation of sockpuppetry or if you had any credible evidence to refer me to an official investigation. Instead you made a second accusation of sockpuppetry. Please keep your comments on the two AFD pages to the topic at issue rather than attacking good-faith editors who are participating in the process. Unless you have good evidence that I'm a sock-puppet and are willing to put that evidence forward for investigation in the appropriate channels, I will continue to treat further accusations as personal attacks and respond accordingly. Thanks. Wieno (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Onceinawhile. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of pogrom (2nd nomination).
Message added 19:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wieno (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wieno (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestinian exodus (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) 09:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the message

I wish I had more time to be involved. I do miss it so. If I do find the time, I'll try to pop in with something useful. I did want to say thank you for all the hard work you put into to key Palestine related pages. You have made a very valuable contribution and it is much appreciated, by me at least. Cheers, Tiamut^talk 19:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Pogrom, consensus

I noticed the ANI discussion - regarding this part,

We're never going to get any better consensus view because you always get less editors at an article talk than at an afd, so there is no hope of those tags ever coming off. Another grey area in wp which noone knows how to deal with.

Here's just a little tip, take it or leave it;

If you have trouble getting consensus to make a change (such as remove a tag), it can be helpful to make a very clear section on the talk page with a precisely 'Proposed change', and then ask people to "support" or "oppose" below, much like an AfD discussion; and then ask for input on appropriate wikiproject talk pages, to get more people to comment. For that specific article, I suggest asking for input on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history because they're one of the most prolific projects.

I'm not suggesting you need to do that right now - I wouldn't worry too much about the tags being around for a while. I just wanted to suggest it as a solution to the more general problem.

I thought I'd write it here on your talk rather than the ANI thread, because it looks like the ANI is completed and can be closed.

Best, 88.104.19.233 (talk) 07:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi 88, thank you for your good advice - I will try that in future. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

AfDs

The AfD templates for Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism both point to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions discussion. I presume that this wasn't your intention. I suggest you rectify it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Never mind - I understand that you are nominating the lot for deletion simultaneously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Oncenawhile You made you first edit on 9 April 2010 so you ought to know that an article about a controversial subject like genocide that has been around since July 2007‎ is unlikely to be so badly written or badly named that it will be deleted. But as far as I can tell you do not want the article deleted instead this AfD is one of the worse case or Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point I have ever seen (and I been around a looong time). If it were not for the fact that I am involved as the editor who created the article Genocide definitions, I would have put on my administrator hat, speedily closed the AfD and blocked you account until you promised not to use AfD to make a point. I am in half a mind to take you to an ANI, but I see little point as you must already know that if you pull a stunt like this again your account will almost certainly be suspended until you agree to behave. If you take my advise you will Withdraw this Afd nomination before someone else does take you to ANI. -- PBS (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I withdrew it already (4 minutes before you posted this), on the advice of Andy.

I am disappointed with your post because you appear to have decided that I was trying to prove a point, and appear to not trust my explanation that I simply was trying to find a way to get a proper consensus on the questions of dicdef and copyright for these type of articles. I may have been around for some time but i only edit once in a while, so i really am not knowledgable about how to deal with issues that affect many articles. I read multiafd and it seemed to make sense to me, but now i am getting my head bitten off.

To your first point, it's not that simple in my mind. When I drafted Definitions of pogrom, I used Genocide definitions as the template. So I was surprised when certain editors started quoting dicdef and copyright re the pogrom article, because as you say the genocide article had been stable for a long time and had not previously seen that.

Is there any chance i can help you understand / trust my motives, or should i not bother?

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Philistines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aegean (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) 09:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Definitions of pogrom

I have been through a number of the citations and filled them out more fully. I will not do any more, but you should consider filling out the others in a similar way. If anything in the {{citation}} template is confusing or you can not work out how to do it from the examples now in the article then drop me a line on my talk page and I will help you complete the rest. -- PBS (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Definitions of pogrom 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 my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Philistines may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• id=pNj6b3wNtiwC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111 Who Were the Phoenicians?, Nissim Raphael Ganor, 2009], (also [http://www.whowerethephoenicians.com/wp-content/uploads/book/09-THE PHILISTINES AND THE SEA%
• uploads/book/09-THE PHILISTINES AND THE SEA PEOPLES NOT THE SAME ENTITY.pdf}), page 111, Quote: "Today it is generally accepted (in accordance with the theory of Maspero) that

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Your edits to "Chai (symbol)"

Neither the Star and Crescent nor the Star of David is a "traditional" religious symbol in the sense that you used the word "traditional" there, so I'm not sure that's the most suitable meaning of the word to be used in such contexts.

By the way, my reply to your remarks on ancient meanings of the word Παλαιστινη/Palaestina on Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine‎ got moved to User talk:DigDeep4Truth and then chopped to pieces in edit wars there, in case you never saw it... AnonMoos (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

That URL displays the comments I had in mind, though it's not a diff on any of my edits...

Not sure what you're trying to say about "southern coastal plain" -- that's more a geographical term than a scriptural one. The Holy Land area (i.e. Gaza-Israel-West Bank without consideration of borders) is often divided into natural geographical regions such as the coastal plains, the main north-south hill-chain, the "shephelah" (the boundary between the coastal plains and the main north-south hill-chain), the Galilee, the Judean desert (i.e. western Dead Sea coasts and areas immediately inland), the Negev, the Jordan valley, etc. The southern coastal plain is a shorthand geographic description of the area where the ancient Philistines lived. Not sure that there's any Biblical word for southern coastal plain other than "Philistia" (i.e. peleshet פלשת). AnonMoos (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe -- without the Bible, there would only be PRST as the name of one of the invading Sea Peoples whose migrations and attacks brought on the Late Bronze Age collapse, and then after a lapse of many centuries, Παλαιστινη would appear as a geographical term (at first of rather vague and indeterminate geographical reference), and there might not be too much apparent reason to specifically connect the two. But while archaeological discoveries in the southern coastal plain area have not turned up inscriptions with the specific word פלשת or similar (as far as I know), they have turned up traces of a people living there which originally had a somewhat Aegean-influenced culture which then was largely assimilated to the surrounding Canaanite culture. I really don't know what reason there is to question the basic Biblical account of when and where the Philistines lived, and I've never heard of any scholarly skepticism on that point... AnonMoos (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

That's nice -- you're not an archaeologist (just as you are not an expert on the ancient Greek language), and I'm not too impressed with your efforts to operate independently in those fields (not to mention that they're also original research). If you throw out the Bible, then "Timeline of the name Palestine" should begin after 500 BC... AnonMoos (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Rename

Hello,

• Could you please argue the reasons of the move and try to find a compromise with GreyShark ? Many thanks. :-) Pluto2012 (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canaan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dagan (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) 08:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Your move/merge proposal at Talk:1517 Safed pogrom#Requested move

Hello Oncenawhile. I was checking out this move discussion to see if it is ready to close. I also looked at the opinions on the same question at Talk:1517 Hebron pogrom. The vote on combining the articles is close to a tie, but there might be enough support to change the word 'pogrom' to 'attacks' in both articles. Do you want to respond in the move discussion and give your opinion on that option? If you are opposed to this, it's possible that nothing will be done, or maybe the Hebron article will wind up getting deleted per the argument of User:Pluto2012. Another option you might consider is you might create a draft of a combined article in a sandbox and try to get opinions on it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canaan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Qadesh and Amurru (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) 08:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a Suggestion

From researching some of your edits and reading notes on your talk page as well as articles’ talk pages, it has become evident that you have an anti-Israel bias, by which I mean that you are pro-Palestinian which is certainly your right. However, with rights come responsibilities and for that very reason you might consider recusing yourself from editing or contributing articles touching upon the conflict as should ardently pro-Israel editors. Wikipedia is supposed to be an objective reference source and not a propaganda vehicle.

For example, I created an article on some English child actor I hadn’t heard of previously. I did what research I could, laid out the facts of his to-date brief career in a totally objective fashion, refraining from acting as either a volunteer PR man on his behalf or a critic. That was easy as I personally couldn’t care less about his career which is precisely why I was such a good choice to write the article. Can you say the same when editing articles regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? If not, should you be editing them?

Some of the best and most objective coverage I have seen on this conflict (and other topics as well) comes from a group of young people from Uzbekistan doing videos under the byline The Caspian Report. They do journalism proud, and I would love to have them as Wiki editors and suggest you try listening to their reports sometime as guidance on objectivity. There are many forums where you can voice your political views labeled as such.

For the record, although I'm neither (ethnically or religiously) Jewish nor a Christian Fundamentalist, I'm ardently pro-Israel which is why in good conscience I refrain from contributing or editing articles related to the conflict. Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi HistoryBuff, I just watched the CaspianReport video on the conflict. They have a few factual details wrong, but in general the angle they take is very good and is clearly intended to be NPOV.

Anyway, thank you for your suggestion. I think the difference between us is that while you self-identify as "ardently pro-Israel", I define myself as simply pro-NPOV. I am certainly not anti-Israel, and take offence at the suggestion - you will not find a single anti-Israel edit in my entire contribution history, and for good reason.

To your broader point, if all "ardently pro-Israel" editors stopped editing Israel-Palestine articles, then pro-NPOV editors like myself would shift focus. But at the moment there is still an extraordinary amount of hasbara propaganda and whitewashing pervading the key articles. I suggest you read Media_coverage_of_the_Arab–Israeli_conflict#Wikipedia for some context here.

Oncenawhile (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your unexpectedly cordial response. It’s appreciated.

Wikipedia’s very raison d'être is to allow all people to create and edit articles on a collaborative basis. Therefore, I suppose the only way to completely stop editors with biased views distorting topics—especially controversial ones such as this and global warming—would be for the principals of Wiki to assign articles to writers along the lines of traditional encyclopedias, which would defeat the purpose of the publication’s original mission.

Thank you for listening to my suggested source and for recommending the Wiki article that you did, which I have read and found most interesting and with which I largely agree. I acknowledge that there are indeed many editors with a bias in favor of Israel (whether affiliated with any organization or not) as there are pro-Palestinian ones. Thus, the edit wars will unfortunately doubtlessly continue which is perhaps preferable to compromising the collaborative intent of Wikipedia. If I misinterpreted your intentions, then I apologize. Take care and happy editing.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of reliable source on Farhud

Dear Oncenawhile, you have recently performed an edit on Farhud article, tagging it as "clarifying, matching rest of article, removing non-RS source and oversimplification of catalyst". However, i must note your removed two sources, one of which is clearly a WP:RS (US Dept of State research division). Please self-revert as WP:GF.GreyShark (dibra) 16:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's move this to the article talk page. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Check your email! Zero^talk 09:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:State of Palestine/Restructuring proposal

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. GreyShark (dibra) 16:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Onceinawhile. You have new messages at Talk:History of the Jews in Lebanon.
Message added 19:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Onceinawhile: You removed sourced content claiming it does not pertain to article subject [9], but on talk page I proved that you are mistaken. Please self revert or explain. Thanks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for finally self-reverting. I notice your editing pattern with great concern. All your edits on this subject matter minimize the damage destruction and death that were inflicted on the Jews. I have yet to see one edit to the contrary. Please be aware of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be misreading them. Not a single edit I am aware of is minimising the violence, but are instead contextualising them. Some of these articles are very poorly written and do not provide crucial context. Readers benefit from balancing of overly simplistic "neo-lachrymose" descriptions. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

 I bet Onceinawhile is an Arab.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.140.31 (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC) 

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to One Million Plan 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• to Palestine to 10,000 Jews per year, and in October 1946 this was increased to 18,000.<ref>(or 1,500 per month. See Hilberg, Raul ''The Destruction of the European Jews'', (1971) New

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Fire the Voussoirs!

At Later cuneiform sources (1500-1000 BC) under "Amarna letters", item "EA 131", surely that would be "archers"? Shenme (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point, thank you! I will fix. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Dear Oncenawhile, thank your for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent creation of Mutamassirun. You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 08:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

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.

Jewish refugees (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Palestinian exodus

Refugee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Palestinian exodus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phoenicianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coptic (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) 08:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 2 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Cuneiform page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Irhuleni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assyrian. 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) 08:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Canaan 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• but regularly as a land that had become something else, and as a people who had been annihilated)."}}</ref> and following the emigration of Canaanite speakers to [[Carthage]], was also used as a self-
• threatening in that of his successor, displacing the Amorites and prompting a resumption of Semitic] migration. [[Abd-Ashirta]] and his son [[Aziru]], at first afraid of the Hittites, afterwards made

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Book of Gates may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• them up into four categories that are now conventionally labelled "Reth" (Egyptians), "Aamu" ([[Levant|Asiatics]], "Themehu" ([[Ancient Libya|Libyans]]), and "Nehesu" ([[Nubians]]). These are

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Your AE complaint about 1950–1951 Baghdad bombings

Your AE complaint has been closed with warnings to you and Plot Spoiler. Further unilateral reverts may lead to a topic ban from ARBPIA. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

the Aamu

Before renaming any files, perhaps you should discuss it first. See Talk:Canaan#Image_of_Canaanite. Y-barton (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for One Million Plan

Gatoclass (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 20 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Sea Peoples page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eshmunazar II sarcophagus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dor. 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) 09:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You are engaging in disruptive editing

User Oncenawhile, you are apparently engaging in disruptive editing - see your recent actions of Expulsions of Egyptian Jews (1956). I remind you that you are editing WP:ARBPIA articles and should pay attention to details, considering recent warnings.GreyShark (dibra) 10:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Greyshark09, you have had three months to respond to the concerns I raised at Talk:Expulsions of Egyptian Jews (1956). See User_talk:Greyshark09#Talk:Expulsion_of_Egyptian_Jews_.281956.29. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The rename procedure was made on August 7, don't try to get away with this.GreyShark (dibra) 10:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Greyshark09, this relates directly to the points previously raised. Please respond to them. I have no intention to edit war - I want to discuss. So please respond to the detailed concerns i have raised to the article which you wrote. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Pogrom

I noticed you reverted someone's attempt -- an attempt based apparently on WP:DONTLIKEIT -- to remove the sourced Olmert quotes from the Pogrom article. I undid the latest reversion (which came from someone who was recently formally warned on Arab-Israeli editing), and User:Galassi promptly reverted my undo, yet again for the absurd and invalid reason of there being "no consensus for inclusion" (see Talk:Pogrom#POV_pushing if your memory needs refreshing on all of this fun). He's now done this twice in the past several hours, and appears to be using Twinkle to aid him in his suppression of sourced content. It strikes me that you've an interest in maintaining the article in a state characterized by well-sourced citations, NPOV language, and an atmosphere as free as possible from meta-political considerations, be they made through coatracking or via conspicuous absence of relevant information. It also strikes me that you're a much more experienced Wiki editor than me. Hopefully I'm wrong in this assumption, but I foresee the possibility of yet another edit war over the Olmert "pogrom" quotes sourced content. I don't know the ins and outs of WP:3RR, or whether or not my continued undoing of reverts based on spurious and unencyclopedic (read:political) reasons will expose me to something like a temporary ban from editing for violating 3RR. I would appreciate your help or, at least, your advice in this matter. Thanks so much Direct action (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

This user is really active about recent conflict and it seems he writes not so unbiased text --CONFIQ (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Tabnit sarcophagus

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of the Israeli government, name discussion

hi
I noticed that you had previously contributed to Talk:Criticism of the Israeli government/Archive 2#Better name for article? and thought I'd let you know that a similar discussion has opened at Talk:Criticism of the Israeli government/Archive 2#Request move Gregkaye (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Descendants of Israelites

Recent edits to Israelites on the genetics of Palestinians seem to contradict what Palestinian people says about their genetics. I'd appreciate your input. I've had problems with the same IP 24.42.116.19 (talk · contribs) at Groups claiming affiliation with Israelites which also needs attention. I've removed stuff the IP added about the Lemba being agreed to be of Israelite descent (people don't seem to even bother to read main articles). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doug, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I think that the work on I-P genetics on wikipedia needs a huge cleanup, as most of the "conclusions" being pushed by various editors are still in the realm of scientific conjecture at this stage as opposed to hard facts. I'm not ready to go into bat on the topic though as I would need to do a full review of the latest research before I could do so in a meaningful fashion.

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That's ok, but would you take a look at Talk:Israelites? Lots of OR, assumptions about the Cohen Modal Prototype, misuse of sources, etc. At least IMHO. I reverted a big chunk and don't think it should be replaced without clear evidence about the current prevailing opinion. Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Israelites, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phoenician. 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) 09:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

List of ethnic cleansings

FYI please see Talk:List of ethnic cleansings#RfC: Inclusion criteria -- PBS (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Having done your merge I think you need to adjust the lead from "follow definitions given in this article" to perhaps "follow definitions given in the ethnic cleansings article" or something similar.

On a completely different subject as this page is getting very large why not set up a bot to archive this page? If you are not sure how to do it, see Talk:List of ethnic cleansings where I am about to do the same.

-- PBS (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Commemorative stela of Nahr el-Kalb, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyre. 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) 09:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Azekah Inscription may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"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 my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1834 Safed pogrom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lydda. 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) 09:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paralia (Palestine)

The article Paralia (Palestine) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Just a dictionary definition. Not enough to justify a stand alone article although the name could be mentioned in the article on Palestine.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 12:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Paralia (Palestine) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paralia (Palestine) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paralia (Palestine) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. noq (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Onceinawhile. You have new messages at Noq's talk page.
Message added 18:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

noq (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The comment made that Muslim converts were once Christian and that they share the same history eludes to mistruths. Although some Muslims may have once been Christians. Once Muslim they are now not the same. The wording you allow on here must be truth and without distortion otherwise wiki will become unreliable as any good source who twists truths would be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthOnlyPlease123 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 24 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

How many Iranian Jews?

Hi. Can I get your help with editing and input on some edit warring over the number of Jews in Iran? I noticed that on several articles, newer info was being suppressed. I've seen many attempts to keep the number at 30,000 in Iran - this is what Jews now says without citation, cuz of this edit of yours, which removed a cited figure of around 9,000. Please consider putting it back, as it's based on an actual, official, recent government census); see http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/07/29/229078.html or http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-woman-brutally-murdered-in-iran-over-property-dispute/#ixzz3Ac6duaqw or the government's own report, https://www.amar.org.ir/Portals/1/Iran/90.pdf. If you wish to discuss, I'd prefer if you reply here; I'll be watching. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 20:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Arab satellite lists

Hello! Your submission of Arab satellite lists at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Alex2006 (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Commemorative stela of Nahr el-Kalb

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Stela/stelae of Nahr el-Kalb

Hi, Oncenawhile. I've left a comment on the talk page … Awien (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Arab satellite lists

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Philistines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medinet Habu. 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) 09:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

letter

Hi Do you have access to IDF archives?--Shrike (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Definitions of pogrom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minority. 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) 10:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Enforcement notice

Dear user Oncenawhile, a case of WP:ARBPIA sanctions enforcement has been opened regarding your recent actions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 23:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Jewish refugees. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi HJ Mitchell, thanks for looking in to this. I have been editing for almost five years, and am particularly experienced in a difficult area, and I am very proud of my clean history. I have always done my best to avoid both edit-warring and AE-warring. Specifically I generally try to avoid attacking other editors at AE, as I would rather build trust and mutual respect and as AE admins you have enough on your plate.

The decision to block me was taken in just over an hour of Greyshark's AE filing, possibly tarnishing my previously perfect behaviourial record without allowing me time to comment.

You correctly pointed out at the AE that Greyshark did not report Galassi in his filing despite Galassi crossing 1RR first. This is an important part of the context here. Unfortunately our editing history shows that Greyshark has negative feelings towards me, and I suspect this was just an attempt to hurt me.

The content dispute with Galassi is not a complex one; (s)he was simply reincluding a sentence without adding supporting evidence per WP:V. During the debate with Galassi (always with thoughful and detailed edit comments), I spotted Galassi's original 1RR, and then checked the page to confirm this was not under ARBPIA before proceeding. I did not cross 3RR at any point. I also opened a talk page discussion, as I had decided to stop after reaching the 3RR (broadly defined, since it was over a more than 24 hour period, I always feel it is better not to get too close, and follow the spirit instead of the rules).

A block of Galassi and me in this situation helps only Greyshark, and encourages use of AE as a battleground.

I would like to appeal this as far as a I can go because I do not want my history tarnished - proper behaviour here is something I value very highly. Please could you let me know what I should do next?

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about this a little more I would really appreciate the opportunity to comment at the AE thread before it closes. Could I be temporarily unblocked so that I can contribute there (I am happy to commit to not editing any other pages during this period)? I would like at the very least to draw people's attention to the quality of edit comments made on the page, which shows that neither Galassi nor I were "edit warring" in the classic sense, insofar as we were engaging in good faith discussion via the edit comments since Galassi had provided new sources each time. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi HJ Mitchell, just one last quick point - for the avoidance of doubt I would request that Greyshark09 is NOT investigated or punished for the questionable selectivity in his AE filing. Whilst the deterioriated relationship between Greyshark and me is the real issue underlying the AE, I would much rather this situation might act as a catalyst for Greyshark and me to talk to each other, bury the hatchet and rebuild a little trust. I have always respected Greyshark and as I have said to him in the past I would like to repair our relationship. We both have complimentary knowledge bases on similar subjects and real collaboration between us has proven successful in the past. AE warring, a path down which I have seen other editors led, only seems to increase the emotional stakes between editors and builds further barriers to the collaboration that some of our more difficult topic areas desparately need. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

If you agree not to edit the article in question or engage in a dispute about similar material in other articles for the remainder of the original 48 hours, I'll unblock you. You can still edit the talk page, and you can comment on the AE thread if you wish. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi HJ Mitchell, I agree to those terms. Please could you offer Galassi the same? I hope (s)he will respond to my comment on the article talk page. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. I've already extended the same offer to Galassi. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Your request for more discussion at WP:AE

Hello Oncenawhile. Regarding your post at AE, "could we keep this open until I have had a chance to have my position heard?". What did you mean by 'having my position heard'? The dispute at Jewish refugees does not involve Plot Spoiler, and there were clear 1RR violations. That means there was no special need to examine the motivations of those reverting. What do you think would be accomplished by more discussion? EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, if I understood HJ Mitchell's comments correctly the edits have not been deemed to fall under ARBPIA's 1RR rule (consistent with my own conclusion at the time when Galassi crossed that line first), but rather under WP:EW. As to the specific issue at hand, both Galassi and I showed clear evidence of "trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion" (i.e. my detailed edit comments and moving to the talk page, and Galassi's good faith attempts to provide appropriate sourcing). So we find ourselves in a very strange situation where neither editor involved believed there was any edit warring, yet we have both been punished.

Either way, in terms of what I would like to be accomplished, my real concern is the building of a misleading disciplinary record. As I mentioned, the two prior warnings being referred to did not assign any specific fault against me or any other editor, as my complaints were never fully investigated. Yet those warnings are now being used to cast aspersions against me and will likely be used again, just as this block will, by editors who would like to build a narrative to make me look like a disruptive editor.

For what it's worth, when editing in the I-P area my intention is to build collaboration between editors from both sides. I even prepared a Wikimania Leaflet, and a list of precedent scholarly collaborations, to try to encourage more people into the spirit. But not all editors think like this and many would prefer to work alongside only people who think as they do, hence the increasingly common ARBPIA AE-warring which I think is often destructive to the project.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The page at Talk:Jewish refugees carries the banner {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}. This makes the page eligible for the ARBPIA 1RR. Can you quote anything by User:HJ Mitchell that makes you think 1RR does not apply? EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I was referring to this comment. Also, please note that the banner was added after the AE. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Your edits at Jewish refugees seem to concern Jews who were seeking refuge in Israel. If so that would fall under the Arab-Israeli conflict. Also note that a person can be blocked for an ARBPIA 1RR violation without being (yet) eligible for discretionary sanctions. I think that is the point of HJM's comment about WP:AEBLOCK. If admin is consciously making an AE block (not a conventional block) they are supposed to use the {{uw-aeblock}} template. Such a template was not used in your case. EdJohnston (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ed, to my mind, whether the edit fell under ARBPIA is a grey area which both Galassi and I interpreted in the same way. I don't disagree that one can make the argument both ways, but since there was "silent consensus" amongst the two involved editors at the time it seems unduly harsh for a third party to take a different view without letting us know politely at the time. Which is what puzzles me with this block - nothing was getting out of hand, noone was being disrupted, and both editors were behaving cordially. We had already moved to talk, so the block achieved nothing other than blackening a clean disciplinary record.

To that point, would you mind responding to the other points made in my response to you at 19:37? Oncenawhile (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Whether Jewish refugees falls under WP:ARBPIA or not needs more than two editors to decide. If you want to make that argument, why not do so in the WP:AE complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Early Dynastic Period of Egypt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page History of pottery in the Southern Levant. 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) 09:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Thanks for you efforts to make the Israel article a NPOV article. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 28 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Trumpeting Place inscription page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Biblical Hebrew

When I saw that you had added 503 bytes to the "Biblical Hebrew" article, I was preparing for the worst, but was actually favorably surprised. AnonMoos (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Back to being unfavorably unsurprised

Not too impressed by the remarks you left on my user talk page; to start with, Pausanias wrote 250 years or so after the Septuagint Pentateuch was translated, not at the "same time". And you seem to fail to understand that Palaistinē entered the Greek language as an equivalent to the Hebrew term Pelesheth or "land of the Philistines" (though not borrowed directly from Hebrew to Greek). If the form Φιλιστια occurs in the Septuagint, I'd sure like to see a citation to the exact verse... AnonMoos (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, raw Google Books URLs are not too useful to me in that form, since I'm not good at Google Books and I don't like Google Books (partly because it sometimes comes close to crashing my browser). I might follow those links (probably by arranging to use a different computer), but I can't guarantee that it will be any time very soon. Providing raw Google Books URLs with no further accompanying information had the effect of slowing down the conversation... AnonMoos (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about greatly delayed reply, but I was away from Wikipedia for a week, and when I returned and saw that the quotes left on my user talkpage largely consisted of unscholarly whining about how the Septuagint got everything wrong and was full of mistakes, it didn't motivate me to give the matter a high priority... AnonMoos (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Samaria Ostraca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phoenician. 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) 09:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Palestine

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Palestine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AHeneen -- AHeneen (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Palestine

The article Palestine you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Palestine for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AHeneen -- AHeneen (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that note - I'm amazingly ignorant about technical matters. PiCo (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Palestine

The article Palestine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Palestine for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AHeneen -- AHeneen (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

I didn't even notice Palestine was under GA review until the approval template was added. I checked and saw you handled it alone. Well done!Nishidani (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Congradulations with question :(

[Moved to Talk:Palestine#Moved_from_User_talk:Oncenawhile. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for bringing Palestine to Good Article status! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Onceinawhile. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine.
Message added 21:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Generations of Noah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cushites. 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) 09:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Palestine

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	...For bringing Palestine article to GA status. Your hard work has not gone unnoticed :) The article is a wonderful and thorough read. Great work!! Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sea Peoples, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medinet Habu. 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) 09:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eutocius of Ascalon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ascalon. 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) 08:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Ekron Royal Dedicatory Inscription) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Ekron Royal Dedicatory Inscription, Oncenawhile!

Wikipedia editor Appable just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for having quotes in the references on the recent article. It makes it much easier to follow the sources. Your work is very appreciated!

To reply, leave a comment on Appable's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Palestine

Hi. I've made some comment on the article talk page about some worries I have with the article, but I don't want to touch anything with out your agreement, given all the work you've put into the page. Would you like to comment? (I promise I won't change anything without your agreement). PiCo (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kilamuwa Stela, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German Oriental Society. 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) 09:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Jesus the Jew

Thanks for discussing this. Let's take it up on the talk page. Can you show that secular historians consider this topic important enough to include it in this section? I've only run across it in Christian sources. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Siloam inscription

Something is not quite right. I've tried to fix it the best I could, but maybe you missed adding a ref or something else. You might want to take a look. Bgwhite (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Nebuchadnezzar_Chronicle

Do you remember what you meant with the sentence

This has been compared to dates in the book of Ezekiel are given according to the year of captivity of Jeconiah (i.e. the first fall of Jerusalem)

?? I tried to figure it out and fix it a bit, but that's not worth much at all. It would be great if you could add a reference. Many thanks! Arminden (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Hi Arminden, i have fixed this. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Assyrian lion weights

Hello! Your submission of Assyrian lion weights at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Prioryman (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Another issue I'm afraid, please check the nomination page linked above. Prioryman (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ekron Royal Dedicatory Inscription

Harrias ^talk 10:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Assyrian lion weights

Harrias ^talk 07:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

With regards to Mesha Stele

My intent was clarifying that "Palestine" meant the region, not the modern State. I agree with your reversion though.

I'm not sure why my edit on the History of the Name Palestine was deleted. Why would an edit with "little change" need consensus? --Monochrome_Monitor 20:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The Half Million Award

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Palestine (estimated annual readership: 850,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mandatory Palestine/FAQ: Transjordan

I've returned "Response by DaoXan" & Zero's reply to the page to let know to a reader about other POV. Can you please explain your "moving to main talk page - this is an FAQ, and should be discussed on the main talk page" deletion's description  ? Regards, --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

As I see you insist on deletion. IMHO, your "this is not a talk page" does contradict with the "Talk:Mandatory Palestine/FAQ: Transjordan" page name. Isn't it? --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Persian Gulf naming dispute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khaleej. 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) 11:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Galilee sanjaks

Hi Oncenawhile. I know you've worked on the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem and other articles on Ottoman districts. I'm working on a little article about Safad Sanjak. Apparently this district was supplanted by the Acre Sankjak at some point, but I can't seem to find out when this happened. Was it during the time of Zahir al-Umar, Jezzar Pasha or after the Egyptian period (1831-1840)? If you have any sources or info please let me know or feel free to post it here. Regards, --Al Ameer (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing regarding the Southern Levant

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drsmoo (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

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.

Beirut

added a link pointing to Paris of the East

Lebanon

added a link pointing to Paris of the East

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Samaria

Hi, please see Talk:Samaria about a map that was originally uploaded to Commons by you. The erroneous description of the green part as Samaria was added by an anon at Commons, see here. It shows "Samaritans", not "Samaria". Cheers. Zero^talk 11:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI

WP:ARBPIA3 is now open and evidence can be submitted until September 8. 62.90.5.221 (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ottoman Rule in Amman

Hey, I am sorry to have removed your content without explaining my reasons.. Don't you think what you added is overly detailed in a period of time that didn't have much significance? --Makeandtoss (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Makeandtoss:, thanks for your post. It is detailed, and would like to figure out how to cut down. The relevance of both the quote and the photo is that they are the best known evidence of the "refoundation" of Amman in the 1870s. What those sources say is that it was an uninhabited ancient ruin until a band of Circassians were brought in by the Ottomans. And the quote shows that with a good description around it. We could move the quote into the reference and summarise it?

If you look at the history, there were two key decisions which led to Amman coming into existence as a major metropolis: (1) the settlement of the circassians, and (2) the railway. On the latter point, unfortunately I can't find any good sources explaining the moment of that decision to open a railway station at Amman along the Hejaz Railway line.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: Moving the quote into the reference like what you did in the Timeline of Amman sounds like a good idea, however, I am still not sure about that picture as it shows it was a complete wasteland. --Makeandtoss (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly the point of the picture - it shows in visual form that the city was uninhabited except for a few Circassian families in tents. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay --Makeandtoss (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: I moved the quote into the reference. I also replaced the 1879 picture with an 1898 picture from the same location but a different angle, I hope you don't mind? --Makeandtoss (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Edits of Palestinian National Authority.

You made this edit.

Accuarding to this source, you are wrong about the flag and the anthem. For the coat of arms I searched for some sources but didn't found. I will continue my research on this eventially.

Please explane: "Currently these are all related to the State of Palestine, not the PNA". Since I gave a large number of sources to contradict the technically unbased claim the PNA transformed to SoP I don't understand if this edit was made accuarding to the original bearly based consensus or becuase you still disagree with over 40 sources (And I can provide more, just ask). --Bolter21 14:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The Million Award for Palestine !

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Palestine (estimated annual readership: 1,000,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Long due, and impressive above all in coming from an uninvolved editor, and thus reflects an undeniably objective judgement. One watches your steady, patient, meticulous work in silent admiration.Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine is a partially recognized country.

The term "partially recognized" applies to all countries which lacks the needed recognition to be legal countries i.e. UN member states. Israel, China, Armenia, Cyprus, RoK and DRoK have limited recognition but doesn't have recognition problem. Kosovo, Palestine, Abkhazia, South Ossetia Western Sahara and others are partially recognized regardless of the number of recognizers. Kosovo has a number not far from SoP's recognizers number, it is a partially recognized country becuase it is blocked via recognition from being a member of the UN and thus being a legal country. --Bolter21 23:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of One Million Plan for merger

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article One Million Plan is suitable as a standalone article in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be merged.

The article is discussed at Talk:Aliyah Bet#Merge until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-merger notice from the top of the article. GreyShark (dibra) 20:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Historical boundaries of Palestine (plain).svg

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Boundaries of where? I think the current illustration is confusing because the two dashed green lines show two different boundaries. --Quest for Truth (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Addressing your argument on the Sasanian Empire talk page!

PLEASE listen to what I have to say carefully as what I am about to say will be very important regarding that topic altogether!

That map in the infobox was a map that I created. Now as I said in the talkpage of the Sasanian Empire article and on my talkpage two years ago, I will address the problems with the map. That map has been there for two years now and untouched on top of that. There is a valid reason for that one as well.

Here is where me addressing your argument on your talkpage comes in!

Roughly three years ago around 2012, I was new to Wikipedia and I tried to make some edits here and there, eventually got into a conversation with the editors of that article at the time which caused a massive edit war that created numerous talks on the Dispute Resolution Notice Boards of Wikipedia. It eventually ended, only for a consensus via RfC with the help from the Wikipedia Map Workshop Team to arise. It was eventually settled and the map that you see in the infobox stands there today. I did not think of Palaestina at the time as the name of the province, but rather Judea.

Before that edit war, there were other arguments and minor edit wars that took place regarding the infobox map alone, dating ALL the way back to 2006 with the topic constantly being rehashed since then! The edit war I was in happened to be the last one and it has remained that for two solid years. If you don't believe me on this, look in the archives. There was one guy who tried to rehash the conflict, but he did get anywhere for obvious reasons.

Side note: (Also, since there were three Palaestina's within the Diocese of the East of the Byzantine Empire, I still don't see how that is a big deal.)

With all that said, I strongly advise you not to rehash this topic on the Sasanian Empire talk page. If anything, go the the Map Workshop! Perhaps I will have them improve the map altogether or simply leave the topic alone! That would be the best idea.

Regards! Kirby (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

EDIT:

Here is a list of all the sources for that map that put all my effort into making years ago:

Chosroes II continues his victorious career, conquering Egypt and Asia Minor and occupying both Alexandria and also Chaceldon across the Bosporus from Constinanople.

In this campaign the Persians broke through Byzantiums's eastern provinces; in 609, they reached Chaceldon, directly facing the capital, and their triumphal progress, far more serious than before, occupied the first part of the reign of Herakleios.

Chosroes II of Persia who owed his throne to Maurice, declared war on the muderer of his benefactor. Persian armies were victorious in Mesopotamia and Syria, capturing the fortress towns of Dara, Amida Haran, Edessa, Hierapolis and Aleppo, though they were repulsed from Antioch and Damascus. They then overran Byzantine Armenia and raided deep into Anatolia through the provinces of Cappadocia, Phrygia, Galatia, and Bithynia. Byzantine resistance collapsed. A Persian Army penetrated as far as the Bosporus. Antioch and most of the remaining Byzantine fortresses in Syria and Mesopotamia and Armenia were captured(611). After a long seiges, the invaders took Damascus (613) and Jerusalem (614). Chosroes then began a determined invasion of Anatolia (615). Persian forces under General Shahen captured Chaceldon on the Bosporus after a long siege (616). Here the Persians remained, within one of of Constintanople, for more than 10 years. Meanwhile, they captured Ancyra and Rhodes (620); remaining Byzantine fortresses in Armenia were captured; the Persian occupation cut off a principal Byzantine recruiting ground. After defeating Byzantine garrisons in the Nile Valley, Chosroes marched across the Lybian Desert as far as Cyrene. These victories cut off the usual grain supplies from Egypt to Constantinople. Under Chosroes II the Persians virtually eliminated the Byzantines from all their Asiatic and Egyptian provinces, expanding Sassanid dominions to the extent of the Empire of Darius.

The able Persian generals Shahrvaraz and Shahin led the Sassanid armies through Mesopotamia, Armenia and Syria into Palestine and Asia Minor. They took Antioch in 611, Damascus in 613, and then Jurusalem, in 614 (sending a shock through the whole Christian world). At Jerusalem the Christian defenders refused to give up the city, and it was taken by assault after three weeks, and given over to the sack. The Persians carries off the True Cross to Ctesiphon. Within another four years they had conquered Egypt and were in control of Asia Minor, as far as Chaceldon, opposite of Constantinople on the shores of the Bosporus. No shah of Persia since Cyrus had achieved such military successes.

NOTE: The sources that I quoted from are the sources that cannot be linked due to them not being available to read on the internet. The sources that I cited and quoted from were from books at my local libraries.

Also, in case you were wondering, www.iranicaonline.org as one of my sources, even users who edited that article years ago acknowledged that website was a reliable source.

Finally, my map is heavily based off this map: http://ecai.org/sasanianweb/maps/sasanianempire570.htm

Regards. =D Kirby (talk) 05:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William III of England, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William of Orange. 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) 10:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Tutankhamun's mask

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Palestine and synonyms

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

December 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Canaanite languages 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• be regarded as forming a chain that actually includes the oldest forms of Aramaic as well."}}</ref>
• * The *''ā'' > ''ō'' [[vowel shift]] ([[Canaanite shift]]).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Israel into List of Earthquakes in the Levant. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. --Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for noticing and continuing to collaborate on the Evolution of the Palestinian Territories template. You reverted my changes, which ofcourse is fine. (huh, wasn't aware there was a rule blocking new users from editing Palestinian articles)

If you thought my text was biased, you are probably correct, and most certainly welcome to edit it.

However, consider leaving the edited images in, for these reasons: A) There's a noticeable twenty-six year gap (from 1967 to 1993) in the series of images. My maps fill that gap accurately. B) The current "1948–67 (Actual)" map is actually inaccurate, because it implies the land was under Palestinian control during that time period. It wasn't: the land was under Egyptian and Jordanian control. By using the same color (green) it accidentally misleads readers to think that the Palestinians had control of the land prior to 1967, when really it was controlled by Egypt and Jordan. C) The final image "1993–Present" actually is inaccurate. From 2006 to the present, the Palestinian Authority has not control the Gaza strip. It is actually administered by Hamas. This continues despite attempts at forming a unity government between the PA and Hamas. Again, using separate colors would make this clear.

Are you using the green color to represent what ethnicity happens to live in that area, or are you using it to indicate who has control? In either case, the current maps are historically inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComServant (talk • contribs) 20:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

'Evolution of the Palestinian Territories' maps

Moved to Template_talk:Palestinian_territory_development#Recent_edits. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's a cartoon

Here's a cartoon that's relevant to your interests: http://wondermark.com/c/2014-09-19-1062sea.png AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Uranus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Titans. 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) 09:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Curious

Where did you find that newspaper section? Makeandtoss (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like some one insanely good library, mind sharing? Makeandtoss (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Why, cant u send it here? --Makeandtoss (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

can't view it. Anyway, if you find anything related to Falastin. Kindly send it to me Makeandtoss (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that book that you emailed me...? Makeandtoss (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Lol why did you resend it? I can't view the book's content anyway Makeandtoss (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Haha thanks anyway Makeandtoss (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

υπερ της Παλαιστινης in Pausanias means "above Palestine" (i.e. in the hills behind the coastal plain)

Whatever -- about the time that you were setting up your big showdown, I was becoming less interested in spending time on Wikipedia in general, and you can't be blamed for that. However, the material you left on my user talk page at that time was basically worthless, and -- in combination with your ignorance of ancient Greek -- it strongly inclined me to disbelieve that devoting time to the other parts of your showdown would be worthwhile in any way. AnonMoos (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

DNA article

When I read that DNA study article, I was completely convinced. It's quite a game changer... But since you mentioned controversy, which wasn't mentioned in the article, adding the criticism to the article will be great. Would you mind adding/pointing out to sources mentioning the controversy? Thanks Makeandtoss (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I only read 60% of article. I stopped because it was getting too much detailed and confusing... And probably anyone who is interested like me, would read the same portion, thus being convinced on something that is controversial. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Article name

Don't you think it should be called "Nineteenth century travelogues of Palestine" or "Travelogues of Palestine in the 19th century" or something? That way it would be possible to name articles for other time periods in a consistent fashion. Zero^talk 13:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Travelogues of Palestine, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Thomas, George Robinson and William Turner. 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) 10:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Hello, may I ask where you got access to this from? ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I so envy you! I have nothing in mind right now, thanks for your offer and for your wonderful edits. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia: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 this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Makeandtoss (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Balfour Declaration

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Balfour Declaration you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Royroydeb -- Royroydeb (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Saad al-Alami) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Saad al-Alami, Oncenawhile!

Wikipedia editor Prof tpms just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for the kind contribution to Wikipedia. Please add suitable images to this page. Regards.

To reply, leave a comment on Prof tpms's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

March 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Balfour Declaration 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• inevitable French pressure for an international administration once Palestine had been conquered"}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zahir al-Umar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National hero. 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) 10:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Oncenawhile, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Future of Palestine

Hello! Your submission of The Future of Palestine at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Biblical Philistia

Hey thanks for calling shenanigans on my Goliath-like edits to the Philistine article. From my research this morning, our witnesses to the pre-Hasmonean book of Reigns (1 Sam - 2 Kings) and DtrH generally are too poor to conclude that DtrH intended "Philistines" as such as the antagonists to Dan and Judah. Hope I didn't come off like a jerk. --Zimriel (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zimriel, thanks and certainly you didn't come across in any negative way. It's a very healthy discussion and I hope we can make even more progress there. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for The Future of Palestine

—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 00:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 00:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

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.

Arab–Israeli conflict

added a link pointing to Israel Palestine conflict

Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine

added a link pointing to Israel Palestine conflict

Israeli–Palestinian conflict

added a link pointing to Israel Palestine conflict

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Semitic peoples

I closed the old discussion as No consensus, but feel free to re-nominate this category, as one of the involved editors removed the CFD tag again from the page (after you had already reinstated it once). – Fayenatic London 12:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Al-Aqsa Mosque into Minarets of the Temple Mount. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. This is the second time I have had to notify you of this legal requirement. Please have a look at this edit summary and the templates I added to the two talk pages if you are unsure what to do. Please let me know of you have any questions. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Balfour Declaration

The article Balfour Declaration you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Balfour Declaration for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Royroydeb -- Royroydeb (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

FAs

Hi, thanks for the vote of confidence, but I'm afraid I don't have experience either in improving WP:Israel articles or in FAs. The only time I tried to apply for an FA, I got a string of comments and suggestions for improvement that I simply didn't have the time to pursue. I also had the same experience with my handful of GAs, though I found that if everything's sourced and the sources are all working, it generally passes after only one set of questions from the reviewer. Perhaps you could ask another editor who is more familiar with FAs. Good luck! Yoninah (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK

Hello! Your submission of Balfour Declaration at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Turns out the submission is not usable, because the page has appeared as a bold linked article in the "On This Day" section of Main page. Sorry. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Help

Hi Oncenawhile, can you please give your opinion on the censorship issue on Talk:Yisrael Katz (politician born 1955)? 2A02:C7D:3FDE:D400:34AC:583A:B24A:5AF3 (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drsmoo (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Semitic people

The situation at Semitic people is out of control and users like Cathry are rewriting it because they don't like that it's a racialist term. I don't know what to do about it, she keeps reverting back and is following my edits on other pages to change them when I change "Semitic people" to "Semitic-speaking people". It's very frustrating, people just yell SCIENTISTS USE IT when in fact scientists most explicitly do not. Ogress 18:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Middle East Media Research Institute 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• a public relations, lobbying and policy-making instrument with the highest professional standard."}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Stop and think

What the hell are you doing?!?! Do you seriously think sanctions of a jew-related topic are justified because a fringe scholar accused his detractors of being zionist stooges? --Monochrome_Monitor 08:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Your own edit comment said it was a battleground. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I said YOU were politicizing it. Dear god! It is a nuetral topic about a language WHICH YOU ARE POLITICIZING by inserting all manner of fringe bullshit alleging zionist coverups by mainstream linguists. Did you not read the talk page??! And stop abusing wikipedia policy. Adding a template to a talk page is not a comment, it's an edit which can be reverted. --Monochrome_Monitor 08:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You're looking a lot like a bully now. It's one thing to do this with Arab/Israeli topics but this is a Jewish topic with no relation whatsoever to the arab-israeli conflict.--Monochrome_Monitor 08:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

10 days after an AE you come and make the same bulk reversion without any discussion on an article. Then you remove my talk page edit comments twice. Then you come to my user page to make further aggressive comments.

"Bullying" "is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others".

Please stop it.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Use of force, threat or coercion... oh, that's exactly what you did when you started that vexatious AE. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

By your reasoning we should put the Bible under Arab-Israeli sanctions. It is highly controversial and very pro-Israel after all. --Monochrome_Monitor 08:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Just consider why you dislike Wexler so much, and you will realize that your behaviour is driven by exactly what these sanctions are here to stop. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit. I don't want him IN THE LEAD because of WP:LEAD. He's WP:FRINGE and doesn't belong in the lead, it's that simple. And the reason I don't like him is because I think he's a jackass for his stupid "pretend to be some guy who isn't paul wexler and give other yiddishists bad reviews and then deny you did exactly that". Why do YOU want it to be included? Because of YOUR bias alleging zionist conspiracies against wikipedia. I'm the one who's nuetral on this and following mainstream thought.--Monochrome_Monitor 09:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Irondome: @Nishidani: I don't know how to respond to this kind of behaviour - any advice would be appreciated.

MM, the edit you made did not amend the lead. Nor is Wexler mentioned in the lead. I don't know what you are talking about.

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

What article are we talking about? Please can someone clarify? What the hell is going on basically? Irondome (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

he's a jackass for his stupid "pretend to be some guy who isn't paul wexler and give other yiddishists bad reviews and then deny you did exactly that".

Translation. Paul Wexler is rumoured to have written under a pseudonym a scorching criticism of other Yiddish scholars in 1988, and denied he was its author. Therefore, MM will eliminate him from Wikipedia. It's a variant of the games almost everyone plays: don't examine anyone's reasoning. If you dislike his or her conclusions, just dig up some dirt, and throw it their way to discredit them. It's the polemicist's version of original sin: if you make just one slip in your life, you are forever damned and the Erinyi of vendetta will hound you to the last. The Italian journalist,Giorgio Bocca, a writer of great insight, once wrote a piece critical of Israel's prospects after 1967, when it came into possession of the West Bank. Some months afterwards, he gave a talk, and a woman stood up and waved a photocopy of a paraphrase of the Protcols of Zion he provided as a tyro journalist when he was 19, for a fascist newspaper in 1939. He didn't know it was a forgery, having been raised in the closed totalitarian state that was Fascist Italy: he had in the war been close to the Jews of Cuneo, had fought in the resistance, was a friend of people like Primo Levi and Arnaldo Momigliano. For years afterwards, the woman from the Centre of Jewish Documentation turned up at his press conferences, dogging his heels, waving her photocopy, the message being 'you were an anti-Semite and you are totally unreliable for anything you might say of the world, or Israel's occupation.' Most of his Jewish friends rightly thought:'Well, you did write that once', but didn't let this juvenile stain affect their relationship or influence the way they interpreted his journalism, which was lucid, trenchant, acutely informed, libertarian until his dying day. MM, what you are doing with Wexler, is what la signora Ravenna did with Bocca. You have a right to do that, but no one remembers her: a nation of readers still feels indebted to Bocca's work.Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Wexler's theories on relexification are persuasive, simply because he has persuaded very few Yiddish scholars of their validity. In this I therefore agree with MM. I disagree with here, and with numerous other editors who get upset, revert Wexler out, and shout 'fringe!,' for the simple reason that Wexler's theories are still thought important enough to be regularly mentioned in the standard literature on Yiddish. Scholars don't regularly rebut fringe theories in their area: they kill them by silence, or pithy dismissals. There are 3 main models for the Ashkenazi and Yiddish. The Rhineland model dominated, until the Bavarian-Czech model emerged, together with Wexler's eastern hypothesis. Now Weinrich has been notably redimensioned. Eastern Yiddish has strong connections to languages in Czech lands, according to Alexander Beider, for example.

What follows smacks of condescension, but it needs saying nonetheless. I'm very tolerant of MM because of her passion for knowledge. I am harsh because of her intellectually parlous (for her, not the world) tendency to think she has the answer to everything. We live in a slipshod world of handy simplifications, and time and again, she is prepossessed by a sense of hermeneutic mission to the plebeian reader to set things straight which means, practically, ironing out the dissonance in our sources or knowledge in order to corroborate a specious 'commonsensical' narrative. It is one of the aspects of the Zionist/Israeli political blowback on diasporic Jewish discourse, always open to second thoughts, dialectical sophistication, and complexity, that disturbs me most. At her age, I specialized in very obscure fields, and in my MA wrote a history of the topic from 1896 onwards, and of 75 books and articles in several languages, I discovered that only 3 showed signs of creative thinking - this in a rarified academic world. The rest was all paste and copy or extrapolation from the few masters, applying their results, as assumptions, to areas by analogy. This has stayed with me. Get out of the ivory tower, and presentation of complexity to the public evaporates: it is all black and white, this or that, antipathy or glowing endorsement. Life, and history, as opposed to the political spin on events, is simply not like that. MM doesn't understand this. If, say, anti-Semitism is an index of a zero grade of self-knowledge, in that no enmity can presume to justify itself by smearing an unknown (all racists refuse to recognize the 'other' as part mirrors of themselves), the obverse is also true: anyone badgering a topic to prove an a priori that is irremovable will have a half a life of credibility as short as the decay rate of Hydrogen-7.

In sum, Wexler is not fringe, but a significant if minor voice in Yiddish studies, and in so far as a lead summarizes the article content, if the section on him provides a fair perspective on his position within the field, then this must be anticipated by a line or two in the lead. If the section is lacking,-I haven't looked recently - then it should be built up first, and then the lead adjusted to take note of it.Nishidani (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

First off, reliable sources call him fringe. It's not just his theory on yiddish but in all jewish languages and in jewish studies in general. Or do you think the notion that "the Jewish people doesn't exist" is a minor but significant view rather than a fringe one? I'm not being accusative, I generally wonder. Just to be clear, I don't usually speak this way to editors, with "what the hells" and whatnot. In part I'm reacting to the rather patronizing way he spoke to me on Talk:Semitic people "I am encouraged by the research you have done. As your understanding of these facts builds, at some point it will click.. ... At some point you are going to have to accept that your understanding of all this is simply incorrect". I find it irritating that he speaks as if the purpose of our talking is to make me "see the right path". I participate in dialogue to get a consensus for a change in wikipedia, not to change the opinions of editors I disagree with. He speaks to me as if he's a psychoanalyst with the prerogative of diagnosing me with pathological zionism. 99% of the people on Talk:Modern Hebrew agreed with me, I provided their quotes as evidence in the ridiculous arbitration case against me, remember?

That brings me to why I am here right now. It's because Oncinawhile added an Arab-Israeli conflict sanctions template to Modern Hebrew,[10] even though the aforementioned arbitration found that such a classification was bullshit and thus I didn't commit the sin of 1RR. In the arbitration I also described my frustration with his tendency of adding templates against the preconditions for adding them, and when reverted, accusing detractors of committing some trespass against rules twisted to protect edits which themselves violate rules. And then encouraging them to go to the talk to work it out as if his edits are consensus or the status quo, which they aren't. When I reverted this totally illegitimate addition of a template deceptively declaring the page subject to arab-israeli conflict sanctions, he invoked a rule against editing another person's comments. I don't think I need to elaborate on why that pissed me off.

And lastly, Simon, I'm hurt by your words, but I respect them. I suppose I thought our relationship was more amicable than mere "tolerance" of one another. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm always amazed when people pick one thing they like out of an article (Wexler is fringe) and ignore what the article is saying, namely Batya Ungar-Sargon's very good overview for the general reader of the state of the art in the origins of the Yiddish debate is nowhere reflected in our article on Yiddish. IF you think a source is insightful, it should orientate your approach more broadly. What Ungar-Sargon stated is that

In her article about the mysterious origins of the Yiddish language, the late Cherie Woodworth described the field’s dramatis personae as “a very small but committed cadre of scholars”—a wildly tactful understatement. One metonymic step away from the Holocaust’s devastation, the tiny field of Yiddish linguistics has ballooned in importance, becoming a place where both the past and the future of the Jewish people is battled over, one phoneme at a time, through a combination of academic and extra-academic means. Threats of legal action are par for the course. So are character assassinations, pseudonymous academic hits, accusations of lunacy, and denials of the existence of the Jewish people.It’s gotten worse over time, but it’s almost always been thus

Conclusion? Tread very very warily here, because it is a toxically contested field of study. You'd never get this impression from the 'serenity' and orthodoxy being imposed on the Yiddish language article we have. And Wexler is out. What Ungar-Sargon then does is look at Alexis Manaster Ramer, Dovid Katz, Max Weinreich, Alexander Beider and Paul Wexler and point up their vigorous disagreements. Of the last, she says:

'For when fields are weak and orthodoxies reign, a fringe tends to develop; in Yiddish linguistics, that would be Paul Wexler. - - Indeed, though he has a following amongst non-specialists, most linguists disagree with Wexler.'

Some deep scholars of Yiddish express their debt to Wexler (Neil Jacobs has acknowledged the stimulus of his ideas in his work on that language, for example). Fringe here is 'minority' and it means that within a field that had an orthodoxy which Alexander Beider admits rides on an unproven and undocumented assumption (the flow eastwards of Rhineland Jews), an orthodoxy shaken by the 'Canaanite' Bavarian-Czech theories, Wexler is on the fringe in taking the challenge one step further by arguing for an East European origin. Now most linguists would challenge his Iranian-Khazar details, but quite a few Yiddish experts would defend the idea that Eastern Yiddish has origins distinct from Western (Rhineland) Yiddish. In a fluid field, full of experts disagreeing, you should not preemptively dismiss out of hand anything, esp. since Wexler's unorthodox or 'revolutionary' paradigm is still widely discussed by his colleagues, something that doesn't happen with authentically 'fringe' theories. And secondly, your certainties about everything should take one step back and digest what Ungar-Sargon states, as the dearly departed Cheryl Woodworth did, that a rather chaotically fluid field of controversy is characteristic of that discipline. Since Yiddish experts can't agree on much of the details of their respective models, you have no right to make a call, which in any case is beyond an editor's remit here. Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Oncenawhile and MM. If you haven't read it, I think you would both profit by a close study of Alexander Beider , Origins of Yiddish Dialects, Oxford University Press, 2015 pp.525-567. It's a long a densely argued overview of all of the literature. He is not well-disposed to Wexler's theories, but gives a fair analysis of them in the context of the other perspectives, showing the difficulties of each, while proposing his own theory.Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

To template a language article with ARBPIA seems incorrect. It is at the very least inflammatory. Putting aside Wexler's past, if he holds a view which is held to be a minority viewpoint by the published scholarship out there, then WP:UNDUE. Does he explicitly say "The Jewish people do not exist"? Is he being rhetorical? it would be news to about 14 million souls who have obviously living under a silly delusion. The main point is that you get stressed. It gets personal with you Georgia. Think of Wikipedia like this: Ok lets use the analogy of different justice systems around the world. In most of Europe at least, a trial is conducted as an impartial, joint search for truth by all the legal professionals involved. I think it is called the inquisitorial system. Many continental lawyers are appalled by the Anglo-American adversarial system that is employed in our courts, with rhetorical tricks etc. Think Perry Mason etc. Imagine yourself (all of you in fact) to be members of a commission, an enquiry board set up to weigh the evidence, with no preconceptions of what the final outcome may look like. You must sift and weigh evidence, some of which is distasteful to your POV but it must be weighed with the rest. If evidence is insubstantional, not widely accepted, discard. Wexler may be of this type of evidence. If Wexler is included, would you be comfortable with a form of wording which indicates this is a view which is not accepted by a significant numbers of his peers? Don't resort to the bloody boards, templating etc etc blah blah. Our personal outrage should not come into it. Wexler is not an existential threat to the Jewish people MM. But if he is included, a form of words can be fabricated which politely says, a lot of other scholars think he is talking bollocks. Simples. Irondome (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Apropos "The Jewish people do not exist" That, in these times, looks like a particularly vicious form of denialism. Wexler is a learned man. It is a commonplace, here transferred to 'the Jews', of what many statesmen, philosophers and observers remarked on observing how the rising nation-states were making over the many distinct local populations in their territories to conform to a modern of a unified 'people', a nationality. The idea is best expressed in Massimo d'Azeglio's L'Italia è fatta. Restano da fare gli italiani,('We've engineered the unity of Italy, all that remains to be done is to manufacture Italians.' Only 6% of Italians read and wrote that language at the time of the Risorgimento, just as 90% of the Japanese had no idea who the Imperial dynasty's ancestor was in the early Meiji period, whereas, indoctrinated they learnt within a generation to behave and think and kill themselves for him after a generation). Metternich had similar views. Napoleon's first army had huge problems because Gascons, Picards, folks from Provence, Bretons etc couldn't understand each other. They had to be taught to be 'French'. Members of the Juhuro, the Rothschild family, the B'nai Moshe, or figures likeYiḥyah Qafiḥ and Albert Einstein are all Jews of course, but Eric Hobsbawm didn't write about invented traditions, among which are those of a unified sense of shared ethnicity, for nothing. I'm biased of course. I think like Wexler on this - national feelings exist, but are a very private thing, and invariably tampered with to make us prey to partisan identities that lock us in to a prejudice that favours none of us as individuals, while predisposing us to think of outgroups as threats or competitors, and invariably filching credit for the outstanding achievements of our own group which we, personally, have done nothing to earn, simply on the strength of a shared ethnicity, a bit like football fans, who see themselves in every club champion (and curse them if they fail to win).Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment here - it is often just blind tribalism, even in the most educated and sophiaticated of people.

I continue to feel that all wikipedia editors who work on articles relating to any "national" concepts (national identities / ethnicities, national languages, national histories, etc.) should read Hobsbawm and Anderson as a prerequisite. Learning about the reality of Imagined community and Invented tradition across all nationalities would help editors like User:Monochrome Monitor take things less personally. As children we are indoctrinated with nationalism in all its glory - a significant component of intellectual maturity in these areas is the unlearning of all that. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think nationalism is inherently bad. It's human to feel affinity for those similar to us. Nationalism can do great things, like when the Indians got free of the British Empire. Gandhi was an Indian nationalist. There is nothing wrong with "I recognize that I am X and feel affinity for X". Nationalism becomes bad when it goes "I recognize that I am X, and X > Y. Nationalism can be about fighting for the fundamental right of X to self-determination, so that X = Y, ie, the Kurds being allowed to display the Ala Rengin in Turkey and educate their children in Kurdmanji. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: your comment misses the point. Learning to control one's emotions around this topic requires an introspection of the deeply held beliefs that drive such feelings. You write about "affinity for those similar to us" in relation to nationalism. You, me, Nishidani and Irondome may come from different nations and ethnicities. Given our shared interest in Wikipedia and knowledge in general, it is likely we are much more similar to one another than we are to the average person within each of our "nationalities". Your idea that people of the same "nationality" are "similar to us" is a fiction which has been deconstructed by Hobsbawm, Anderson and many others. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

In any case, I give up on MM. Her behavior, not deigning to look at the evidence, but simply staying quiet as a lamentably bad editor persistently reverted me back to her preferred versions even when I happened to have a strong evidential case that the sources were misconstrued, is manipulative, and show no independence of judgement. The sudden entry of User:Ferakp has an explanation I'd prefer not to think about. Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh fuck, Nish was the one who made the hurtful comment, sorry simon. These formatting is confusing me. (edit: apparently demonstratives confuse me too. I need a nap)--Monochrome_Monitor 19:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, nish, I'm sorry about the lamentably bad editor. I didn't get notifications for that, the reverting to my version. There's a fair chance I would have reverted it otherwise. It saddens me that you don't trust me and think I made a sock, feel free to ask some admin person to check the IP. YES I sinned once by editing under my ip address, but it started as a mistake and then went downhill... anyway, I have learned from that clusterfuck of my own making. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, about the article on yiddish. Yes, it allows deviation from the standard Weinrich model. I thought you would like that, I certainly did. I think the model is right in Yiddish being Germanic but there are lots of uknowns... are Eastern and Western yiddish different language? Where were the Romance features added to the language? What language was it, French or Italian? Was it acquired by Jews before Jews settled in Germanic lands or after? The german language itself has a fair amount of romance words, the roman empire was very influential. How did the Northwest Semitic elements get into Yiddish? Was it from Aramaic spoken by the Judeans or was it Hebrew preserved in the Mishnah? Those are all perfectly valid questions.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

And what article are you referring to exactly? --Monochrome_Monitor 19:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right that I missed the point. Lets get back to it. You put a template on an article warning of sanctions which AE ruled don't exist, and then preposterously claimed that me reverting you was deleting your comments. That's really shitty of you.--Monochrome_Monitor 22:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me for my crudeness, I just thought you were above that sort of sleaziness. I find your views and your tactics in implementing them objectionable, but I did have a level of respect for you as someone with seniority who doesn't get heated and resort to edit warring (like myself). I said you follow the letter of the law but not its spirit, but in this case you followed neither. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

With all this good advice and intellectual insight from numerous editors, you have an opportunity to grow as a human being. You may never have such an opportunity again. Still, you can respond to this with another negative or combative comment and then forget about everything that has been said to you. Or you can take the opportunity for true introspection. The first option will give you short term satisfaction, and the second will give you long term enrichment.

Good luck. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I only disagree with Quinto Simmacho on saying Wexler is fringe as opposed to being in a decidedly minoritarian position. ‘Fringe’ is as in Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford or anyone proposing one of the gallimaufry of tomfoolery gracing the List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, or with interesting but way out speculators like Emmanuel Velikovsky. Fringe applies when an idea or thinker is dismissed for obvious nonsense, and then cut out of the discourse except as a curiosity, which is not the case for Wexler, as is it for, for example, Martin Bernal. For the simple reason, unlike Bernal, that(a) Wexler had a chair in the subject (b) is widely discussed in the relevant literature, even if his ideas are not shared to any noticeable extent (c) the subject itself is extremely technical, and very very few are competent to judge, as opposed to the hordes of editorialists and general spokesman whose remarks are basically gossip based on third hand reports (d) it tends to be forgotten that everyone of Wexler’s critics acknowledges the great richness of his primary data and the comprehensiveness of his command of all of the relevant sources (e) he is the object of hysteria in the relevant blogosphere which displays a decided anxiety about political impact or cultural fallout from just two aspects of the manifold set of arguments he has set forth in great philological details in several large books. My interest in this, contrary to the usual suspicions, is related to broader observations, about paradigmatic models and dissonance. A lot of the dissonance is muffled over time (replaced by other types of atonic dispute), but it often proves to be hermeneutically productive, and occasionally tips the scales, by altering a staid and complacent paradigm. In various areas of wiki I have consistently argued that the minority academic or technical view be noted, and handled without passion, fairly. Mostly I fail to persuade editors to do this.

• The standard paradigm for Greek language and culture when I learnt it was the Indo-European model, and it is the correct one, but about 10-15% of the vocabulary, some of it quite crucial in Greek modes of thinking, material and institutional life, comes from a pre-Greek stratum. This fact, one reading it in B.F.C.Atkinson’s The Greek Language, Faber & Faber 1931 pp.17-26) made me from the outset open to anything that challenged the monotonous purism of the received model. The IE model influenced for centuries a tendency to think in terms of an Indo-european racial exfoliation, and this bias in the paradigm only started to suffer serious cracks when Michael Astour, a Jew whose mother was murdered by the Nazis, and his father by the Communists, and several others like Walter Burkert and Martin West, rewrote our ethnocentric map to make it into a rich tapesty of Indo-European, pre-Greek, Asiatic and Semitic cultures. The rigid ethno-linguistic model of cultural isolates broke down into one of regional cross-fertilization and cultural interpenetration. This example still has not percolated down into general reading the Tanakh, which is an extraordinary mélange of distinct cultural traditions and ethnically variegated lore, of heteroglossia, because reading is dominated by Christian and Jewish faith hermeneutics which accentuate dogmatics or the theological formation of national identity at the expense of discursive tensions still resident in an otherwise homogenizing composition.

• Yevgeny Polivanov (murdered by the Soviet Secret police, probably because he disagreed with the Lysenko of Soviet linguistics, a fatuous idiot called Nicholas Marr) argued for an Austronesian origin for Japanese, The continental theory prevailed. In reading the history of these debates, one always has to keep in mind the geopolitics of theory: the strike north faction in prewar Japan would be disposed to an Altaic model, the strike south faction to a Polynesian model: had Japan lost on the continent and retained a Pacific empire, you could have been sure that Polivanov's theories would have been dusted off and used to give a deep cultural justification for their colonial grip on the Polynesian south. That theory in any case has minoritan status, but it is still mentioned as a serious and useful contribution to the endless history of theories of the origins of that language. No mention of him in articles on that subject in wiki.
• When a dispute arose re the introduction of a theory that the Zhou dynasty, based on a linguistic theory, might not have been Han Chinese but rather another ethnic group, I intervened to argue that the articles (Shang Dynasty/Zhou Dynasty should register this view). Everyone focused on Scott DeLancey (the Paul Wexler of the piece), and said he was fringe. I still think they had an ideological a priori rejection of anything that might challenge the standard model and were misreading everything one might mention in arguing in favour simply of some mention of theories dissonant with the general trend. Editors have kept this material out in all articles related to this topic. Some very fine editors disagreed with me. They would say I overvalue a fringe view; I would suggest they are not sufficiently wary of the larger cultural subtexts, and bias, in all theories, and too ready to embrace a single consensus which happens to coincide with the government's own views.

• Whenever these things are discussed in wiki, I may be wrong but I sense, a group consensus hurriedly forming to keep out the minority argument, a consensus that, particularly in the I/P area, shows no sign of sophistication and betrays severe identity anxieties. My view is that on the Wexler page, it is right that his ideas be given a comprehensive, neutral exposition primarily, then a section on his critics. Elsewhere, on the Yiddish and modern Hebrew pages, he deserves a fair mention because his heterodoxy is so frequently discussed. At the same time, the presentation should be succinct compared to the main theories. The kind of deplorable edit one sees here last night by the usual warrior, User:E.M.Gregory , is a good example of the rot and should have no place here because it uses a popular sources pitched to the linguistically illiterate by a cub reporter who doesn’t know the topic, but just phones round to get juicy smears. A large number of scholars have criticized Wexler formally, their remarks are readilyt available, and in an encyclopedic article one should paraphrase their technical criticisms, not the blabber from the blogosphere.

In other articles, like Yiddish, or modern Hebrew Wexler, having by universal acknowledgement established one of the three basic paradigms for an origins theory of Yiddish, should have that noted, very briefly, a half a sentence is enough, in the lead, and be given four or five unanxious lines in the relevant section (together with others who have held similar views). It should not per WP:Due, invade the topic. If you look at the Khazar page which I wrote, all of the controversies are dealt with briefly, though with ample sourcing, as neutrally as possible, avoiding the temptation to try to spin a verdict on the reader. I find Oncenawhile a very good close reader, MM, and I have no memory of him being, as I have been, obstreperous. MM again works very hard and is a net gain to Wikipedia. So I suggest you both let bygones be bygones,stop for a week, and then negotiate some compromise.Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

The recently created Israel Palestine conflict page is nominated for deletion in connection to the preceding community discussion. You are welcome to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel Palestine conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 14:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Template:Palestinian territory development

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Template:Palestinian territory development, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://president.ps/eng/, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Template talk:Palestinian territory development and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Template:Palestinian territory development, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Template talk:Palestinian territory development. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the material is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Template talk:Palestinian territory development with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Template talk:Palestinian territory development saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! GreyShark (dibra) 16:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jisr Jindas and Yibna Bridge

Hello! Your submission of Jisr Jindas and Yibna Bridge at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ~ Rob^Talk 23:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Jisr al Majami

Hi, I´m collecting sources on Jisr al Majami and Jisr al Sidd, please feel free to add anything to User:Huldra/Jisr al Majami.

There is a problem, as I believe that quite a lot of the pictures marked Jisr al Majami on commons, actually show some other bridge; I presume it is the nearby (now destroyed) Jisr al Sidd. Jisr al Sidd is described by Petersen, 2001, p. 189, as "This structure was described in the unpublished notes of the Survey of Western Palestine as a: 'ruined bridge of five arches over the Jordan; [with] pointed arches [and] Saracenic masonry'", which looks like this, or this. But then, which is the railway line, also crossing there? Any thoughts? Huldra (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Huldra: I took a look on google street view. The newer looking railway bridge with the five round arches is still in existance and looks exactly like this [11].

I can't see [12] this one anywhere though (ie the one with the middle pointed arch).

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually i'm wrong - I found them both! I will post the link. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, the oldest was still standing in 2010, according to this commons-pic., and the same with the newer bridge. The question is, where this is? Huldra (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Huldra: here is the link: [13]

Google maps is amazing, really.

I think your last link is a different bridge altogether. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Excellent! And yes, I also think that the last link is to a different bridge, although it is named Jisr al Manami. I wonder if it is the (now destroyed) Jisr al Sidd? Huldra (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Israel

Hello, Oncenawhile. I only now saw your reply to my opinion regarding the redirect of Israel Palestine conflict. You wrote: 'but there was an "Israel" in the minds of the Zionists. From also day one there was a push to change the name of Palestine to Eretz Israel.' I would reply to that, that 1. the "Israel" in the minds of Zionists is not an official name that we can use on Wikipedia and find neutral and reliable sources about. 2. "Eretz Israel" is not the same as "Israel". Which is why we have two different articles for them on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Hi @Debresser: understood and agreed that's technically right. I am simply trying to explain why scholars are comfortable using the term Israel to apply to the whole conflict. I think we as a community are "not seeing the wood for the trees" on this specific issue under debate, getting lost in minute technicalities to the detriment of clarity. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Yibna Bridge

On 20 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Yibna Bridge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mamluk Sultan Baibars built two bridges near the towns of Jindas and Yibna in the outskirts of Ramla, which have survived more than seven centuries? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Yibna Bridge), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 20 May 2016 (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 Wikipedia: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 this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Drsmoo (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Semitic languages page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2016 (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 Wikipedia: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 this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Drsmoo (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Just letting you know that per the DR/N you're expected to produce a draft for the section. There's a 48 hour window to respond, otherwise the moderator will close the DR/N. Since you're interested in collaborating through the DR/N, I'm hoping you'll submit your draft before it closes. Drsmoo (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi

I noticed that you uploaded this picture. I wonder if you ever came across similar pics that show urban settlement in Jordan before 1950s like this one? Or the question of where I can find ones? I searched the congress library with no luck. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Mausoleum of Abu Huraira listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mausoleum of Abu Huraira. Since you had some involvement with the Mausoleum of Abu Huraira redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sea Peoples

The article Sea Peoples you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sea Peoples for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sea Peoples

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sea Peoples you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the Lion Gate page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Mycenae page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lion Gate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pausanias. 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) 10:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

A polite request!

I don't know if the Bronze Age is a particular interest of yours, but I have off and on been trying to improve the article at Kussara. It's an interesting topic, and while I think I've improved the page, there's a very long way to go yet. If you feel like having a look, I'd appreciate it. Thank you! Dumuzid (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sea Peoples

The article Sea Peoples you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Sea Peoples for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Medinet Habu (temple), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orientalist. 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) 09:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Battle of Kadesh into Kadesh inscriptions. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Kadesh inscriptions

On 19 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kadesh inscriptions, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1275 BC Battle of Kadesh (relief of Ramses II in battle, pictured) is one of the best documented battles in ancient history due to the multiple Kadesh inscriptions? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kadesh inscriptions. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Kadesh inscriptions), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Qubain Family, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestinian. 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) 10:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Cust

Hi, I did not find a publication of Cust's report until 1968 (by the Israel State Archives, see WorldCat). The original is marked "Confidential" so probably wasn't published at the time. According to the rules of UK crown copyright that makes it free in 2018. If you can find a publication before 1966, that would make it free now. I have the original on microfilm but published later. Zero^talk 03:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zero0000, I am confident it is out of copyright. The only unclear question is whether it was created by the UK Government or the Palestine Government (which Israel's copyright law inherits):

• [14] and [15] it was published by HMSO in 1929. In this case it would be out of copyright under UK Crown Copyright (50 years post publication)
• Publication by the Israeli State Archives as you suggest, and later by Ariel Publishing House in Jerusalem, suggests the Palestine Government. Israel's copyright law of 2007, which applies to Mandate documents states "Copyright in a work in which the State is the first owner of the copyright in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 5 shall last for a period of 50 years from the date of its making", in which case the it would also be out of copyright (50 years post creation)

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the citations you found only say that it was printed in 1929, not that it was published then. Actually it was only printed for internal government use. (I read that somewhere; can't find it now.) To confirm that, I looked quite hard for the original in libraries, but I don't think it exists, even in the British Library or the National Library of Israel. However, it says "printed for the Government of Palestine" so you are on solid ground with that argument. Zero^talk 12:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration

Yes! Very interesting subject. What sources will you use? FunkMonk (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't know if you saw it, I replied on my own talk page, we can just continue the discussion there, or do you prefer the peer review page? FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for helpful comments in talk, am away on break at present and am editing from memory, though I have studied Lewis' book recently. Will fulfill your request on return. Cpsoper (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

To editor Cpsoper: do you know when you are likely to get a chance to review the book? Just wondering if I should wait before progressing that paragraph, as I'm hoping to go to WP:FAR soon. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry re delay, just recovered from jetlag. Cpsoper (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

More falafel for you!

Thanks for all your contributions to WP. You have been doing good work trying to improve WP and to ascertain WP articles adhere to NPOV, NOR and V. I also enjoyed reading your thoughtful recent comment. Best, Ijon Tichy (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe....

you mean "gmar chatimah tova". but thanks. :) --Monochrome_Monitor 21:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Phoenecianism

Clearing this up a bit to get rid of some of the sock Maronitepride's edits, I find this edit by you. Since Maronites isn't mentioned in the first paragraph, this is simply confusing. But then the whole article is confusing, since it doesn't seem to be about Phoenicianism. Please ping me if you reply. Doug Weller talk 11:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: thanks for this - I will try to fix with a source. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Undid revision by me?!?!

I did not make that edit, at least not any time recently.--Monochrome_Monitor 17:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Bar Kokhba Revolt

This edit of yours seems to have created a reference problem, as the tag name "Eshel" is now defined twice. As I am not sure if all your additional text came from the source you added I thought I better get in touch with you, rather than messing with the tags myself. --ChoG (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Oncenawhile. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drsmoo (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

subject/headline

Now that you mention it the distinction between a relationship between and an equivalence of anti-zionism and anti-semitism is notable. The fact is mainstream European and American definitions of antisemitism acknowledge some overlap where traditionally anti-jewish motifs are applied to israel,(which this article should make more explicit) and both denying this completely and arguing they are equivalent are minority views. This article also puts too much emphasis on arab anti-zionist anti-semitism while only mentioning soviet anti-semitic anti-zionism in passing. It should mention the 1968 Polish political crisis for example.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Monochrome Monitor this makes a lot of sense - I agree. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

What in particular makes sense? Me admitting I was wrong? ;) (by the way do you like my subject headline?)--Monochrome_Monitor 23:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we should mention specific manifestations of anti-zionism and their connections to antisemitism. Some indisputably are antisemitic, like ZOG, blood libels, and Holocaust-abusing ones. For example, the "Holocaust was a zionist conspiracy to make people pity Jews and create Israel and/or dominate the world" theory. And Holocaust inversion is universally regarded as anti-semitic in polite circles because it trivializes the holocaust while using it as a stick to beat Jews with. Other matters are more nuanced. I'm sure we can find quotations about whether saying Israel has no right to exist is necessarily antisemitic, it can be based on utopian anti-statism or merely ignorance of what international law constitutes and is not always a denial of Jewish rights to self-determination. (cough cough Fatah)[16] One the other hand there is a genuine debate about whether things like boycotts of Israel are antisemitic, distinguishing things like BDS intending to destroy Israel and boycotts specific to settlements motivated by the genuine belief that they contribute to peace. In particular there is the equation of anti-Israel boycotts (another article needing work) with anti-Jewish ones. For example, the argument that boycotts of settlements are anti-semitic because they are only applied to Israel and not Turkey or Armenia et al is debated even between zionists, some regarding it as malicious singling out of Israel and others thinking it is motivated by patronizing attitudes which set higher standards for Israel as a "Western state". My point is this is not a matter of if anti-zionism is antisemitic but when it is, which this article doesn't answer.--Monochrome_Monitor 00:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You win!

...This press barnstar. Cause you got mentioned for your Wikimedia commons upload of the Gezer Calendar on a Times of Israel article. Kind of ironic, eh?

		The Press Barnstar
		Officially awarded by --Monochrome_Monitor 21:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC) for your honorable mention in this article

Help with MEMRI?

Hello, Oncenawhile.

I am an employee of the Middle East Media Research Institute. The organization is seeking updates to our article, but we know we should not make changes ourselves, so we are looking for the help of others.

I see from the edit history that you have worked on the article in the past and made constructive changes. Would you be willing to look at new changes I’ve proposed for the "Projects" section? I posted a message on the Talk page last month. There's been some responses to it, but I'd like other points of view. Additionally, I have posted a very simple correction to the "Languages" section here.

If you have time, I'd be interested in your feedback. Thank you. R at MEMRI (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Your revert

I suggest you self-revert because there were no consensus for repeated removal of the Map.And you can't restore reverted edit till consensus is gained per notice on the talk page.--Shrike (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

AE

[17]--Shrike (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

One of the admin comments suggests to me that you might still get some credit for reverting your last change at Jordanian occupation of the West Bank. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of annexations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Papua. 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) 09:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: requested move

I've replied to your requested move at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jordanian_occupation_of_the_West_Bank#Requested_move_23_March_2017

I hope it works. The Transhumanist 21:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Borders of Jordan

Hi, I'm Teblick. Oncenawhile, thanks for creating Borders of Jordan!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Material from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/jordan/borders.htm must either be shown as a quotation or paraphrased.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Eddie Blick (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Mapai-arabic.png

That file isn't a photograph, so the tag you placed on it isn't applicable. Is there any other basis for claiming the file is PD? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz:, the same copyright law (see clause 3) applies a term of 50 years to all other works (including printed works). The automatic Israel tag states photos only but really should be broadened. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Clause 3 gives the term as "the life of the author and a period of fifty years after his death", not simply fifty years. Photographs are an exception to this general rule. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

As a political poster, the copyright would be held by the political organization itself, not any of its employees. So there cannot be an after death period to add. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI

I have reported your behavior here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello: request for feedback on proposal for "Palestine-Israel conflict" article

I noticed you are a relatively frequent editor of that article and so..... since I am very new here to "serious" contributing on WP and so rather than just try to go and create what I propose and then submit it; I instead wish for feedback on how substantive and possibly useful what I suggest might be, here is what I am thinking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#Hello.2C_new_here.2C_and_I_perceive_a_GRAVE_.28.26_not_even_mentioned_offhand.29_total-omission_of_the_possible_actual_ancient_root_of_this_conflict

Yes I now realize the word "grave" is too much. Tell me what you think. Thank you for time and attention. Sinsearach (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Six day war

Hi. I noticed that you did a lot of work on the Balfour declaration article because of the upcoming 100 year anniversary. I'll try to help out a bit with copywriting and stuff, as I get the time. The Six Day war also has its (50th) anniversary coming up. Are you planning to work on that article too? It's not even a GA, so might be a lower hanging fruit. Though, of course, it's probably more controversial as well. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I once tried to overhaul it but met stiff opposition from the outset. The SDW does need a lot of work because, from memory, it overrelies on one specific historian, who has a known agenda.Nishidani (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Also the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine has its 70th anniversary this year. All three would be good candidates for a WP:IPCOLL collaboration. The Six Day War is the one I know least about, and in particular have less of a feel for where each of the various scholars sit on the spectrum.

At this point my focus is getting Balfour over the line, because I think it's not far away now and it would be good for wikipedia to have such a high profile Israel-Palestine article reaching featured status, and a front page listing on 2 November might even attract more new editors into the I-P arena.

If anyone has time to lead on improving the other two anniversary articles, I would be more than happy to help with the effort. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

November 2 is All Souls Day, of course.:)Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

thanks

File:Pie.jpeg

DarjeelingTea (talk) has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Thanks for expanding the background section of 2017 state visit of the United States to the United Kingdom so thoroughly. DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rózsika Rothschild, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Karlsbad and Labour Party. 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) 10:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Balfour Mission

Hello! Your submission of Balfour Mission at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

This is a courtesy notice to let you know I have posted at ANI to get further input on the Balfour Declaration citation question. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Balfour Declaration. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Balfour Mission

On 14 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Balfour Mission, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the Balfour Mission 100 years ago, Arthur Balfour became the first Englishman to address both houses of the U.S. Congress? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Balfour Mission. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Balfour Mission), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from editing other people's comments

Please refrain from editing other people's comments, for example here where you edited the discussion to place bullet points in front of everyone else's comments to match your own comment. Bright☀ 13:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

List of Palestinians

Hey there! Saw your response. The area in the times of Jesus was vastly known as Judea & Samaria, not Palestine or Palaestina (Roman name) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea).

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea, "The name Judea is a Greek and Roman adaptation of the name "Judah", which originally encompassed the territory of the Israelite tribe of that name and later of the ancient Kingdom of Judah. Nimrud Tablet K.3751, dated c.733 BCE, is the earliest known record of the name Judah (written in Assyrian cuneiform as Yaudaya or KUR.ia-ú-da-a-a).

Judea was sometimes used as the name for the entire region, including parts beyond the river Jordan.[6] In 200 CE Sextus Julius Africanus, cited by Eusebius (Church History 1.7.14), described "Nazara" (Nazareth) as a village in Judea"

Moreover, until 1968 people did not identify themselves as Palestinian; One of many evidence that clarify that is the UN partition plan, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#/media/File:UN_Palestine_Partition_Versions_1947.jpg) Which describes the two states as Jewish and Arab, and not Jewish and Palestinian.

The article at speak is named "List of Palestinians" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinians), which leads the reader to think that Jesus, was in fact, Palestinian.

The name Palestinian, that indicates of course, nationality, suggests that he was a citizen of the Kingdom of Palestine (which never existed) or the State of Palestine (which was formed in 1988), which he was not. It is widely known that Jesus was a Jew, that lived in Judea, born in Bethlehem, which was part of the Judean Kingdom.

According to the WikiPedia article of "Bethlehem": "Archaeological confirmation of Bethlehem as a city in the Kingdom of Judah was uncovered in 2012 at the archaeological dig at the City of David in the form of a bulla (seal impression in dried clay) in ancient Hebrew script that reads "From the town of Bethlehem to the King," indicating that it was used to seal the string closing a shipment of grain, wine, or other goods sent as a tax payment in the 8th or 7th century BCE."

Hope that clears the issue, Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matanos112233 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Mistake

I have reverted you on the talk page by mistake of course.Sorry about that. Shrike (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)