Talk:Tomer

illegality

Sandstein's closure does not call for the removal of any text from any article. A change requires consensus, so if you would like to establish a consensus to remove the only referenced piece of information from the article you can do that. What you cant do is remove it and then say this now needs a case by case discussion. nableezy - 14:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed material citing Wiki policy to explain my edit. This was the basis for my removal and not as you inaccurately state, the need for case by case discussion. This was only referenced to make clear that there are no rigid and strictly enforced rules to be applied concerning settlement legality. My objections are:

• WP:DUE - There is already an article discussing the legality of settlements which can be linked to and to repeat it here in a minor settlement of which there has been no notable legality controversies is undue.
• WP:SYNTH - The source used is not directly pertaining to Tomer - per WP:OR, "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." This has not been achieved, and information relating to settlements at large should not be included.Ankh.Morpork 12:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If a source says that all Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, that source is directly related to the legal status of this and every other Israeli settlement. The most note-worthy fact about most of these settlements, and currently the only sourced fact about this one, is that they are illegal under international law. A change requires consensus, and you certainly do not have consensus for your change. I specifically asked Sandstein this question regarding his close, his response: As to the relevance of the "no consensus" outcome, the proposal under discussion can be read to (at least implicitly) ask for an editorial alteration, i.e., the systematic removal of the text at issue. I found that there was no consensus for such a systematic removal, and as a result of this, in accordance with the policy you cited, my closing statement did not call for any change to any article. I also found that there was no consensus for the systematic retention (or inclusion) of the text, and this finding also does not require any changes to articles - but it does open the way, in my view, to subsequent case-by-case discussion. In other words, a "no consensus" outcome means no consensus for changes to articles. If you want to discuss this case-by-case feel free, but the content stands until there is consensus to remove it. nableezy - 13:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"If a source says that all Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, that source is directly related to the legal status of this and every other Israeli settlement." Incorrect. It directly relates to settlements in general but not to a specific place, and to insert generalities in a specific article is synthesis and undue. By your argument, if I had a source discussing Israel, Earth, or the Milky Way, this could also be construed as directly related to this specific article.

Are you stating that all old settlement articles must keep this text, but all new ones would require a consensus before this is added? This is an inconsistent approach to exactly the same issue. Please clarify this. Ankh.Morpork 13:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect (see I can do that too!). To claim that the only piece of referenced material in an article is "UNDUE" boggles the mind. I am saying that a change requires consensus. Sandstein said the same. I've seen your self-confidence in the past, Im sure you can parse the quote from Sandstein as well as I can. nableezy - 13:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on the arguments raised and expand upon your "boggles the mind" rebuttal. And apply your parsing skills to WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" and comment on whether you agree that "Reverting a bold contribution solely on the basis of "no consensus" is a sign that the reverter simply did not like the edit." Ankh.Morpork 13:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thats funny. WP:CONSENSUS, a Wikipedia policy, says the following: In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus commonly results in no change being made to the article. What a user essay says doesn't really change that. But I have already addressed your concerns. That you do not accept my replies doesn't really concern me as I don't accept your concerns as valid either. The sentence in the article is not synthesizing anything, exactly what it says is contained in a single reliable source. The most notable fact about this colony is that it was illegally established in occupied Palestinian territory. Nothing that you have written above changes that, and given that there was consensus for this material to be placed in this article, you need consensus to remove it from this article. Toodles, nableezy - 14:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

So to confirm:

• Are you of the view that you have adequately addressed and refuted all the points mentioned and this is the full extent of your position?
• Does your dismissive response to the cited user essay acknowledge that you are in violation of it, but that it lacks binding authority?Ankh.Morpork 16:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

How does somebody violate a user essay? And no, I am not reverting due to no consensus, I am reverting because you removed what may be the only noteworthy fact about this colony. That there is no consensus for your edit is just another reason you should not have made it. And in case you had not noticed, a second source was added that discusses Tomer and makes the remark that the settlements are illegal. And now I'll be adding this report by the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People which a. notes that the UN (GA and SC) have repeatedly affirmed that all settlements are illegal, and b. includes Tomer in its list of settlements. Anything else? nableezy - 16:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You obviously have not considered my objection if you are of the view that the second source that you added which states again in general terms that settlements are illegal somehow addresses my concerns.

"That there is no consensus for your edit is just another reason you should not have made it." - And how exactly is one supposed to assess consensus for a edit before it is even made? Ankh.Morpork 16:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

A source discussing Tomer says that the settlements are illegal, and you claim it is still SYNTH to, in the article on Tomer, say that the settlements are illegal? Really? And how does one assess consensus? I dont know, they could read Sandstein's closure that said "no consensus". Or they can recognize now that there is in fact "no consensus". Be "bold" all you like, and by all means, use that disingenuous reason to claim that your edit was acceptable, but you knew what you were doing, you knew that there was no consensus for that, and you did it anyway. Im not playing these games with you, sorry. nableezy - 16:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This source [1] doesn’t even mention Tomer so its usage here represents SYNTH and Original Research. Your second source from the "Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People" is a patently biased source. The so-called "Committee" is composed of the following States: Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, Cyprus, Ecuador, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Namibia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine and Venezuela. The Observers are: Algeria, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, China, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, African Union, League of Arab States, Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and Palestine

With the possible exception of Cyprus, there is not a single Western nation represented on that committee. This committee was formed in 1975, the same year that the UN passed its infamous "Zionism is Racism" resolution. As an aside, it is also a primary source.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The first source is the one in use across all articles. It is the one that gained consensus for use in the initial discussion. Whether or not an official UN committee contains Western nations is irrelevant to the fact that they are an official UN committee. As far as the claim that it is a "primary source", I was unaware that this UN committee was directly involved in the establishment of these colonies. This claim of bias is a most refreshing new argument. There has yet to have been a single reliable source presented, in any of the tens of discussions that have been had on this topic, that actually disputes what the articles say. That is, for all these claims of bias and POV, nobody has yet provided a single source that actually disputes the line. This was true at the discussion that led to the line being inserted, true at any number of individual articles where this line, or one close to it, was edit-warred over without cause, and was true at a discussion at Talk:International law and Israeli settlements, and it is still true here and now. But Ill repeat one last thing. Sandstein's closure of that discussion as "no consensus" is not a mandate to remove the line from any article. nableezy - 22:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Per Sandstein "On these grounds, I conclude that there is no consensus about whether this sentence should be systematically included in all articles (or systematically removed from any articles in which it may be present). My interpretation of this outcome is that it allows a case-by-case discussion as to how or whether the matter that is the subject of the sentence should be addressed in each article." Plain meaning. Each article stands on its own and is to be decided on a case by case basis i.e. whether the text should be included at all and if so, what should the text consist of and where it should be placed.

You're barely 4 days off your topic ban and already your causing disruption to the topic area. You barely made any substantive edits when you were banned, (probably less than 5) despite that nonsense line you gave to Ed about wanting to work on something (But I do ask that you choose to make it a month topic ban instead of a block, there is some work I would like to put in elsewhere.) Remember that line nab? So you were given your topic ban, no block, where's the work, eh? I and others can't possibly compete with the amount of time you spend filibustering on Wikipedia as an SPA. What is your purpose here?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

As for your comment, "official UN committee," what do you mean by "official?" The UNHRC is also an "official UN committee" and has been severely criticized for blatant bias, by the Secretary General no less. No reputable organization takes that body seriously, especially when it comes to its vilification of Israel, to the exclusion of all other nations on the face of this planet. Your source is as biased as they come and belongs nowhere near an encyclopedia. Why don't you post it on your blog or something.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me for giving your belief that I am "causing disruption in the topic area" the exact worth it deserves, as I also do for everything that you wrote that has nothing to do with this article. I quoted from Sandstein above, Ill do it again for those unwilling to look up: As to the relevance of the "no consensus" outcome, the proposal under discussion can be read to (at least implicitly) ask for an editorial alteration, i.e., the systematic removal of the text at issue. I found that there was no consensus for such a systematic removal, and as a result of this, in accordance with the policy you cited, my closing statement did not call for any change to any article. I also found that there was no consensus for the systematic retention (or inclusion) of the text, and this finding also does not require any changes to articles - but it does open the way, in my view, to subsequent case-by-case discussion. In other words, a "no consensus" outcome means no consensus for changes to articles. I already know your purpose here, so I wont ask that same question of you. My purpose here, at this article, is to ensure the most noteworthy fact about this illegal colony remains in the "encyclopedia article" covering it. Finally, the day I take lessons in sourcing from somebody that put this piece of crap source into an encyclopedia article, or who argued, endlessly, that a collection of news sources trumped a current census on the size of a city is the day I shoot myself in the head. It might happen, but probably not. Toodles, nableezy - 23:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please address my previous point,

"If a source says that all Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, that source is directly related to the legal status of this and every other Israeli settlement." Incorrect. It directly relates to settlements in general but not to a specific place, and to insert generalities in a specific article is synthesis and undue. By your argument, if I had a source discussing Israel, Earth, or the Milky Way, this could also be construed as directly related to this specific article. Ankh.Morpork 00:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I already did. I gave you the same answer you gave me, that being "incorrect". But if you want me to elaborate, I can do that. Let's put it this way, if a source says that all the planets in the solar system orbit the sun, it is not synthesis to say that planets in the solar system orbit the sun in the Earth article. Which is pretty much an exact analogy to what is done here. nableezy - 00:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(Thank you for explaining your position to me.) But Tomer forms part of Earth so based on the source, one could also correctly conclude that 'Tomer orbits the sun'. Would you state that this factually accurate statement could be included in this article and if not, why not? Ankh.Morpork 11:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, because that logic doesnt work. Tomer is not a planet in the solar system. The imagined source said Planets in the solar system rotate the sun. It did not say Localities on the surface of planets in the solar system rotate the sun. If a source did say that, then I suppose it could be used fir the sentence you give above. Here, in this article, Tomer, and each settlement, is analogous to planets in the solar system, and illegal under international law is analogous to rotates the sun. I admit it has been quite a few years since the SATs, so forgive me if the syntax is incorrect, but in test-speak, "Tomer" is to "Earth" what "illegal under international law" is to "rotates the sun". But even that misses a somewhat crucial subtlety. I said the source could be used in the Earth article to say that planets in the solar system orbit the sun. I did not however say that it should be used to say that Earth rotates the sun. Similar to here, the sentence only says what the source says, nothing more than that, no extrapolation needed. nableezy - 19:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

1. The orbit of 'localities on surface of planets' is a valid inference from the 'orbit of a planet' statement and and you present a specious distinction as the two cannot be differentiated. When are the orbits not equivalent?
2. Moreover, this facile differentiation do not affect the principle in question, namely, can one insert general themes into specific instances, without a source making the link.

On this, you have offered conflicting views.

You state that "If a source did say that (Localities on the surface of planets in the solar system rotate the sun) , then I suppose it could be used fir the sentence you give above.(Tomer orbits the sun)" This suggests that you do not require a source to be specifically discussing the subject of the article to warrant inclusion and satisfy DUE and SYNTH.

Yet you continue, "I did not however say that it should be used to say that Earth rotates the sun". This implies that you accept that there needs to be a direct source relevance if referring to the specific example.

What emerges is that while you agree that the specific example should not be referred with only general sources, you opine that the general theme still can be included the article since "the sentence only says what the source says, nothing more than that, no extrapolation needed." This is a ludicrous position. I have many fascinating factoids on Middle Eastern flora, the Earth' crust layer and soil composition. Are you actually stating that if I find sources which discuss these in a general way which encompass Tomer (such as 'localities on the surface of planets',(your example) 'regions on Earth', 'Middle Eastern places', or indeed settlements) this should be included in the Tomer article?! I hope you can clarify a most ridiculous and contrived position. Ankh.Morpork 20:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thats a bit of a bastardization of my comments. And no, it is not a specious distinction, and somebody engaging in a good-faith discussion would not characterize it as such. I think it would not violate SYNTH for you to cite a source saying Localities on the surface of planets in the solar system rotate the sun, though I think it would be wiser to just use it to say Localities on the surface of planets in the solar system rotate the sun. But if you had such a source, I wouldnt be opposing using it to say that Tomer rotates the sun. But all this is sophistry. This isnt about some random plant, or an inane comment on a city being on planet Earth. This is about what is probably the most notable thing about this colony, what may be the only reason any source would even mention this place. That is, the fact that this place was illegally established in occupied territory is one of the most, if not the most, notable aspects of this place. And it is currently the only thing in the entire article that has any sources at all.

Lastly, I have so far neglected to provide you with my views on the quality, or motivation, for your edits. I will not continue to bite my tongue if I have to read you, of all people, making such comments. Unless you would like me to return the favor, kindly stop. nableezy - 21:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again, you declare the risible view that the Tomer article can include any general sentiment that refers to an encompassing generality such as "settlements", "Localities on the surface of planets" or "regions on Earth". The absurd implications of such a view have been pointed out to you previously. Do you stand by this view?

You then attempt to introduce a new argument of notability to justify inclusion. How do we assess the notability of the legality of specific Judean and Samarian cities, where sources do not discuss this. This is not determined by your personal view. Ankh.Morpork 22:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a patently absurd argument, and you make it seemingly purposely. I have not said that the Tomer article can include any general sentiment, I have said, in the analogy, that Tomer is to Earth what "illegal under international law" is to "rotates the sun". I am not the one that said that you can say that "Tomer rotates the sun" sourced to something that says "planets in the solar system rotate the sun". That is, I am not the one that has declared the risible view, you are. But let's get this straight. If you were to actually find a scholarly article that says All localities on Earth rotate the sun then you could include that statement in every article on every town, city, illegal colony on the planet. That is what I have said, and you know full well that is what I have said. As to your final set of questions, international law as applied to 300 BC isn't exactly my specialty, sorry. But as far as such a discussion concerns Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories, we can look at how reliable sources treat the issue. For example, the BBC has a style guideline which says the following: Settlements are residential areas built by Israelis in the occupied territories. They are illegal under international law: this is the position of the UN Security Council and the UK government among others - although Israel rejects this. When writing a story about settlements we can aim, where relevant, to include context to the effect that "all settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this". (emphasis in original) That's one way to deal with such an issue. Finally, prevalence among sources? There are currently 3 sources in Tomer, 2 of them specifically mention Tomer and discuss the illegality of the settlements. There are exactly 0 other sources cited about Tomer. So you tell me, what's the proportion of sources here? nableezy - 06:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you state that I am continuously misrepresenting you, I shall provide a series of hypothetical statements attributed to reliable sources and request you comment on their suitability for inclusion in this article. I am trying to isolate how you view the suitability of general themes to be included in specific articles, when no source makes this direct link. For the purpose of this, assume that there are no other sources on these issues - this will eliminate extraneous 'notability' reasoning.

Sources state	Proposed inclusion in Tomer article	Nableezy's verdict
Regions in the Middle East have unusual stratigraphic foraminiferal assemblages	Regions in the Middle East have unusual stratigraphic foraminiferal assemblages	?
All localities on Earth orbit the sun	All localities on Earth orbit the sun	?
All localities on Earth orbit the sun	Tomer orbits the sun	?
Israeli settlements are illegal	Israeli settlements are illegal	?
Places in the Northern hemisphere experience the coriolis effect causing objects to turn right	Places in the Northern hemisphere experience the coriolis effect causing objects to turn right	?

In my view, your argument shifted from 'of course generalities can always be included since "the sentence only says what the source says, nothing more than that, no extrapolation needed"' to a more qualified 'they can be included but only when they are notable.' The purpose of the above is to assess which of these positions you ascribe to. Ankh.Morpork 12:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to isolate how [I] view the suitability of general themes to be included in specific articles you can ask me on my user talk page where I can ignore you at my leisure. Here, we are talking about including the well-sourced fact that Israeli settlements violate international law. I will no longer deal with hyperbolic analogies, so if you would like to get back to the point where you are arguing for the removal of the only sourced piece of material in the entire article, we can do that. nableezy - 15:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That is your prerogative. I was scrutinising one of the reasons why you said this content should be included. I thought my recent efforts were a useful way of elucidating your position. Since you are unwilling to continue this particular discussion, especially when I have provided clear opportunity to clarify once and for all your views, one cannot help surmising the reasons for this decision. Ankh.Morpork 15:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I have "elucidated" my position, several times. However, you continue to distort what I have said, so I do not intend to continue allowing you to do so. We are talking about a specific sentence here, not any general statement that could conceivably appear in a book. nableezy - 15:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. If you are apprehensive about providing unequivocal Yes or No answers to a series of statements, one might suppose there is good reason for such reluctance. Ankh.Morpork 15:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again, I do not plan on continuing with your repeated attempts to erect straw man arguments so that you can avoid the actual argument being made. Tomer is not a planet of the solar system, it is not a region in the Middle East, it is an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank. Sources. an abundance of them, say that Israeli settlements in the West Bank violate international law. That is relevant, obviously so, to this article. That is a "notable controversy" about this and every other settlement. It is one of the only reasons places like this ever appear in international news sources. But no matter, another source will be added in about 10 seconds. You want to argue about this one too? nableezy - 15:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with its removal, as outlined above and in the RFC, unless a source is found referring specifically to Tomer. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't this source say that Tomer is a Jewish settlement and that such settlements are illegal under international law? Tiamut^talk 19:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

No Ankh.Morpork 22:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

From the article: "In the Jewish settlement of Tomer, north of Jericho, Danny Maimoun has built a $2.5m (£1.25m) operation selling sweet peppers and spring onions. [...] Israeli farms tend to be either secular or religious in outlook, whether they are within settlements deemed illegal under international law (a view disputed by Israel) or in legitimate farming communities within Israel's pre-1967 borders." (bolding by me). --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

So to be clear, you are emphasising that the source does not state that Tomer is an illegal settlement? Ankh.Morpork 12:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It states that Tomer is a Jewish settlement and that such settlements are illegal under international law, just as Tiamut said. --Frederico1234 (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It allows for the possibility of settlements being illegal, it does not asseverate that all settlements are illegal. Ankh.Morpork 12:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Funny. That's an either/or statement. The farms are either in town within Israel proper, or they are in illegal settlements. Tomer is one of those illegal settlements. But that is such a pedantic point to argue, given the sources that explicitly say that all settlements in the occupied territories are illegal, that I am more than a bit amused that you actually made it. nableezy - 15:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Colonies, Nableezy colonies. You're slipping up by referring to them as farms or settlements. Ankh.Morpork 15:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The RFC did not call for any such removal, so basing removal on the RFC is curious. nableezy - 19:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I improved the article by adding references. It's tough to find top-notch references on such small towns like this, but for the information that was already there it was just basically finding references for it, and it should be fine. I agree with Ankh's view regarding the boilerplate language. I agree with his arguments, but also Sandstein's verdict was that this type of stuff should be done on a case-by-case basis. His verdict wasn't simply that every article should keep the boilerplate language. What Nableezy is saying is for every article about an Israeli settlement to have the boilerplate language, but clearly that isn't necessary according to Sandstein. In an article like this, about some obscure town, the boilerplate language is unnecessary and inflammatory, and belongs more appropriately in a general article about Israeli settlements (and it is there). For this small town of 483, with just a few facts about it, such boilerplate language is unnecessary, in accordance of Sandstein's verdict that there can be cases where the boilerplate language is removed, rather than keeping it in all articles. --Activism1234 18:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The 'boil' in "boilerplate" does not imply 'inflammatory' matter. The detail, as with all settlements, is a fact. Facts are not 'inflammatory' and repeating this meme from our discussion is, well, boilerplate.Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a disputed fact appropriate for an extended discussion in the appropriate page relating to Israeli settlements. It is not necessary in regards to this tiny obscure community. Per Sandstein, there are clearly cases where the boilerplate language can be removed, and this is an example of one. --Activism1234 20:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

That is an unequivocally false statement, and I suggest you ask Sandstein if what you attribute to him is in fact what his close meant. nableezy - 05:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

There are clearly suitable cases where such boilerplate language is unnecessary. Otherwise he would've simply kept it on all the articles. --Activism1234 13:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy is requesting you to ask Sandstein what his conclusion was, not to make inferences as to what Sandstein might have had in mind. Nishidani (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't make any inferences. I said it's clear that there are cases where the boilerplate language isn't necessary - as shown by Sandstein's decision to make it a case-by-case basis. Each case is different.--Activism1234 21:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I was just quickly looking at a page that mentioned people protesting against the Gaza blockade. It was just a picture with a breif caption. I wonder if we should write after each time the words "Gaza blockade" are mentioned "The United Nations Palmer Report considers the blockade legitimate and necessary, but certain people/organizations dispute this?" The answer, of course, is no. That's more appropriate in a page about the Gaza blockade and the UN Palmer Report. But you can see the comparison I'm making. If we're going to do it with one, let's do it for the other. --Activism1234 21:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You wrote Per Sandstein, there are clearly cases where the boilerplate language can be removed, and this is an example of one. That remains an unequivocally false statement, and if you feel that you properly represented Sandstein's close you can go ask him. I would very much like to see that happen as WP has been lately rather devoid of good comedy. Finally, as regards your comparison, assuming that one pretends that there is an international consensus on the legality of blockade, that comparison falls flat. Because we are not saying that every mention of the words Israeli settlement in every article include that the settlements are illegal. We are however saying that in the actual articles on the settlements, that the fact that they are illegal (and even that gets watered down to regarded as illegal) should be included. So I am sorry, truly and with not a whiff of sarcasm, but your analogy does not hold. And, in case you have not noticed, a source was brought that explicitly says that Tomer is an illegal settlement. nableezy - 21:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Before I bother reading the rest of your comment, you may want to consider to stop writing false things about a statement I make. If you would read the statement correctly, you'd notice I say "Per Sandstein, there are clearly cases where the boilerplate language can be removed." The next part, "And this is an example of one" does not imply anywhere that according to Sandstein it is. Still can't realize that? Why don't you look and see one of my next edits, where I write Sandstein said it's a case-by-case basis. So unless I'm bipolar, it's pretty clear that I made two different statements that were in conjunction with each other but weren't the same. It's clear there will be cases where this boilerplate language can be removed - otherwise it would've just been kept. And equally clearly, although Sandstein didn't say this (although you would like to accuse me of having him say it), this is one of those cases. I've had enough of you making false accusations, assumptions, generalizations, and inferences about me, without even stopping to reconsider and re-read a statement. It's disturbing to say the least. --Activism1234 21:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The claim that Per Sandstein, there are clearly cases where the boilerplate language can be removed. is likewise an unambiguous falsehood. Toodles. nableezy - 23:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy, since you make the argument at Talk:Argaman that the boilerplate should be included even where sources do not link this to a specific article, can you explain how this generality differs from the other examples listed above. Ankh.Morpork 22:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Really, again? Were my previous refusals to play the game of Ankh knocks down a straw man not clear enough? nableezy - 23:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought we were playing Slippery eel Nableezy but hey, if you're bored of this game, you're welcome to fill in your lovely worksheet. Ankh.Morpork 23:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thats nice, but Im not playing any games, and you dont assign me homework. nableezy - 23:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

please add

please add

• Tomer Kapon (born 1985), Israeli film and television actor

--2604:2000:E010:1100:E4E0:1C0:7B01:61F3 (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Request denied. Having the same first name as a Moshav is not sufficient reason for a See Also. Zero^talk 11:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

It belongs on Tomer (name), and I have added it there - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

The Dutch right-wing populist MP Geert Wilders has worked in this moshav in his youth, which seems notable enough for a mention.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MatryoshkaNL (talk • contribs) 13:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

To editor MatryoshkaNL:  done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 01:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, no, it is far far below notable enough for a mention and the quotation provides no useful information about Tomer. Put it on Geert Wilders if you want (but don't be surprised if editors there don't like it either). Zero^talk 02:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)