User talk:Ashley kennedy3/Archive. 2008-2009

Not the place

This is not the place to complain about writing for the enemy. Unless you have learned to write for the enemy...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

JIDF

Thank you JIDF for giving recognition of my work and showing why it is essential to continue editing. The JIDF web site list indicates by its title (List of Heavily Biased Anti-Israel Wikipedia Editors **UPDATED**) that JIDF is not looking for anti-Semitism but only trying to impose a strong pro-Israeli POV...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're spying on them, Ashley ol'chum, drop me a link from time to time. I just can't stir myself up to overcome a natural laziness in following that site. It bores me stiff, . . .not in the erotic sense.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noted itNishidani (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Have I been too obvious? [1].....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What profile? Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

JIDF links to Glen Reinsford run site [2]

Re things not mentioned, hebron

St.Luke's hospital there was founded originally as part of a Scottish mission to convert both Jews and Mohammedans, and was run from 1893 onwards by a quixotic figure, for some decades. His life, and apparently a lot of detail about Hebron, can be found in an otherwise rare book that however should be accessible if the Brits have an inter-library loan service. I'm referring to William Ewing, Paterson of Hebron, "the Hakim": Missionary Life in the Mountain of Judah, J. Clarke, 1930. I've a fair bit of data on Paterson, but only from secondary sources like Michael Marten's Attempting to Bring the Gospel Home: Scottish Missions to Palestine, 1839-1917, I.B.Tauris, 2006 pp.99-115 (two photos). Missionary Scottish Pat(t)ersons get around: there was one in my favourite country, Tibet. Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Re books

Don't want to burden you with my own interest, A. Just correcting a wee mispelling on your bibliopage. But have you ever read anything by Raul Hilberg? I think he is one of the greatest historians, ranking up there with Gibbon, Thucydides, Tacitus, etc. If you ever find a copy of his 'Destruction of the European Jews', first or the bigger expanded editions, it's worth buying, and reading very slowly. A lot of detail, but it is the quality and temper of the analytic mind one admires, and can learn much from. Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ever dependable. Fanks, guv. Surprised Sheikh Jarrah =French Hill, the former often mentioned in municipal reports, the laterr wiki page no clear mention of it. Still, for starters. . .Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion looks like it might help. Post a note there? Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Burqin

Punishing a Nation: Human Rights Violations During the Palestinian Uprising, December 1987-December 1988 : a Report By Law in the Service of Man (Organization : Rām Allāh), Al Haq Staff Law In The Service Of Man Published by South End Press, 1990 ISBN 0896083780 p256

Banias

The Book of Enoch indicates that the sanctity of the area was well established. The heterodoxy of the northern kingdom of Israel is well atested.

The East Ghor canal project was part of a unified plan, suggested by minister Lahoud of Lebanon, for the irrigation of 10,000 ha in Jordan.

see also

Water politics in the Middle East

suggested further reading on water issues

Water for the Future: The West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israel, and Jordan By U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Inc NetLibrary, Jamʻīyah al-ʻIlmīyah al-Malakīyah, Committee on Sustainable Water Supplies for the Middle East, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences (U.S.) Published by National Academies Press, 1999 ISBN 030906421X

Allan John Anthony, (2001) The Middle East Water Question: Hydropolitics and the Global Economy I.B.Tauris, ISBN 1860648134

Amery, Hussein A. and Wolf, Aaron T. (2000) Water in the Middle East: A Geography of Peace University of Texas Press, ISBN 029270495X

Stick to it

From Lucy Dean (2003) The Middle East and North Africa 2004 Taylor & Francis Group, Routledge, ISBN 1857431847,

Nevertheless appeared to have reined in its suicide bombers, giving its tacit support to its fragile cease-fire and stating that it would not unleash more suicide bombers on Israel as long as Israeli troops did not kill Palestinian civilians. However in early July both Islamic Jahad and Hamas formally declared an end to the truce.

turned into:- Hamas had appeared to have reined in its suicide bombers, while publicly giving conflicting messages as to its support of the truce.

plus of course your ref directly backs up the Guardian article on revenge attacks for Israeli forces slaughtering Palestinians. The article you deleted..Nocal...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Books

Schwarz, Yehoseph (1850) A Descriptive Geography and Brief Historical Sketch of Palestine Translated by Isaac Leeser A. Hart,

Geog incorrect, biblical refs incorrect, Crusaders period called Belinas.

van de Velde, Charles William Meredith (1854) Narrative of a Journey Through Syria and Palestine in 1851 and 1852 W. Blackwood and sons, p 425

Insignificant village subject to the Emir of Hasbeiya with the ruins of Caesarea Philippi being the only thing of any interest to European travellers, with the village houses clustered around the spring. Crusader period Belenas.

Kartic system of Banias

Frankish Rural Settlement in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem By Ronnie Ellenblum Published by Cambridge University Press, 2003 ISBN 0521521874 p 142 Bethgibelin

bad Faith Edits by Nudve

here What has the Hamas charter got to do with a line established in 1949?

check user of MINNESOTA using Comcast Cable Communications Holdings server

[3]

[96.253.38.233] [4]

Typical NoCal100 behaviour pattern.

Kayseri

Caesarea Philippi should not be confused with Caesarea Maritima, on the Mediterranean, (now Caesarea in Israel) or with Caesarea Mazaca in Cappadocia.

needs top piece

Greater Israel

Gorenberg, Gershom (2006) Occupied Territories: The Untold Story of Israel's Settlements I.B.Tauris, ISBN 1845114302 p 15

Kfar Etzion

Gorenberg, Gershom (2006) Occupied Territories: The Untold Story of Israel's Settlements I.B.Tauris, ISBN 1845114302 p 103 The last defenders blew themselves up.

November 2008

• • I have asked for another enwiki checkuser to review the evidence. Please note that per Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets, multiple accounts acting in tandem to evade blocks and bans may be treated as sockpuppets even if the actual people behind the account may be separate. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I have also run a check, and I endorse Avi's findings. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

BT Market share

Oldham coverage Central Manchester, greater Manchester, Stoke-on-Trent, Oldham, Leeds, Preston Basically the entire NW England.

Although now my IP is from Southport (even further away) Liverpool, Blackpool (due to attack on e-mail provider)

Odd...

Hi Ashley Kennedy3. I hope you are doing alright despite the weirdness above. I never have understood how the interpretation of Checkuser results work, but based on what you are saying, it seems you got dragged into a very tangly net. Is there anything I might be able to do to help? Tiamut^talk 16:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really Tiamut. During my week off for bad behaviour I went looking for like minded activists to aid a pro-Palestinian fight back. 1 took a few pieces off my talk page and used it. As Charles O'Sulivan and I share a ISP, the court decided he was a meat puppet. My own fault for recruiting someone from the north of England. I wouldn't worry too much I'm writing articles for inclusion as soon as the block comes off.

Thanks for looking in.

What's happened to nishidani? Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to say I miss your contributions! And I hope you liked the picture at Mamre ..I haven´t really looked much into the issue, but Tristram seem to operate with two different places? See [5]. And I agree with some others here: the difference between your treatment and, say, the Einsteindonut socking is ... staggering. Hold on there, take care. Regards, Huldra (talk) 10:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note...I'm not really interested in what happened to ESD...I am interested in getting back to work as I have quite a mass of articles prepared to drop in and extensions for others. Also you'll see the coords are building up.Ashley kennedy3 (talk)

[6] [7]

For al Ameer son

Although by the 1940s several women’s organisations had come into being in Jerusalem, my mother was never attracted to join. Even when friends like Trab Abdul-Hadi were involved. This woman, whom I was to meet living in exile in Cairo many years later had been one of the founders of the Women’s organisation, the Palestine Arab Women’s Congress. This was established in the late 1920s and was political in nature, a remarkable phenomenon for the conservative Arab society of that time.

The women who joined Tarab Abdul-hadi in setting it up came from those very notable Jerusalem families with whom my mother mixed, but she found their overt political activism not to her liking.

Karmi Ghada (2002) In Search of Fatima: A Palestinian Story Verso, ISBN 1859846947 p 31

looks like Jerusalem.

also:- Mahdī ʻAbd al-Hādī (1997) Palestine: Documents by PASSIA, Page 370

April 15: Arab women march to holy sites to protest Lord Allenby's visit. Tarab Abdul Hadi speaks in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and ...

Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

adding coordinates

I realize you're taking a little wikibreak right now, but when you get back I wanted to see if you would be able to help find coordinates for Category:West Bank articles missing geocoordinate data as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. I've done almost everything in that category, but there are still 24 locations left that I just can't find coordinates for. You seem to know the area better than I so I was hoping you could help out. Thanks in advance. --Bachrach44 (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ramallah city directory

Put the 24 up here and I'd be very pleased to check them out.

wiki break, very droll..I like it..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Here they are - thanks again.

to do

so much for 24

• Abraham Avinu Synagogue re-write the POV article and I'll give you the coords. It's barrel vaulted not domed.
• Al-Hamadiyya Mosque
• American School of Palestine (says Ramallah in the article? should that be Beitunia?) Phone number 2405929 Al-Jenan: Midraset Al-Amriciya Al-Falastiniya

Their website says Al-Bireh-Ramallah - I don't know anything more than that. Beitunia original, later one in al-Bireh? having fun at school

Another American School is Al Jenan School in Beitunia, near Ramallah. The school was built by two Palestinian Americans who retumed to Palestine.

The Middle East By Library Information and Research Service

Published by Library Information and Research Service., 1998 Item notes: v.21B 1998 p 146

• Baituna al-Talhami Museum Star street, which house on Star street? coords for Star Street 31° 42' 21.84 N 35° 12' 14.14 E (I don't know which house on star street) same place as Palestinian Heritage Center - Maha Saca?
• Burqin Church[8] The Manasseh Hill Country Survey: The Shechem Syncline By Adam Zertal Published by BRILL, 2004 ISBN 9004137564 p 105 32° 27' 31.13’’ N 35° 15' 35.80’’ E
• Khalil Sakakini Cultural Center 4 Raja Street, Ramallah
• Kastra arts centre Haifa 32° 47’ 17.18’’ N 34° 58’ 05.17’’ (not far from the Israeli elec company building)
• Church of the Nativity could do with adjusting to: 31° 42’ 15.50’’ N 35° 12’ 27.50’’
• Khader Grape Festival 31° 41’ 34.00’’ N 35° 09’ 59.00’’
• Har Homa the existing coords are very crude... should read 31° 43’ 31.00’’ N 35° 13’ 17.50’’
• Milk Grotto (officially Magharet Sitti Mariam, "Grotto of the Lady Mary" (see Shrines to the Virgin Mary 31° 42’ 13.88’’ N 35° 12’ 36.46’’
• Shuafat 31° 48’ 55.00’’ N 35° 13’ 48.00’’ (coords on article way out, due to transcription error; used coords of Laura of Euthymius please amend)
• Haifa auditorium 32° 47’ 28.07’’ N 34° 57’ 54.32’’
• Palestine Polytechnic University There are 4 campuses.
• St. Joseph's Girl's School, Ramallah 31° 54’ 19.34’’ N 35° 11’ 54.58’’ E
• Slabodka yeshiva[9]
• Monastery of Saint George, al-Khaderyou tube very good should be linked to in the article.
• Tell, Nablus 32° 12' 03.18’’ N 35° 12' 46.75’’ E
• Wadi Nisnas 32° 48' 58.67’’ N 34° 59' 46.65’’ E
• Wadi Salib 32° 48' 37.15’’ N 35° 00' 04.27’’ E

The 3,000 Arabs remaining in the city, circa 8.5% of the total urban population of 268,000 previously living in Haifa, balderdash! from the quoted reference 3,500 of the original Palestinian population of 70,000 (although in 1948 other pop estimates give 65,000 Palestinian and 70,000 Jewish) is 2.6% of the total pop of haifa. The pop as now is 8.5% Palestinian out of 268,000 (total for Haifa) or 22,750 ref given in article

• Marka refugee camp 32° 00' 32.86’’ N 36° 01' 13.71’’ E
• Haifa Oil Refinery massacre 32° 49' 22.27’’ N 35° 03' 25.90’’ E
• Netzarim 31° 28' 55.89’’ N 34° 24' 47.96’’ E
• al-Eizariya 31° 46' 12.08 N 35° 15' 51.76 E
• 'Arab al-Jahalin 31° 45' 50.64 N 35° 16' 51.44 E
• Ein Siniya 31° 58' 21.42 N 35° 13' 46.50 E (should read North of Ramallah not northeast)
• Nabi Salih 32° 01' 00.15 N 35° 07' 28.56 E
• Souf refugee camp 32° 18' 30.00 N 35° 53' 07.37 E
• Burham, Ramallah 31° 59' 20.98 N 35° 10' 28.55 E (al Almeer son you placed it on Atara)
• Sabbarin 32° 34' 16.09 N 35° 01' 23.15 E
• al-Issawiya 31° 47' 55.63 N 35° 14' 53.65 E
• Hamdon 32° 53' 06.16 N 35° 21' 57.58 E
• Kamanneh 32° 54' 39.74 N 35° 20' 19.31 E
• Tuba-Zangariyye 32° 57' 57.52 N 35° 35' 35.54 E (should read 8.5km east of Safed not 85)
• Bir al-Maksur 32° 46' 38.09 N 35° 13' 15.24 E
• Bu'eine Nujeidat 32° 48' 26.68 N 35° 22' 02.20 E
• Zalafa 32° 24' 10.11 N 34° 56' 47.46 E
• Dome of the Prophet 31° 46’ 41.30’’ N 35° 14’ 06.31’’ E
• Solomon's Stables 31° 46’ 34.92’’ N 35° 14’ 13.24’’ E
• Dome of the Chain 31° 46’ 41.00’’ N 35° 14’ 08.94’’ E
• Dome of the Ascension 31° 46’ 41.58’’ N 35° 14’ 05.96’’ E
• Dome of al-Khalili 31° 46’ 42.07’’ N 35° 14’ 05.63’’ E
• Dome of al-Nahawiyyah 31° 46’ 38.46’’ N 35° 14’ 06.27’’ E
• Islamic Museum 31° 46’ 33.87’’ N 35° 14’ 05.32’’ E
• Dome of Yusuf 31° 46’ 38.60’’ N 35° 14’ 07.17’’ E
• Fountain of Qasim Pasha 31° 46’ 38.39’’ N 35° 14’ 04.99’’ E
• Pool of Raranj 31° 46’ 38.72’’ N 35° 14’ 04.90’’ E
• Yibna 31° 51’ 58.18’’ N 34° 44’ 51.70’’ E
• Al-Qastal 31° 47’ 44.20’’ N 35° 08’ 39.07’’ E
• Kawkaba 31° 37’ 51.11’’ N 34° 39’ 46.21’’ E
• Sajad 31° 47’ 00.31’’ N 34° 53’ 34.00’’ E

District of Acre

• Majdal Yaba 32° 04' 49.69 N 34° 57' 20.97 E

Khan Yunis

• al-Fukhari 31° 17’ 42.43’’ N 34° 20’ 04.41’’ E
• Qa' al-Kharaba 31° 18’ 35.90’’ N 34° 18’ 18.87’’ E
• Qa' al-Qurein 31° 18’ 35.61’’ N 34° 19’ 10.65’’ E
• Qizan an-Najjar 31° 19’ 20.96’’ N 34° 17’ 31.92’’ E
• Umm Kameil 31° 17’ 58.42’’ N 34° 18’ 06.24’’ E
• Umm al-Kilab 31° 17’ 46.98’’ N 34° 17’ 32.12’’ E

Rafah

• al-Bayuk 31° 16’ 36.28 N 34° 17’ 52.07’’ E
• Tall as-Sultan 31° 19’ 19.05’’ N 34° 14’ 17.88’’ E
• Shokat as-Sufi 31° 15’ 31.12 N 34° 16’ 56.80’’ E
• al-Qarya as-Suwaydiya 31° 19’ 24.46 N 34° 13’ 14.93’’ E
• Rafah camp 31° 18’ 37.53’’ N 34° 14’ 23.93’’ E
• 2008 breach of the Gaza–Egypt border 31° 17' 22.96 N 34° 14' 34.56 E

Gaza

• al-Jondi al-Majhool (unknown soldiers garden Gaza, Omar al-Mukhtar street. 31° 31’ 09.13’’ N 34 26’ 41.14’’ E
• Madinat al-Awda 31° 32’ 46.14’’ N 34° 27’ 49.45’’ E
• Juhor ad-Dik 31° 27’ 13.94’’ N 34° 25’ 43.05’’ E
• Al-Mughraqa 31° 28’ 03.00’’ N 34° 24’ 35.00’’ E

North Gaza Governorate

• 'Izbat Beit Hanoun 31° 32’ 46.51’’ N 34° 31’ 22.92’’ E
• Al-Qaraya al-Badawiya al-Maslakh 31° 33’ 31.94’’ N 34° 31’ 11.13’’ E
• open university of Gaza 31° 20’ 56.01’’ N 34° 18’ 13.96’’ E
• Gaza Women University Link 31° 29’ 48.74’’ N 34 26’ 41.57’’ E

Deir al-Balah

• al-Musaddar 31° 24' 58.82’’ N 34° 22' 34.83’’ E Health facilities Gaza Strip
• Wadi as-Salqa 31° 23' 59.78’’ N 34° 20' 22.07’’ E
• az-Zawayda 31° 26' 25.00’’ N 34° 22' 55.00’’ E

• AAs 31° 31’ 25.54’’ N 35° 06’ 29.48’’ E
• SYH 31° 31’ 44.38’’ N 35° 05’ 57.58’’ E

--Bachrach44 (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• al-Hamra needs to be changed on the template to al-Hamra, Baysan 32° 25’ 39.31’’ N 35° 30’ 01.43’’ E

• MamreDenys Pringle, Peter E. Leach(1993) The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521390370 p 203 reference to the church being dedicated to Holy Trinity.
• Solomon's pools 31° 41' 20.27 N 35° 10' 11.63 E (should be removed from Solomon article and come under a separate article, as at the end of the day Solomon's pools has absolutely nothing to do with Solomon). I'll do an article on it when I get out of prison.
• Cypros Fortress 31° 50' 42.26’’ N 35° 25' 35.42’’ E (31.8451 N 35.4265 E) Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Land of Israel By Rachel Hachlili Published by Brill Archive, 1988 ISBN 9004081151 p 45

The Cambridge History of Judaism By W D Davies, Louis Finkelstein, William Horbury, John Sturdy, Steven T Katz Published by Cambridge University Press, 2006 ISBN 0521243777 p 24

• Khalil Sakakini Cultural Center needs working on and linking to Khalil al-Sakakini
• Sir, Tulkarm needs work
• Al-Tira (Haifa) expand.

(That's the style, Ashley, no whingeing yet responsive to requests for assistance for content while under sanction. In the Saxophonemn-Einsteindonut case, one month for a first offence of sockpuppetry was cut back very rapidly by administrative review, and yet neither of them contributed to Wiki as you have. There is no coherence in this. Still, 'chin up, and sit it out'. Whether sockpuppetry was involved or not, the appearance of the same existed, and that was the error. Admins have to judge on appearances as often as not. When they do, one should, as you have done, just take the rap. Never communicate to anyone off-line re edits. To do so is to play the game so evidently practiced by many. Cheers, pal.Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC))

These were on my list of to do anyway...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just had a thought is this meatpuppetry supplying coords to evade a block?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work. I've added most of them and will get to the rest later. As for meatpuppetry, I don't think this qualifies because:

• I asked you for help, not the other way around, so it would be hard to say you were using me. ([at this point read "evil laugh",] Oh no! with Tulkarm Governorate being centred on Umm Fahm I just claimed half of Galilee for the PA)
• Neither of us qualifies as a "new user"
• Most importantly, I'm not trying to influence any process and we're not working in concert to try and prove a point of influence a vote - we're just adding coordinates to articles. --Bachrach44 (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

From your comment on wiki break I anticipated humour appreciation, I tend to use irony quite a bit...We are trying to influence a process and we are working in concert, we are trying to improve wiki articles (if we're not then we shouldn't be here)...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism

• Category:Terrorism
• Palestine Media Watch

Categories: Israeli media | Palestinian media | Political organizations based in Palestine | Media analysis organizations | Arab world media | Iranian media | Turkish media | Middle East | Terrorism | Women's rights in the Middle East | Human rights in Arab League member countries | American Middle Eastern studies | Non-profit organizations |Non-governmental organizations involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict | United States-Middle Eastern relations | Israel–United States relations

• Category:Jewish terrorism
• Karim Khalaf(+) Acre Prison break(+) Menachem Begin(!) The Sergeants affair(+) Jewish Resistance Movement Nathan Yellin-Mor Avraham Stern Revisionist Zionism Uri Zvi Greenberg Israel Eldad Jacob Israël de Haan(+) Yitzhak Ben-Zvi Yitzhak Shamir Folke Bernadotte Uri Avnery Yosef Avni Yohanan Bader Aryeh Ben-Eliezer Shlomo Ben-Yosef Eliyahu Bet-Zuri Haim Corfu Meir Feinstein Dov Gruner Eliyahu Hakim Uzzi Ornan Ze'ev Jabotinsky Shmuel Katz Hillel Kook Mathilde Krim Haim Landau Eliyahu Lankin Yehuda Lapidot Eitan Livni Yaakov Meridor Elyada Merioz Shmuel Merlin Uzzi Ornan David Raziel Esther Raziel-Naor Zvi Segal Dov Shilansky Shmuel Tamir Avraham Tehomi Mordechai Tzipori

• Category:Victims of Jewish Terrorism +
• Category:Irgun members !
• Category:Israeli activists

Please reconsider the symbol you are using for Jewish Terrorism.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Victims of Jewish terrorism, I don't think there was any suggestion of money being involved. it was merely a symbol that to me, as British and to wiki coding, that had no meaning. It took me some time to work out why you may have found it offensive, now I hope you dont think that the plus sign is a Christian cross.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for changing this. I'm British too but I have an ethnicity that has suffered 2000 years of institutionalised Christian discrimination which for centuries restricted us to a small number of professions including, significantly, money-lending.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I inadvertently cause offence. The sign is/was used in coding for a 'string' (I used to as a self prompt for tying them together).Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What Price Israel?: 1953 - 2003 By Alfred M. Lilienthal Published by Buy Books on the web, 2004 ISBN 0741419270 p 81 King David Hotel. 30 minute warning. Begin claim.

Oh and peter 2000 years a wild exaggeration.

Oh my mistake the Theodosian Code which restricted Jews so that the only public office they could hold was that of tax collector came into effect in 404. So it dates back 1604 years.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And that affected precisely how many Jews of the total world Jewry and what other religious factions were being persecuted at the time?

Proposals for a Palestinian state

For the removal of Israelophile Myth, legends and general BS.

82% of the Yishuv were townies.

Chapter 3 Population

Census of 1922.The last census was taken in 1922, and showed the total population as being 757,182, of whom 590,890 were Mohammedans, 83,794 Jews and 82,498 Christians and others. The division between the town and agricultural population was as follows :

Town areas Mohammedans 139,074 Jews 68,622 Christians and others 56,621 Rural areas: Mohammedans 451,816 Jews 15,172 Christians and others 25,877

plus the Bedu population should also be added:

Distribution of population.In this estimate the Bedu population has been taken at the same figure as in 1922. The local distribution of this population is as follows :

Urban population 340,962 Rural population 501,968 Tribal population 103,331

Hope Simpson report Chapter 3 pages 24 to 29 Hope Simpson report

"Members of the fourth Aliyah which commenced in 1924 chose largely to live in the towns."..."The settlement movement was practically deadlocked and was not revived until the early 1930s." Anita Shapira (1984) Berl: The Biography of a Socialist Zionist, Berl Katznelson, 1887-1944 CUP Archive, ISBN 0521256186 p 154 & p 156

Jewish urban population 1948 Jerusalem 1948 80,000 Tel Aviv 1948 200,000 Haifa 1948 70,000 Tiberias 1948 6,000 Safed 1948 1,700 Netanya 1948 11,600 Peta Tikva 1948 22,000.

Benvenisti, Meron (2002) Sacred Landscape: The Buried History of the Holy Land Since 1948 Translated by Maxine Kaufman-Lacusta University of California Press, ISBN 0520234227 p 180

1948 83.3% of Israelis were townies.

ergo sum est the myth of the Israeli being a farmer/pioneer is dispelled.

Bethlehem

Historical map.

Coastal road raid

Force called Deir yassin A War of Words: Political Violence and Public Debate in Israel By Gerald Cromer Published by Routledge, 2004 ISBN 0714656313 p 30

relevance of Israeli documentation

Israeli and Palestinian Narratives of Conflict: History's Double Helix By Robert I. Rotberg Published by Indiana University Press, 2006 ISBN 0253218578 p 99

Deir Yassin

'Only the demented inhabit the alleys of Deir Yassin.The psychotic and the schizophrenic, the paranoid and the clinically depressed, are now the owners of Deir Yassin' Anton La Guardia (2002) War Without End: Israelis, Palestinians, and the Struggle for a Promised Land Thomas Dunne Books, ISBN 0312276699 p 195

revenge.Bregman Ahron (2002) Israel's Wars: A History Since 1947 Routledge, ISBN 0415287162, p 20

The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews By Benny Morris Published by I.B.Tauris, 2003 ISBN 1860649890 p 264 footnote 327

Israel and the American National Interest: A Critical Examination By Cheryl A. Rubenberg Published by University of Illinois Press, 1989 ISBN 0252060741 p 46. 2 Diff versions of Begin's Revolt. 1951 revolt no mention of 'Arab propaganda' 1970s version stops mentioning the 'good' Israel received and inserted 'Arab propaganda in place.

In Search of Fatima: A Palestinian Story By Ghada Karmi Published by Verso, 2004 ISBN 1859845614 p 125

Nasr, Kameel B. (1997) Arab and Israeli Terrorism: The Causes and Effects of Political Violence, 1936-1993 McFarland, ISBN 0786402806 p 22

Badd Giacaman Museum

Focus

Second Intifada, dead links

[10] alive again

PLO

After the appointment of Ariel Sharon to the post of Minister of defence in 1981, the Israeli government policy of allowing political growth to occur in the occupied West Bank and Gaza strip changed. The Israeli government tried, unsuccessfully, to dictate terms of political growth by replacing local pro-PLO leaders with an Israeli civil administration.

War of Independence

originally termed 'War of Liberation'

In a play on words, in Hebrew "War of Independence" ("Milhemet Atzmaut") is sometimes referred to as "War of Bones" ("Milhemet Atzamot"). RolandR (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It was also originally seen as a liberation from British colonialism....It was latter termed as War of Independence....The war of liberation started in 1945 with the Irgun declaration of war....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Shalit

On June 29, 2006, four days after Shalit was kidnapped, Israel arrested dozens of Hamas members throughout the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including eight ministers in the Hamas government and some 20 Hamas parliamentarians. Others were arrested in the following weeks.

Though Israel never said so officially, it was clear that this was retaliation for Shalit's abduction, and that the detainees were meant to serve as bargaining chips for his release. At the time, senior legal and defense officials said the arrests "spearheaded" efforts to get Shalit back.

Children and

Israeli, Raphael (2002) Jerusalem Divided: The Armistice Regime, 1947-1967 Routledge, ISBN 0714652660 p 5

Palestinian vehicle licensing

IMEMC

Palestine Polytechnic University (PPU) Vehicle Testing Centre is the only accredited vehicles testing institution in the West Bank.

The following table shows the latest statistics of vehicles counts in the year 2006. Petrol vehicles Diesel vehicles Total West Bank 91931 37365 129296 Gaza Strip 42271 15074 57345 Total All 134202 52439 186641

number of vehicles 2006

Palestinian citizens of Israel

Palestinian car on the wrong road? [11]

What's the fear of schoolgirls called?

Halhul in December 1980 when 28 schoolgirls were ordered to report with their parents to the military Headquarters every day for one month and to remain there from 8.30 to 14.00 hours.[12]

What's the difference between a religious school and a “Hesder Merkaz”

One gets religious training the other military training. Merkaz Ha'rav, is the ideological centre for religious messianic Zionism, combining Talmudic studies with military training in its educational program. This is known in Hebrew as “Hesder Merkaz”.

Lebanon

Lebanon and Arabism: National Identity and State Formation By Raghīd Ṣulḥ, Centre for Lebanese Studies (Great Britain) Published by I.B.Tauris, 2004 ISBN 1860640516...Interesting book

Palestinian territories

Captured? Rather beggars the question from who? Using Captured is showing ignorance of the Hebron notables invitation to Jordan. Occupied certainly, captured no.

Fountain of Qayt Bay

*Coords Fountain of Qayt Bay 31° 46’ 39.94’’ N 35° 14’ 04.57’’ E Done. Thanks! Huldra (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Excavations of Al-Aqsa Mosque 31° 46’ 33’’ N 35° 14’ 08’’ note 2’’ south of the position given in the article (the current coords in the article are for the front entrance to al-Aqsa)...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC) I´m not sure how to insert this... Huldra (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

*Kafr Lam...coords 32° 38’ 00’’ N 34° 56’ 00’’ E (the thing is degrees minutes and seconds only go up to 359°, 59’, 59’’...you can't have seconds of 60, 59 yes 60 no. you need to move the minutes up one and make it 00 seconds or make the seconds 59. The number after 59 is 00) Done. Thanks! Huldra (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Shishbarak recipe.Shishbarak recipe.

*Kaukab Abu al-Hija coords 32° 49’ 52.83’’ N 35° 14’ 55.33’’ E Done. Thanks! Huldra (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've only got a few days to go so I'll take care of any outstanding co-ords....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ma'alul coords 32° 41’ 44.12’’ N 35° 14’ 22.18’’ E note Yafa an-Naseriyye note also a classic case of spurious history with Nahalal where the biblical Nahalal is written up under the village of Nahalal which has nothing to do with biblical nahalal, but Ma'alul does?
• Indur coords 32° 38’ 11.32’’ N 35° 22’ 52.55’’ E
• Al-Mujaydil coords 32° 40’ 40.29’’ N 35° 14’ 30.53’’ E

Categories

Hi, I'm puzzled by a recent edit of yours that I just came across, where you added Category:New Historians as a parent cat of Category:Historians of the Middle East. I'm wondering if it was an inadvertent error, or if you may have been perhaps slightly confused as to the proper "nesting" of categories -- an all too common mistake, trust me! :) In any event, I've already removed it, but I'd like to understand what you may have had in mind with the edit. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Recently? That's over a month ago. Inadvertent error on "nesting" of categories...I was familarising myself with the nesting of cats at the time I was rudely interrupted by a POV pusher....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Jewish terrorism

Yesterday the left-leaning Ha'aretz newspaper described their actions in Hebron this week as "Jewish terrorism". RS source directly calls it Jewish terrorism

targeted assassination

BBC

Herodium

Ha'aretz Ha'retz

Jacob's Well

• Deir Nidham coords 32° 00’ 10.65’’ N 35° 06’ 51.94’’ E
• Qaddura coords 31° 54’ 05.48’’ N 35° 12’ 20.92’’ E

Right wing extremists say it was shin bet?

Ha'aretz conspiracy theorists eat your heart out.

A right-wing organization urged Attorney General Menachem Mazuz yesterday to open an investigation into whether the pipe bomb that wounded Prof. Zeev Sternhell last week was a provocation carried out by the Shin Bet security service. The Campaign for Saving the People and the Country claims that the bombing, generally believed to have been carried out by right-wing extremists in response to Sternhell's left-wing political activism, was a provocation aimed at turning public opinion against the settlers to make future evacuations easier. "The timing and nature of the operation leave no room for doubt it was the work of a provocateur," it wrote. (Ofra Edelman)

Glad to see you back

Up and editing without using proxies. ;) Thanks for all your help in providing coordinates and corrections. If you ever need anything, do let me know. Tiamut^talk 14:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know NoCal and yes I think he was definitely a former user, and I suspect I may know which one, though I don't have any evidence for it, and so I won't say so here. I looked at the report. I don't like I would add anything to it there, but if you do decide to open an RfC, I might have some things to contribute. Personally, at this juncture however, I'd prefer to write articles. Senseless disputes have been taking up too much of my time lately. Cheers and good luck. Tiamut^talk 19:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, when people disruptively delete things first and respond to questions in an evasive fashion only later, it makes writing the articles hard. Which is why if you think this is a serious problem (i.e. its preventing you and others from writing good articles) you should follow up on it. I'm just exhausted after days of circular debate with people who can't stand the word "Palestine" at Hummus and do not feel like tangling with others again right now. Didn't mean to discourage you or make you feel that doing so wrong. Cheers. Tiamut^talk 19:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, glad to see you back! (but ooopsh....from what Avi says below here, I have been acting like a meatpuppet for you, by inserting coord into articles... ;) oh well, Hope I´m not blocked for that! Anyway, very nice to see you back. Huldra (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

C O'S and Sock/Meatpuppetry

Hello, Ashley. Firstly, even if there are two separate people involved, if Person B is making edits for person A, on wikipedia that is called meatpuppetry and is treated like sockpuppetry. I think you have two routes to take. In general, blocks/bans may be address on WP:ANI, but I am uncertain that will work as this is a CU block, checked by two CU's. My suggestion to you and Charlie would be to e-mail ArbCom. They all have the CU bit, and even if not, are allowed to receive the information. If this truly is a case where you and Charlie are separate people, and were unaware that making edits on each other's behalf was forbidden, it is possible that they will lift the block (perhaps with an eye to prevent future occurrences). There is an ArbCom e-mail list, and all ArbCom members have their respective e-mail addresses active. Thank you, and good luck. -- Avi (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A pleasure. -- Avi (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:Zir'in

Well, it could certainly be added to, and thankfully you're off blocking! Thanks so much for all the coordinates, and WP Palestine looks forward to your return. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, perhaps the Administrators board. Maybe Tiamut knows? --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Note

All due respect to concerns about improprieties, this comment is improper and should probably be toned down IMHO.
Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Archiving assistance

Hi Ashley, would it be alright if I setup an archive bot for your talkpage? Currently it's over 100K, and some people's browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K. But I could set up an automated utility to archive any inactive threads, and then you wouldn't have to worry about it anymore? Let me know, --Elonka 18:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Banias. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Banias. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Elonka 19:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There was consensus until NoCal100 stalked Nishidani onto the page, he then made edits by deletion claiming no consensus. At a 2:1 split that is consensus, not in his favour but that's they way it goes. The last time I checked wiki was not running out of paper. NoCal100 looks to be attempting to censor information to what he finds interesting. That is not good practice, what the world finds interesting may not be only the small amount that NoCal100 finds interesting. Me I say wiki is supposed to be a repository of the sum of human knowledge so I include as much as possible. If NoCal100 want to keep a minimalistic attitude tell him to join censorwiki, the miniwiki version....A war started over Banias, water and Hula marshes, if it was important enough for a war it shows high notability...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit warning on Banias

You had already placed a warning on the Talk page of Nocal100 - [13] - so what would be the point of placing another warning? Please read WP:VANDALISM - what you are doing is clearly not within the scope of reverting vandalism. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Several hours after...whereas you fire up in minutes so get real...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you - you asked why I did not place a warning on the other editor's page, and I explained that you had already done so. Please try to remain civil. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

you put a warning up 1830 and suddenly a sockpuppet arrives with no previous edits 8 minutes after you put a warning up ....you must think people are stupid...please real people see the Israelophile crowd of socks for what they are...you work in tandem to block any editor from contributing to wiki in a useful manner..NoCal100 has absolutely no knowledge of Banias he has displayed that many times he/she is only interested in POV...Why do you think no self respecting supporter of the Palestinian cause uses wiki for information? because it is lacking in any NPOV...Wiki has become a joke in the eyes of all supporters of the Palestinian cause it is treated with derision because of its blatant POV. If you wish wiki to be useless then you carry on inserting POV. I don't insert POV I actually put a complete version in...Try checking some time. If you don't like all the things Israel has done, that is Israel's problem not yours to cover up. People who support the Palestinian cause use books and not wiki because wiki is seen as extremist...wiki has been banned in some schools because of inaccuracies and misleading articles...I'm trying very hard to make wiki accurate and not misleading....Insertion of POV makes articles misleading, that is why I do not include POV. The likes of NoCal100 is giving wiki a bad name...Look at the amount of RS references I include, then look at the references the Israelophiles include. You make me laugh when you put 'citation needed' into Palestine related articles, check on the lack of references in Israeli related articles first, go and whack in a fistful of citation needed in Israeli related articles before touching a Palestine related article and maybe someone will take you seriously...half the Israelophile crowd do is stalk to disrupt and NoCal100 is an obvious sock stalks around like a foetid zombie disrupting so that editors don't get to improve due to his/her actions. I shall now spend another week ripping into JIDF clones on the debating circuit and boy do I kick shit it there. Why, because the Israelophiles use wiki and I smash their arguments into pieces with RS books, why do you think I have so many books? I absolutely cream the Israelophile wiki users, I show them up as brain dead morons all due to the POV the wiki Israelophile team supplies....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I realize you are upset, but this project has certain rules that you must abide by. One of these rules, as User:Avraham wrote below, is that you can't go around accusing editors of sock-puppetry without evidence. That is a blockable offense. Another rule is that you can't edit war and violate 3RR even if you think you are correct in an edit dispute. This is another blockable offense. You have done both. Please take this week to reflect on your behavior and attitude. If that attitude is represented by statements such as "I shall now spend another week ripping into JIDF clones" or "I absolutely cream the Israelophile wiki users" - then perhaps you will be better served by expending your energies on some other pastime - Wikipedia is not a battleground. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not upset CM I do not give a toss whether I am working on wiki trying to improve wiki or giving Israeliophile wiki users grief on the debating circuit....The wiki project is useless as a place of reference because of the blatant POV... You may not see the POV but any person that understands the I/P conflict sees the glaring gaps created by the Israelophile POV. Wiki has been made a battle ground by the likes of NoCal100 and yourself. maybe you can't remember your actions over Ni'lin but I can. talk about the blatant warring you tried. An incident that reached the international press not noteworthy?????????...I'm trying to help wiki to not be a laughing stock...It is the Israelophiles that should go and work on the Hebrew wiki...that way they can be a POVish as they want...with your attitude wiki will carry-on getting the headlines that bring disrepute, wiki will remain inaccurate and misleading until you sort out your attitude...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to refresh my memory about Ni'lin, but a quick look shows I've never edited that article. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. Anyway - I've given you some advice. Take this week to think about your attitude toward editing. Comments like "the Israelophiles that should go and work on the Hebrew wiki" are offensive, and have no place here. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right not Ni'lin, as-Samu notorious incident reached international papers. CM tries to have the information removed....What's so offensive being called a friend of Israel? Do you think that Israel is that bad that you find being called a friend of Israel offensive?...I do believe you offered advise about working elsewhere does this mean that you were trying to be offensive?...Please, try not to show double standards CM....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry claims against NoCal100

Hello, Ashley.

If you have serious concerns about an account being a sockpuppet and being used to edit around restrictions, please file a report at WP:SSP. Otherwise, merely making such claims in edit summaries and on talk pages without proof or follow up may be construed as a personal attack and harassment, both of which are just as forbidden as sockpuppetry, by the by. WP:SSP will follow up on properly filed cases, and I'd suggest you use that venue. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Read the ANI that is already in the claims are backed up...NoCal100 is the biggest open secret around..having multiple accounts is not against the rules so says Iron duke in support of Nocal100...NoCal100 is nothing but an ignorant POV merchant, he's shown his lack of knowledge on Banias where he continues to disrupt. Did the article move from the last block till I got back not a jot so NoCal100 has absolutely no interest in the article proof by his own inaction. Was he able to make simple corrections on Banias, not a bit. So what is his interest? POV pure and simple...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ashley, personal attacks are not helping your case. If you have concerns, please present them in a civil way, without resorting to extremist language. To be most effective, you want to make brief and polite statements, in a neutral tone, and in the proper venue. If you believe that NoCal100 (talk · contribs) is a sock, create a page at WP:RFCU or WP:SSP. But when you resort to harsh language, it doesn't make him look bad, it makes you look bad. So please, take a break? --Elonka 23:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That is what he did.

But nobody reacted, even just in leaving a word to NoCal

And now that Ashley gets upset, he is threatened (with civility) by you and others.

Stop making fun of us ! Whether you warn *all* sides, or you don't deal the issue. There is no solution in between, expect demonstrating bad faith and direspect towards users who develop the encyclopaedia without agenda.

My pseudo is Ceedjee (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What case? I'm not asking for any unblock or any other case, or are you saying that NoCal100 is wikilawyering again, a well known 'New account' that is surprisingly conversant with all the rules?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Yes I can see how Nocal100 could never be considered as a sockpuppet?????????????????????????????????????????????? Sorry but your blindness to reality is what makes wiki look like a bunch of amateurs, and you wonder why all the academics who initially contributed dropped out? Ask yourself why is wiki banned in many places of education??? Why has the Scottish education board just recently blamed wiki for lowering the passes in exams???

I've already done an ANI on Nocal100. He's been noted as a sock by a few editors already as per the ANI and it is not about whether he/she is a sock it is about his/her disruption that causes edit wars which ultimately leads to a fall in editing and a fall in accuracy and a reduction in the sum of human knowledge.

I have absolutely no interest in how I look to wiki because I have absolutely no interest in wiki administration. I have no interest in doing wiki lawyering. I have no interest in filling wiki forms, politely or otherwise. I though that was pretty obvious from the start.

I want to see decent articles of a high standard that can be used as it is accurate, informative, reliable and fully referenced.

In the real world, the one that is not digitised or laden with synthetic wiki rules, that one that uses books for information NoCal100 is noted as an extremist and uneducated. My language is not extremist nor harsh it is merely noting facts. NoCal100 is not suspected; he/she is known as a sock. All his/her behaviour is of a sock. How many other 'new accounts' do you know that suddenly spring up with a full tool kit of wikilawyering? How many other 'new accounts' do you know that are based around the name of an account 'Calton' that are being attacked by NoCal100. Please get real, I don't see you taking NoCal100 to task for his/her harsh language and personal attacks? 'Calton' was doing an essential job on wiki, intercepting possible market manipulation, in which wiki has been the centre of scandals. Where were you when Calton needed help? And then there is the obvious stalking pattern of NoCal100, I don't see admin on NoCal100's back. Then you have NoCal100's tag team edits, I don't see admin on Nocal100's back, do you?

NoCal100 made a pigs ear out of Ma'ale Akrabim incident and gets a DYK, please get real. I took Banias from an inaccurate article that had no references to something that had some potential for use, over 5 days. The NoCal100 stalks his way to the article following Nishidani, and where was admin and what happens to the article, stopped no movement. Nocal100 had all the time in the world to actually do something, and what does he/she do...Not a thing, leaves it with errors and inaccuracies (left there because he/she was disrupting editing), so why was he/she editing an article he obviously knew nothing about?

I'll give you 2 phone numbers (to real people in the real world that are fully verifiable as 2 people using their real names, because I'm in the phone book and on the register of electors), email me, then you can call them, I'm more verifiable than some anonymous IP address. Then you can have a go at the anonymous sock NoCal100 for spreading BS about others when he is the biggest offender of sockpuppetry...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies if it seems that I'm being obtuse -- I am simply not familiar with the history here, so am still trying to come up to speed. When you say that NoCal100 (talk · contribs) is a sock, which other accounts do you believe are being controlled by the same user? Thanks, --Elonka 04:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

1. NoCal100 is a sock. Behavioural pattern. To find his other accounts would require a fishing expedition and as I don't have a friendly admin account that has CU ability I am unable to go fishing. And I really do not wish to waste time on wikilawyering.
2. It's the abuse that Nocal100 carries out that is the problem and not whether he is a sock that is the problem.
3. NoCal100 was raised initially to persecute Calton in tag team with MegaMom.

It's on the WP:ANI..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I notice from El's talk page of why the IP Check user ended up with me and Charlie O'Sulivan looking like meat puppets. Shows what NoCal100 jumping to conclusions does. Shows why wiki admin need to get their minds out into the real world.... here. Now would you like wiki to admit their mistake and have a go at NoCal100 for false accusations for sockpuppetry or what?????????????????????? As I've said I can supply phone numbers and electoral roles for proof, not some anonymous IP address that gets a location to within 60 miles at best...it shows how crap the wiki Check user system is on British users. BT have a system that will not give wiki check user any validity or conclusive evidence this means that wiki check user on British users has to rely on suspicion alone....I couldn't have asked for a better example of why the wiki system of check user fails abominably for UK users...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, to make sure I understand, let me paraphrase a bit. You believe that NoCal100 (talk · contribs) is being disruptive in the topic area of Israel/Palestine articles. You feel that his username may have been designed to antagonize another editor in the topic area, Calton (talk · contribs). You also believe that since NoCal100 is a (relatively) new account, created in January 2008, that he is a possible sock of some other account in the topic area, but you're not sure who. Is that correct? --Elonka 19:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In a nut shell yes....(sorry I missed your posting till today)Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

1. The method NoCal100 uses is to make a controversial edit (normally by deletion) without any supporting evidence, accompanied by a POV statement. NoCal100 then demands that all must bow to his way as consensus. NoCal100 makes no attempt to find consensus prior to his controversial edits. That starts edit wars, it is a constant problem with NoCal100. If NoCal100 is unhappy then he should as for a citation to clarify, talk on the talk page. But you don't do it the NoCal100 way of making edits prior to having an RS source backing up your claim.
2. Take Ma'ale Akrabim incident it is obvious to anyone who knows anything about IP conflict that NoCal100 knows nothing about the incident. It takes about 1/2 a day to round up the sources (it does for me because I have half the books at home and the other half are accessible in the library) all NoCal100 has done is taken the Israeli version straight off the Israeli MFA web site and bunged in the UN doc as a reference (without actually reading it) from the article I wrote on 9 June 2008 at HKJ/IMAC (which has a bit on the Ma'ale Akrabim incident)....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at that article. I've also taken a good look at NoCal100's contribs, which go back to January 2008, and I've talked to some other admins who monitor the topic area, and I'm just not seeing sockpuppetry. Now, he may or may not still be operating as part of a Tag team of editors in the topic area. As I'm sure you know, team editing is a real problem in this topic area, on both sides of the dispute. My honest advice to you at this time, is to try to focus your battles, and stick to the most egregious violations. Don't call NoCal100 a sock, because there's no clear evidence that he's a sock. And so each time you use the "sock" word, it just weakens everything else in your argument.

To be most effective, stick to the things that you have hard evidence for, and which are easier for administrators to take action on. These are:

1. Adding information without sources
2. Using (obviously) unreliable sources
3. (Obvious) Misinterpretation of reliable sources
4. Edit-warring
5. Making edits which are in a violation of a (clear) talkpage consensus
6. Deleting reliably sourced information
7. Incivility/personal attacks

Note that I use the word "obvious" a lot. This is because if you bring non-obvious claims to ANI, as you've seen, the threads just tend to get muddled and no firm action is taken. Or in other words, less is more. If you provide 100 diffs, 98 of which are ambiguous and two of which are solid obvious infractions, chances are that people will jump on the 98 to challenge them, and the 2 obvious infractions will get lost in the chaos. So a more effective post would be to just present the 2, and ignore the other 98. Now, if you feel that the non-obvious stuff still needs to be dealt with, fallback to option #5 there, talkpage consensus. If you bring concerns up at an article talkpage, and the consensus at talk is that NoCal100's edits are a problem, then you've got something solid to bring to ANI, which is "editing against talkpage consensus". You won't need to go into any details about sourcing or opinions or neutrality, you can just provide two diffs: One that shows a talkpage consensus, and one that shows NoCal100 (or whoever) editing against that consensus, and admins will probably be able to take action.

In summary, the best way to get administrator action is to present a short post, with diffs showing clear unambiguous problem behavior. The longer the post, or the more ambiguous the diffs, the less likely that admins will be able to take action.

Make sense? :) --Elonka 20:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

To point 5.Banias, I would say Hasbani also but unfortunately I've been delayed in getting my say on the article due to 3RR blockage. 6.Deleting reliably sourced information Here (that also comes into inappropriate edit summary) also [here] 8. Cherry picking to make misleading article. Ma'ale Akrabim incident or is that point 3. (this is a difficult one to explain as you really need to be fully conversant with the facts about Ma'ale Akrabim and aware of all the sources) a. The attackers were shod (had shoes or boots on as per survivor statements available in the UN sources) the second set of tracks (the ones closest to the Jordanian border) were made on or about the 14 March (as agreed by both Israeli and Jordanian trackers as per the UN sources) and made by unshod feet. The second set of tracks are therefore a red herring (but always used by the Israeli sources, Israeli sources should therefore be considered as none RS in this instance) where as NoCal100 has misleadingly made the 2 sets of tracks one b. restraint ...means that retaliation had dropped to 1 or 2 Israeli raids per month into Jordan controlled territory and Israeli raids on the Israeli Bedouin still continued. Basically Nocal100 used the none RS Israeli MFI dropped in the UN Doc ref but never integrated any of the information available from the UN source that contradicted all of the Israeli MFI source thereby misrepresenting the UN Doc source as though it supported the Israeli MFI version, which history has shown to be incorrect. NoCal100 has never looked for alternative RS which are very easy to find (you only have to look on my page a few sections below, having the books does tend to help)

I will continue noting NoCal100's 'obvious' infractions and collating them. I really do dislike wasting time on an 'obvious' disruptive editor (NoCal100). I do much prefer improving wiki....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet User NoCal100's personal attacks

the first comment was made by a sockpuppet (confirmed by 2 separate checkusers) of Ashley kennedy3 , and he was subsequently blocked for a month for that sockpupptery. The second comment (made more than a month ago) does not relate to any of the material we are discussing. NoCal100 (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC) [[14]] If I'm supposed to be making personal attacks then NoCal100 started the process off....

Nocal100 is a wikistalker who stalked his way onto Banias while staking Nishidani and admits to using deletions as a method of inciting revert wars, both CasualObserver'48 and I agree that water is the key to Banias throughout its long history. NoCal100 even if he/she thinks that too much information is in place should seek consensus with the 2 active users on that page.... he did not...therefore his edits by deletion were disruptive and not by consensus...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The effect of NoCal100 on the eduction standards

ma'ale akrabim

Thefts were quite common, mostly among the poorer Bedouin who utilised the opportunity to steal valuable property and machinery used by the Israeli Government in developing the southern part of the country. The shooting of these Bedouin by Israelis incited blood feuds and resulted in vendettas which caused a chain reactions, culminating in additional killings. Many such incidents occurred in the Negev and might be explained as Bedouin actions of blood revenge. The massacre of the bus passengers in maleh ha-Akrabim (The Scorpion Pass) on the way to Eilat was possibly one of them. The Palestinian Refugees in Jordan 1948-1957: 1948-1957 By Avi Plascov Published by Routledge, 1981 ISBN 0714631205 p 86

On Wednesday of last week, the Mixed Armistice Commission was shocked by the news of an attack on an Israel bus near Ma'ale Akrabim [Scorpion Pass]. United Nations military observers were sent immediately to the scene of the incident, and their initial reports were graphic in describing this horrible crime. Since that first day, most of the military observers assigned to the Jordan-Israel Mixed Armistice Commission have working on this case. These observers, working with members of the Israel delegation to the Mixed Armistice Commission, Israel police and army officials, dog handlers with highly trained tracking hounds, expert Israel trackers, joined later by experienced Bedouin trackers from Jordan, have worked almost beyond endurance to establish the guilt for this crime. At no time during the years since the conclusion of the armistice agreement has a more intensive investigation been carried out. Even so, the evidence brought out is far from being conclusive. I do regret the Israel delegation's refusal to allow the Mixed Armistice Commission the opportunity completely to investigate Israel's claim of knowledge concerning the actual perpetrators of this crime. The possibility of Jordanians being responsible for this crime still exists; however, persons from outside Jordan could also be guilty of this outrage. True, tracks were found, perhaps connected to this crime, but they were lost approximately 10 kilometers in a straight line from the demarcation line. The empty cartridges found at the scene of the incident do not point conclusively to any one group. The testimony of the witnesses indicates that Arabs were involved; however, the description of the two men who allegedly entered the bus a doubt as to whether they were all Arabs. And the establishment of the fact that Arabs were involved does not in the least connect this crime to the inhabitants of any one country. This Mixed Armistice Commission will always avoid condemning a government on inconclusive evidence.

[15]

Israeli government statement

Israeli government statement to the UN and list of 6 April 1954

Time magazine Fingered Triggers Monday, Apr. 05, 1954

Dead 9 men 2 women injured 2, young woman and 9 year old, uninjured 2. //Rosalyn Higgins (1981) United Nations Peacekeeping, 1946-1967: Documents and Commentary under the auspices of the Royal Institute of International Affairs by Oxford University Press, pp 121-122//

Jordanian Legion Commander John Glubb reported to the British Government on the results of an investigation he had conducted, which pointed to ‘tribesmen from Beersheba area driven from their lands and relatives massacred various times by Jews...the gang appears centred in Qusema...in Sinai. All planned and carried out from Sinai.

When Israel occupied the Gaza Strip in 1956, two years later, considerable evidence was found that the Scorpion Pass incident was the work of Arab Bedouins.

Nahhalin doesn't appear in aftermath;

Another gesture came in March when Israel declared Jordan responsible for the massacre of 11 civilians in the Negev’s scorpion Pass (Ma’aleh Akravim), though evidence pointed to Gaza as the attackers’ base. The IDF retaliated –ominously without Sharett’s approval- against Nahhalin village in the West bank.//Oren, Michael B. (1992) Origins of the Second Arab-Israel War: Egypt, Israel, and the Great Powers, 1952-56 Routledge, ISBN 0714634301 p 20//

The Qibya raid of 14-15 October 1953, ordered by Ben-Gurion, achieved considerable international publicity. On that night Israeli soldiers killed sixty-six men, women and children of the village. Even sympathetic American newspapers compared the incident to the Nazi massacre of 185 men of the village Lidice in Czechoslovakia on 10 June 1942 in reprisal for the assassination of an SS Chief. Perhaps the worst Arab reprisal was the ambush of an Israeli bus on scorpion Pass, in the eastern Negev, on 17 march 1954: eleven Israelis died. In retaliation Israeli raiders hit the village of Nahhaleen, and killed nine inhabitants. //Ovendale, Ritchie (2004) The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Wars Pearson Education, ISBN 058282320X p 153//

I wonder how this should be written for NPOV?

The 1948 Arab-Israeli war ended with the signing of several armistice agreements between Israel and her neighboring Arab states,

The military confrontation of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war ceased with the signing of several armistice agreements between Jordan, Lebanon Egypt and Syria and their neighbouring Jewish state, now does that look right?

now let me think about NPOV and systemic racism??????

lets try something that is accurate informative and not misleading nor racist:-

The military confrontation of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War was concluded with Israel signing the armistice agreements (ceasefire arrangements) with Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Syria, in 1949,

Canadian government Papers

as samu

Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991 By Kenneth Michael Pollack Published by U of Nebraska Press, 2002 ISBN 0803237332 p 290

Smouldering passions in the Arab world after the Samu raid...Shemesh, Moshe (2008) Arab Politics, Palestinian Nationalism and the Six Day War: The Crystallization of Arab Strategy and Nasir's Descent to War, 1957-1967 Sussex Academic Press, ISBN 1845191889, p 132.

Qibya Londey, Peter (2004) Other People's Wars: A History of Australian Peacekeeping Allen & Unwin, ISBN 1865086517 p 66

Banias Israeli NWC Hula drainage diversion direct connection

Well would you Adam and Eve it so there is a direct connection good RS source too.????????????????????????????

The first Arab summit conference ratified the Arab strategy to thwart Israel’s NWC Plan. The strategy was designed to divert the Jordan’s tributaries and prepare the Arab armies for the defence of the engineering operations. //Shemesh, Moshe (2008) Arab Politics, Palestinian Nationalism and the Six Day War: The Crystallization of Arab Strategy and Nasir's Descent to War, 1957-1967 Sussex Academic Press, ISBN 1845191889 p 67//

1. Diversion of tributaries in Lebanon

A The upper Hasbani- the excavation of a canal from the Hasbani springs in the hasbaya region and a canal from the wadi Shab’a for carrying water to the kawkaba tunnels and from there to the Litani River. (This project would transport 40-60 million cubic metres of water annually). B. The Middle hasbani-two diversion points-tyhe first in the hasbani riverbed; the second in wadi sarid. The Hasbani ans Sarid would flow in a canal to the banias and from there to the Yarmuk. According to the plan, 20-30 million cubic metres of water would flow annually to Syria (if Lebanon did not divert the hasbani’s floodwater to the Litani, the Sarid canal could transport up to 60 million cubic metres of water a year). C. The Wazani Spring in the Lower Hasbani Riverbed-this would include an irrigation canal (carrying 16 million cubic metres of water a year) for local use in Lebanon; an irrigation canal in Syria (8 million cubic metres a year); and three pumping units to transport the Wanzani’s overflow to Syria via the Sarid-Banias canal at a rate of 26 million cubic metres a year.

2. Diversions in Syrian territory

A. Diversion of the Banias-The diversion plan for the banias called for a 73 kilometre long canal to be dug 350 metres above sea level that would link the banias with the Yamuk. The canal would carry the Banias’s fixed flow plus the overflow from the hasbani (including water from the Sarid and Wazani). The Banias diversion would provide 90 million cubic metres of water for irrigation of riverine areas. The designers calculated that eighteen months would be sufficient for executing the plan. The cost was estimated at five million Pounds Sterling (including two tunnels), that is, approximately two million pounds more than the Arab plan. B. The butayha Project-The Syrians feared that if the Arabs implemented their diversion plan, Israel would block the batayha Valley inhabitants, annual pumping of 22 million cubic metres from the Jordan as proposed in the Johnson plan. In order to guarantee the villagers their vital water supply, the Arab plan contained a proviso designed to incorporate primary and secondary canals from the Sea of Galilee.

3. The water plans in Jordan.

The construction of a dam in the Kingdom of Jordan (the Mukheiba dam on the Yarmuk River) was designed to hold 200 million cubic metres of water. Work on the dam would take 30 months at a cost of ten and one quarter million Pounds Sterling. The Mukheiba Dam (and the Makarin Dam) would hurt Israel if it was incorporated into the diversion plans for the Jordan River’s northern sources, and without the Mukheiba dam all of the diverted water would flow back to the Yarmuk and return to the Jordan’s riverbed south of the Sea of galilee. Excluding this plan, the rest of the Jordan’s water projects correspond with the main parts of the Johnson Plan. //Shemesh, Moshe (2008) Arab Politics, Palestinian Nationalism and the Six Day War: The Crystallization of Arab Strategy and Nasir's Descent to War, 1957-1967 Sussex Academic Press, ISBN 1845191889 pp 49-50//

Funny how 3 countries working in unison with the backing of 10 other states is considered by NoCal100 as unilateral Syrian action...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Archaeology

Coords

Hey! Could I get the coordinates for Shokat as-Sufi (in Gaza Strip), Qaddita, Farradiyya, and Abil al-Qamh (Depopulated villages).

Always a pleasure Al Ameer son

Shokat as-Sufi 31° 15’ 31.12 N 34° 16’ 56.80’’ E (for all Gaza strip co-ords look further up under section adding co-ords, all done last month)

Qaddita, 33° 00’ 20.12’’ N 35° 25’ 41.72’’ E NW of Safad

Farradiyya, 32° 55’ 53.66’’ N 35° 25’ 41.72’’ E SW of Safad

Abil al-Qamh 31° 15’ 31.12’’ N 34° 16’ 56.80’’ E those are for Shokat as-Sufi North of Safad (Not North west) and in the Sanjak of Banias (not Baniyas the confusion comes from both towns being spelt the same).Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Rafah Governorate

electoral district Gaza Strip Closure Map Building Use

Semiramis hotel bombing

Hi Mr "I am blocked and proud to be" ;-)
Would you have access to any official documents related to Semiramis hotel bombing on Jan05 1948 ?
I lack wp:rs sources giving the academic palestinian pov on the issue. If you have any, it is welcome in the article.
Rgds, Ceedjee (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Tell Tiamut that it was the Spainish vice consul not consul....Viscount de Tapia,// Alfred M. Lilienthal. (1978) The Zionist Connection: What Price Peace? Dodd, Mead, ISBN 0396075649 p 359//.and.//Qumsiyeh, Mazin B. (2004) Sharing the Land of Canaan: Human Rights and the Israeli-Palestinian Struggle Pluto Press, ISBN 0745322484 p 102//. ...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There are so few Palestinian RS sources available, I can only think of one book that has been written about the Semiramis hotel bombing that is not from the Israeli perspective...I was reading it about 3 months ago in relation to Raymond Cafferatta after Hebron 1929...I'm glad you reminded me about him...I can't remember the name of the book or the author, now I'm going to have to make a trip up to Manchester library as it will bug me until I find out...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I learned Cafferatta's history in "One Palestine. Complete" of Segev. With Segev's perspective, I think the Cafferatta's case must give a good insight of what should have been the British disappointement and bitterness at that time !

Ceedjee (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

But did you know that Irgun then carried several attacks on Cafferatta forcing him to leave Palestine...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ben-Yehuda, Nachman (1993) Political Assassinations by Jews: A Rhetorical Device for Justice SUNY Press, ISBN 0791411656

PS the only Official docs are UN reports...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

is that all you've got on Semiramis Hotel bombing?

No. of course not. But I am sure I don't have a palestinian perspective. Ceedjee (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian reaction to the bombing and flight can be found in:- Ghada Karmi (2004) In Search of Fatima: A Palestinian Story. Verso, ISBN 1859845614 p 90

Smith, Gerald L.K. (1973) The Cross and the Flag Christian Nationalist Crusade p 37. gives it as Spanish acting consul.

Cohen, Hillel (2008) Army of Shadows: Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917-1948 Translated by Haim Watzman University of California Press, ISBN 0520252217 p 252 (very interesting book on collaboration, expensive but decidedly worth buying, good bits on Hebron and dividing Palestinian Nationalism), on information about it being an Arab HQ.

names of Palestinian Arab dead can be found at Jerusalemite

Beinin, Joel (1991) Was the Red Flag Flying There?: Marxist Politics & the Arab-Israeli Conflict in Egypt and Israel, 1948-1965 I.B.Tauris, ISBN 1850432929 p 60 quotes a Kol Ha'am contemporaneous report that puts the blame on Irgun for the bombing.

Thx. I try to organise this. Ceedjee (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Quigley, John B. (2005) The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective Duke University Press, ISBN 0822335395 p 43 "Dastardly and wholesale murder of"

and this can go back in:-

A United Nations report on the events used similar terminology, stating : "(...) Haganah terrorists made a most barbarous attack at one o’clock in the early morning of Monday, 5 January 1948, at Semiramis Hotel in the Katamon section of Jerusalem killing innocent people and wounding many. The Jewish terrorist forces blasted the entrance to the hotel by a small bomb and then placed bombs in the basement of the building. As a result of the explosion the whole building collapsed with its residents. As the terrorists withdrew, they started shooting at the houses in the neighborhood.”

Palestinian and Egyptian support for the partition plan

Beinin, Joel (1991) Was the Red Flag Flying There?: Marxist Politics & the Arab-Israeli Conflict in Egypt and Israel, 1948-1965 I.B.Tauris, ISBN 1850432929 pp60-61

general use of the term 'Massacre'

At present the term massacre appears to be abused.

1. Using Israeli sources for describing a incident in which Israelis are killed as a massacre is not good enough as an RS source.
2. Using Arab or Palestinian sources for describing a incident in which Palestinians are killed as a massacre is not good enough as an RS source.

1. The UN use the criteria of 50 civilians killed in one incident as the base line for the use of the term massacre.
2. Bad English, you can't have Khisas massacre or HaRav massacre as neither Khisas nor HaRav were massacred. Semiramis was not massacred it was demolished, People get massacred not places.

• personally I would vote for massacre to be not used at all but due to 'conflation for political purposes' if it is to be used them it should be used with even handedness.

Discussion first held in IP collaboration Obolers hole in the wall to circumvent discussion where no consensus was reached with Nudve chirping in (this is without pointing out the IP collaboration discussion on the massacre naming convention where Nudve had contributed).

Irgun 'terrorist'

For your list Ceedjee:- //As they saw it, their function as terrorists was to “liquidat[e] the worst government officials,”// Richard Thompson Hull A Quarter Century of Value Inquiry: Presidential Addresses of the American Society for Value Inquiry American Society for Value Inquiry published by Rodopi, 1994 p 242 ISBN 9051836724 p 242, Richard T. Hull qualifications CV

Lehi declared a terrorist organisation on 20 September 1948 by the Israeli government.//Pedahzur, Ami (2002) The Israeli Response to Jewish Extremism and Violence: Defending Democracy Manchester University Press, ISBN 0719063728 p 77//

Gaza beach explosion (2006)

Note one editorialisation.

//The Israeli effort to acquit the Israel Defence Forces of having killed seven Palestinian civilians on a Gaza beach Friday was placed in an ironic light yesterday, as additional civilians were killed in a missile strike in Gaza City... The attempt to wage a political public relations battle to justify Israel's moves is doomed to failure. It appears that, in any case, the average observer in the West sees the post-disengagement conflict here as a bloodbath in which assassinations are indistinguishable from acts of revenge.//AMOS HAREL & AVI ISSACHAROFF IN ISRAEL'S HA'ARETZ Ha'aretz

Events overtaken? No really...[16]

BBC

I think I'll start an article List of lies the Israeli Government has been caught telling.

1990 Temple Mount riots to be renamed massacre RS sourse says so. Michael P. Prior (1999) Zionism and the State of Israel: A Moral Inquiry Routledge, ISBN 0415204623 p 93 Interestingly puts the blame on Merc HaRav Yesh..That should be fun...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Merkas HaRav teachings based on Jewish messianic nationalism Ibid p 100

//The riots resulted in the death of over twenty// Is this POV or NPOV? Is 20 enough for Oboler to consider it a massacre? 8 in HaRav enough (even though the RS say shooting) 10 to 12 in Khisas not enough is 2.5 time Palestinians to Jewish Israeli deaths enough of a ratio. probably Oboler will only be satisfied with a 10:1 ratio....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Coords

If you are free to do so, I need coords for Zalafa, Ara Valley and Khirbat Zalafa. I want to make absolutely sure they are not the same place by appending the geographical coordinates for any doubters. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 13:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Khirbat Zalafa 32° 24' 09.10’’ N 34° 56' 43.96’’ E by Givat Haim

Zalafa, Ara Valley 32° 32' 56.51’’ N 35° 10' 58.78’’ E Givat Oz built on village land Benny page xx village 127 Ara valley should be changed to the district name as per established naming convention as in Zalafa, Jenin.

correction to Abil al-Qamh 33° 15’ 34.12’’ N 35° 34’ 51.80’’ E sorry looking at gaza district at the time and put the wrong set of co-ords to Abil al-Qamh

correction to Qaddita, 33° 00’ 20.12’’ N 35° 28’ 01.32’’ E NW of Safad (originals incorrect eastings, I must have been trying to do 2 things at once)

Note Tiamut Khirbat Zalafa was by Givat Haim not Givat Oz. Zalafa, Jenin was built on by Givat Oz

also Benny contradicts himself at this point in saying Khirbat Zalafa inhabitants were 'probably pressured to leave' <Birth p 245.>

Saliha 33° 04' 30.66’’ N 35° 27' 19.84’’ E

Un-sourced says NoCal100

1955 US ambassador Johnson negotiated the Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan, this has formed an important precedent. Existing utilization patterns have also serve as an important factor in determining the allocation of water in the region.<refCronin, Patrick M. (2008) The Evolution of Strategic Thought Routledge, ISBN 0415459613 p 189/ref> Here Strange but I'm quite sure this is a reference Cronin, Patrick M. (2008) The Evolution of Strategic Thought Routledge, ISBN 0415459613 p 189 Can anybody else please try to explain when a reference suddenly gets considered as not a reference?????????????????????? Or is it just Nocal100 going Banias again??????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley kennedy3 (talk • contribs) 23:46, December 14, 2008

Ashley, please try to keep comments civil, thanks. I'd really like to give you another chance, but if you're just going to disrupt again, your next block will be for even longer, probably a month. However, if you can show that you can act with more self-control, we might even be able to lift the current block early. The choice is yours. --Elonka 06:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have with being civil with the likes of Nocal100 is that his/her their faults can only be explained in terms of a long involved complaint, this means that the complaint is then normally put down by any oversight as 'content' and therefore ignored, leading to frustration, incivility and or driving decent editors who know the subject away; leaving articles in a state of being inaccurate and misleading.....Most of the decent editors that are pro-Palestinian would prefer not to be involved with wiki lawyering (as it is a waste of editing time) and we do leave our personal POV in our shirt pocket when editing...Most of the contentious articles are uncivil to Tiamut and her nationality in a systemic racist manner, this is put down as allowable because it is a 'content' issue; hence I term it systemic...

Most of the issues in the IP conflict need nuanced phasing; NoCal100 is unable or unwilling to make or accept a nuanced phrase, so most articles become a struggle over content. Nocal100 will not accept that there are 2 historiographies in the IP conflict; leading to conflict in content. NoCal100 appears to believe that the Israeli MFA is a reliable source and does not accept that the Israeli MFA should be read with extreme care as it is 'protagonist' and not RS...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Banias...How NoCal100 makes his/her lack of knowledge, unwillingness to research and unwillingness to seek consensus into an apparent 'content' dispute.

1.mass deletion using the phase not directly relevant to banias. Here

superficially that looks fine; but, and it's a bloody big but, the Jordan river basin and upper Jordan River are inter-connected. What is done in one area affects all the riparian right holder (and led to a war).

The first Arab summit conference ratified the Arab strategy to thwart Israel’s NWC Plan [drainage of the Hula marshes]. The strategy was designed to divert [2 out of the 3 of] Jordan’s tributaries [Hasbani, Banias] and prepare the Arab armies for the defence of the engineering operations. //Shemesh, Moshe (2008) Arab Politics, Palestinian Nationalism and the Six Day War: The Crystallization of Arab Strategy and Nasir's Descent to War, 1957-1967 Sussex Academic Press, ISBN 1845191889 p 67//

This is obvious to anyone who has even the most superficial knowledge of the Banias. It is equivalent of the 'sun coming up tomorrow'.

Anyone who starts asking for citations on that 'fact' is showing their complete ignorance on Banias, the upper Jordan River and the 1967 war.

2. Replace accurate and reliable sourced material with 'misleading and inaccurate material'. (see below for critical analysis of NoCal100's revision) Here

since when is 3 countries working together with the backing of 10 other countries called 'unilaterally'? Triodecilaterally maybe, but not unilaterally. Again to remove an 'obvious' connection within the upper Jordan.

Conclusion:-

NoCal100 made a mass deletion based on his own ignorance of the issues involved and demands that all other more knowledgeable editors acquiesce to his position of ignorance, the question of why the hell is NoCal100 editing on a subject he knows nothing about is then raised? Why doesn't NoCal100 research the issues him/herself before making an edit? The answer is NoCal100's pro-Israeli POV....

• From NoCal100's actions on Banias and his/her obvious 'cluelessness' on the issues, a further question is then raised. How did Nocal100 get to an article the NoCal100 has no knowledge of, no wish to improve and no research ability displayed. NoCal100 is a 'wikistalker' who staked Nishidani to the article...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Critical analysis of one paragraph of NoCal100's revisions

here //In the mid 1950s, Israel unilaterally started construction of the National Water Carrier, within the Jordan River basin. This caused shelling from Syria and friction with the Eisenhower Administration; the diversion was moved to the southwest. In the 1964, Syria unilaterally started development of the water resources of Banias for irrigation along the slopes of the Golan toward the Yarmouk River. The project to divert 20 to 30 million cubic metres of water from the river Jordan tributaries to Syria was agreed upon at the 2nd Arab summit conference. This led to military intervention from Israel, first with tank fire and then, as the Syrians shifted the works further eastward, with airstrikes.//

1. replaces referenced sourced material with material that has citation needed.//goes without saying sourced for unsoured questionable material//
2. Syria unilaterally (un-sourced). Incorrect done in partnership with Lebanon and Jordan with Arab league backing as agreed at the 2nd Arab league conference as per the citation supplied by myself earlier 2 sentences later in the paragraph. The paragraph by NoCal100's revision is then internally inconsistent misleading and inaccurate.//as per ref in the same para// If what NoCal100 means is that the works were carried out without Israeli permission then he/she needs to find a reference to say that such as: The first Arab summit conference ratified the Arab strategy to thwart Israel’s NWC Plan [drainage of the Hula marshes]. The strategy was designed to divert [2 out of the 3 of the] Jordan’s tributaries [Hasbani, Banias] and prepare the Arab armies for the defence of the engineering operations. //Shemesh, Moshe (2008) Arab Politics, Palestinian Nationalism and the Six Day War: The Crystallization of Arab Strategy and Nasir's Descent to War, 1957-1967 Sussex Academic Press, ISBN 1845191889 p 67//
3. irrigation along the slopes of the Golan.(again un-sourced)??? Incorrect, it was a canal to divert water to the Yarmuk water storage dams.//Loads of sources supplied on this point obviously NoCal100 hasn't read them, the best ref for it is probably: Shemesh, Moshe (2008) Arab Politics, Palestinian Nationalism and the Six Day War: The Crystallization of Arab Strategy and Nasir's Descent to War, 1957-1967 Sussex Academic Press, ISBN 1845191889 pp 49-50//
4. works further eastward??? Really, no the works were not moved, the Syrian chose a different section of the canal to construct further south (further away from Israel's artillery emplacements opposite the central DMZ) that would have connected to the temporarily abandoned works at Banias at a later date.//Shemesh, Moshe (2008) Arab Politics, Palestinian Nationalism and the Six Day War: The Crystallization of Arab Strategy and Nasir's Descent to War, 1957-1967 Sussex Academic Press, ISBN 1845191889 pp 120-130//

That is just one paragraph where 4 gross errors are found as a random sample of NoCal100's editing practises..Marks out 10 for NoCal100? Nocal100 is into minus figures...it would have been 1 for effort but NoCal100 lost that by removing accurate and reliable sourced material to replace it with 'garbage'. has NoCal100 tried to insert this one paragraph multiple times? Yes. has this led to a breakdown in the development of the article? Yes. Has NoCal100 sought consensus for his/her deletions? No...Deleting and then demanding that everyone must seek his/her permission to edit the page is not seeking consensus...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Your analysis are too long.

You must select most relevant points.

Readers who have the power to act (eg admin) are not used to read, they are just used to act according to their punctal emotion weighted by their current agressivity.

A too long text to read upset them versus the writer !

Some clear and very obvious abuses enjoy them because it opens the doors to a "non-criticable" agressive action from them :-)

That is a basic social feeling. You should have this in mind.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The greatest problem is in the fact that the administrators are not knowledgeable about the subject that they are attempting to arbitrate on...NoCal100 et al rely on the administrators being 'unaware' to enable their 'POV' to appear as 'content dispute' and not as 'knowledge versus POV'...It's the equivalent of asking a 5th former to mark a doctoral thesis...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

POV Statement

here //In addition to the villages abandoned in the West Bank during the Six-Day War, over 100,000 Golan Heights residents abandoned about 25 villages whether on orders of the Syrian government or the fear of an attack by the Israeli Defense Forces and forced expulsion after the cease fire.//

should read:-

• //In addition to the villages evacuated or where the residents were expelled in the West Bank during the Six-Day War, over 100,000 Golan Heights residents were evacuated from about 25 villages whether on orders of the Syrian government or through fear of an attack by the Israeli Defense Forces and forced expulsion after the cease fire.//

Cronin, Patrick M. (2008) The Evolution of Strategic Thought Routledge, ISBN 0415459613 p 189

Classic Fubar by an editor with extremist Israelophile POV

Here (+Johnston plan) from here (rm unsourced and seemingly out of place statements). removal of sourced statement on the Johnson plan to replace with unsourced statement on the Johnson plan. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan

Lead sentence:-

//Though the plan was rejected by the Arab League, Israel and Jordan undertook to abide by their allocations under the plan.//

Sentences further down

//The Plan was accepted by the technical committees from both Israel and the Arab League. A discussion in the Knesset in July 1955 ended without a a vote//

//As well, Israel demanded more than doubling of its allocation, from 394 million m³ annually to 810 million m³.//

I can see how people seeing the contradictions in the article may just find the article as misleading and inaccurate...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

However Israel extracted 650-720 million cubic metres from the upper Jordan and 70-100 million cubic metres from the Yarmuk a total of 720-820 million cubic metres annually or 193% the amount allocated under the Johnson plan while Jordan received 120 million cubic metres of water or 17% of its allocation under the Johnson plan.//Efraim Karsh (2003) Israel, the Hashemites and the Palestinians: The Fateful Triangle Routledge, ISBN 0714654345 p 177//

So how does that gel with NoCal100's statement in the article:-

//Both Jordan and Israel undertook to operate within their allocations, and two major successful projects were completed - the Israeli National Water Carrier and Jordan's East Ghor Main Canal.// Someone's undertakings seem to be have sent to and undertaker and buried!!!!!

//The state of Israel was proclaimed on 14 may 1948, the influx of Palestinian refugees into Jordan prompted the government to plan for the development of Jordan valley water resources to create jobs for an expanded population and provide for a basic livelihood...

The basic principle of the plan formulated by MacDonald and Partners for the Hashemite Kingdom in 1951 was adhered to by the Arab plan that followed. The firm asserted that “the principle, which to our minds has an undoubted moral and natural basis, is that the waters in a catchment area should not be diverted outside this area unless requirements of all those who use or genuinely intend to use the waters within the area have been satisfied//

Haddadin, Munther J. (2006) Water Resources in Jordan: Evolving Policies for Development, the Environment, and Conflict Resolution. Resources for the Future, ISBN 1933115327 p 238

which 'obviously' would have been included in reference [1] had Nocal100 not cherry picked...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

research papers Lund University Water and conflict on the Jordan River

Un-ratified Johnson Plan superseded by the 1997 UN Convention on the Non-Navigational Uses of International Water Courses.

//The plan did not receive approval of the league of Arab States, meeting in Cairo in October 1955, and it dried because of increasing tensions in the region. Politics came first, water cooperation second.//

Efraim Karsh (2003) Israel, the Hashemites and the Palestinians: The Fateful Triangle Routledge, ISBN 0714654345 p 174

Israel exceeded its Johnston's quota when its hydrostrategic position allowed it to do that after the 1967 War

Maude Barlow, Tony Clarke (2007) Blue Gold: The Battle Against Corporate Theft of the World's Water Earthscan, ISBN 1844070247 p 20

The UNRWA commissioned a plan for the development of the Jordan River; this became widely known as “The Johnson plan”. The plan was modelled on the Tennessee Valley Authority development plan for the development of the Jordan River as a single unit. Greg Shapland, (1997) Rivers of Discord: International Water Disputes in the Middle East C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, ISBN 1850652147 p 14

Hasbani

al-Ahram —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley kennedy3 (talk • contribs)

Ashley, I removed NoCal100's name from the section header. What I'd really like you to focus on from this point forward is:

• Staying civil
• Keep your posts short
• Separate your comments by venue: Comments about an article, or comments about an editor
• When commenting about an article, don't refer to other editors, just focus on the article
• When commenting about an editor, provide specific diffs of problematic behavior

Thanks, --Elonka 23:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

1. I use my talk page as a note pad for things for me to follow up. This page is private thoughts on wiki articles (allowing me to keep wiki editing thoughts away from reality, as in I have a life and do not wish wiki to intrude on normal life, so I leave wiki thoughts on wiki and not in my head)
2. I do not expect any action over Nocal100.
3. I do not do wikilawyering
4. this will probably continue until someone realises that NoCal100 has problems with; Calton, Tiamut, Nishidani, Ashley Kennedy, Casual Observer and then ask the question 'is it all these productive editors the problem or it NoCal100'.
5. Civil behaviour is what I expect, what NoCal100 writes may be sound civil but it does not follow that his/her actions are civil, and his/her actions are not. Being civil does not mean ignoring the obvious.
6. Do not expect much civility when I have had uncivil treatment from wiki. A 1 month block for NoCal100 reporting his/her unfounded suspicions about sockpuppets. Now check my IP and Charlie O'Sulivans IP, oh mines in Southport and Charlie's is in Oldham but behavioural suspicions works for the admin that NoCal100 uses and you say that behavioural suspicions count for nothing????...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me put this another way: What would you most like to see happen at this point, to make you a happy Wikipedia editor? What wrong would you like to see righted? --Elonka 01:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The perfect world scenario...A team of dedicated article fact checkers (involved admin rather than uninvolved admin) that can force an editor to remain on one article until it is up to standard..Proper 'Peer review'..citations for every line...none established editors only allowed to add citations (there are all the old articles that are lacking in citations) until 'licensed' to work on articles...

• "What wrong would you like to see righted?" How much time have you spare, a week, a month or a year?

1. systemic racism against Taimut. There are a few people who need to take a race awareness course before being allowed to comment to Taimut.
2. verified accounts only. No anonymity. (and I'm not talking IP address, full name rank and serial number, If you can't or wont supply you get stuck at unlicensed citation work only)
3. regularisation of the 'discussions' (there are discussions that are pertinent to all 'involved editors that are held in out of the way corners where 'involved editors' are not informed of the discussion. example Oboler with a hole in the wall discussion on what constitutes a massacre on WikiProject Military history, talk about 'obvious' NoCal100 and Oboler collusion).
4. Oboler should be issued with a stern warning about hole in the wall discussions and the need to inform all involved editors in the correct place and manner.why no discussion here?
5. Following on from that all involved editors should be informed about all general discussions automatically and not by the phone a friend attitude prevalent at this time.

Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Convoy of 35 35 people walking in not a convoy. Party of 35, squad of 35, group of 35 but not a convoy. or platoon of 35 since they were the second attempt made by 40 of the 'finest soldiers of the Palmach'. Or did someone want to make a misleading article by missing out that the 35 was a Palmach elite commando unit out to resupply the Palmach camp at Etzion block (who just happen to be involved in making commando raids on Palestinian villages)?

Let us see what a paper that has studied the 'politics' of the Israeli usage for propaganda purposes says:- a platoon of 35 reinforcements

John Lehr; Yossi Katz Heritage Interpretation and Politics in Kfar Etzion, Israel published in International Journal of Heritage Studies, Volume 9, Issue 3 September 2003 , pages 215 – 228

This presentation is analysed to illustrate the ways in which an historical narrative is constructed for interpretive purposes and to show that Bloc and Israeli perspectives are conflated for political purposes.

this means that the title of Convoy of 35 is the Israeli perspectives are conflated for political purposes. Well what a surprise, wiki is verifiable as Israeli POV...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

you know, if Semiramis was a "massacre", than the platoon of 35 can be described as a convoy... and their killing, instead of a act of war, can be an genocide motivated by antisemitism. :-)

personnaly, I am still amazed that nobody points out the 100 deaths / week for a total population of 2,000,000 between in dec 47 and jan 48 when 70,000 British soldiers were there... At the scale of Iraq today, it would give : 1500 deaths / week for a total population of 30,000,000 with 1,000,000 [US] soldiers there...

That was chaos and hell ! Ceedjee (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Conflation for political purposes? There's more POV in Wiki than jam in Hartley's....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope so ! We are there to gather *all* the POV on the topics we deal with and to give all of these their due weight (from the academic wp:rs pov to the collective memory pov)

... :-)

Ceedjee (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's the single POV that is the problem with undue weight. and the conflation allied with denigration...Your mate Morris is very good at that....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Not false... There is only one Saint-Moritz. All others are human. Fortunately, my mate is above all... historian ;-) Ceedjee (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh and Elonka needs to look in the mirror before casting aspersions

Ashley tried to login on a different IP

Isn't that WP:Uncivil? Elonka! Double standards???? here All this proves is the wiki check user on British BT is rubbish. This also brings in which wrong to put right- Charlie O'Sulivan- now let me see NoCal100 has suspicions and uses the dodgy (on British BT user accounts) wiki Check user system and 2 + 2 = 5,000. I take that block in good faith but then I notice Nocal100 being WP:UNCIVIL all over the place casting aspersions and it's all based on NoCal100's suspicions about behaviour; and you now expect me not to use the same standard as Nocal100, well I will be using the same level of civility...If NoCal100 can use that level to be WP:UNCIVIL and not be brought to brook then every one else can.... That's what admin teach. I will use the same level of Civility as other users...Hold onto your hats because you ain't going to like it....57 found it annoying on Feiglin article, wait till I start doing a Canadian Monkey...how terrible planning to use the same methods as the Israelophiles but that's not WP:UNCIVIL and quite allowable according to admin it's just content dispute...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Let me try and summarize, and offer my own replies?

• You feel that all editors doing substantial work should be required to login.
  • I understand your concerns, but I'm afraid that this isn't going to happen. The Wikipedia community has decided that people are allowed to edit anonymously, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
• You feel that all major discussions about controversial topics should be properly bannered to the editors most interested in those discussions, rather than held in limited venues.
  • Yes, this would be nice, and I agree with you, but it's difficult to implement. I too have seen cases where an article or group of articles were stable, and then a few editors had a limited discussion in some unadvertised corner of the project, they rapidly all agreed with each other and declared "Consensus!" and then swept through the project trying to change everything to their preferred version. It's hugely irritating, I agree. The best way that I've found to handle these situations, is:
    • Identify the editors that are doing it, and tell them to cut it out.
    • Explain to them that when making major changes across multiple articles, they need to ensure that there's a broad consensus among editors for those changes. If it's a multi-article change, notices need to be placed about the discussion in certain high-visibility locations: A few article talkpages, all the relevant WikiProjects, the Village Pump, and maybe a full out RfC
    • As for your own actions, if you see articles being changed to controversial versions, but without consensus on that article's talkpage, change the article back to an earlier version, or try to find a compromise version. Do your best to start a thread at the talkpage to talk about the change. In short, no one can go to an article and just make a change, citing consensus on a different article, unless they gave the editors on the first article an opportunity to participate in the discussion. If you see anyone doing this, trying to force a consensus on someone who never had an opportunity to participate, with a reasoning of, "We've already decided, too bad," you let me or some other admin know, and we'll have a word with them. Now, an exception to this is if a discussion took place on a policy or guideline page, in which case if a guideline got changed to something you disagree with, then the way to handle it is to re-open the discussion on the guideline talkpage, and possibly file an RfC to get more opinions into the mix. But if there's an RfC and a genuinely open discussion, and the guideline is accordingly changed to something you disagree with, well, it's best to suck it up and abide by the community's decision.
    • If no guideline exists about the changes, or if there's a guideline and it hasn't gone through any kind of discussion yet, propose a change of your own at the guideline's talkpage. If it's a big change, banner it as above, with notices at talkpages, WikiProjects, and perhaps the Village Pump. Once you can get something into the guideline, you have more authority. Note that guidelines aren't policies -- they are recommendations, not rules. But they can definitely help in controversial situations.
• Next on your list: You have concerns about Oboler (talk · contribs).
  • I'll take a look at what he's doing.
• You feel that since NoCal100 or Canadian Monkey aren't civil, you don't have to be civil either.
  • Wrong. It doesn't matter how other editors act, you still need to abide by WP:CIVIL
• You have concerns about the Convoy of 35 article.
  • I've added them to my watchlist and will see if I can help there

How's that? --Elonka 17:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• That's why I called it perfect world scenario..
• It's not difficult to implement...It's called IP collaboration, all IP related general discussions get dealt with on the IP collaboration all other discussions at obscure venues get short shrift and a policy of automatic revert to any discussion based editing on discussions held outside the IP collaboration discussion pages is instigated.
• Convoy of 35 along with Gush Etzion is what is termed a white wash major pertinent facts have been excluded.
• Both NoCal100 and Canadian Monkey use deletion to remove material. The technique used in both cases are very similar; make a statement in the edit summary such as not pertinent while deleting and then demand that consensus should be reached before re-inclusion. Wrong, consensus should be reached for their original deletion (deletion is an edit), their technique initiates edit wars. If they wish further clarification they should 1. ask first, citation needed, hidden notes, 2. Then seek genuine consensus.

also if they feel it should be in another section or article why don't they put it there? Their actions are WP:UNCIVIL and disruptive in pursuit of POV.

• Oboler is a "hole in the wall" artist. Oboler is initiating discussion on fundamental elements central to the IP conflict where "denigration of the enemy" and "conflation for political purposes" are the two main elements in his armoury of POV. He needs to be made aware that his behaviour of "hole in the wall" discussions are WP:UNCIVIL and disruptive leading to unnecessary edit wars. He then appears to "phone a friend" to implement his POV before the discussion is even finished (probably anticipating that no one will take part in the discussion due to it being out of the way) Example Khisas, where all the Khisas massacre categories are IP conflict yet Oboler used Military history to initiate the discussion, NoCal100 implements Oboler's POV before the Discussion is finished....That is not genuine consensus. This means that Oboler is going to have to suck it up and suffer the consequences. Unfortunately for Oboler I had a month of free time to look around at what has been occurring, a month to analyse all the childish games the some editors have been indulging themselves in....

• As Iron Duke, NoCal100, Jaakabu, Canadian Monkey find that there is nothing incorrect or WP:UNCIVIL in their behaviour it follows that their behaviour is WP:CIVIL; this means I too can treat myself and indulge in practising their editing style as and when I wish.... Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Taking just your last point, no, just because other editors are uncivil, does not mean that you can be. In fact, if you persist in this threat that you are going to continue to disrupt the project when your block is released, administrators have the authority to just extend your block now. So please, re-think your position on this? A better way to behave, would be to acknowledge the concerns that led to the current block in the first place, and promise not to do it again. You need to provide assurances that your actions from this point forward will be in accordance with policies, and that you have no intent to further disrupt the project. --Elonka 19:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Just taking your point. What threat? Do you consider adhering to the rules completely and utterly as a threat?
2. Does this mean you find NoCal100's behaviour unacceptable?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

do you find this acceptable and none-disruptive?

NoCal100 removing sourced material here while making the comment “rm unsourced and seemingly out of place statements”.

And then replace it with an un-sourced sentence here with the comment (+Johnston plan).

The original sentence was sourced about the Johnson plan or more formally known as the Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan

1955 US ambassador Johnson negotiated the Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan, this has formed an important precedent. Existing utilization patterns have also serve as an important factor in determining the allocation of water in the region.<refCronin, Patrick M. (2008) The Evolution of Strategic Thought Routledge, ISBN 0415459613 p 189/ref>

...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you find editing by mass deletion before reaching consensus as acceptable behaviour and none disruptive?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have again removed NoCal100's name from the section header, please don't add it back. As for the two diffs that you provided, I agree that the first one might be questionable.[17] However, it's also worth pointing out that this was a few days ago, and no one aside from you has disagreed with the change, nor is there any challenge on the talkpage. Now, when your block is up, what you could do is to re-add the sourced information, and accompany this with a polite note at the talkpage as to why you are restoring the information. --Elonka 23:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A blatant obvious lie against you own rules and you call it questionable?

Do you consider taking unreference bags of rats tails; Nahum Goldmann, Mamre and Banias as disruptive? Do you consider adding however many hundreds of Palestinian towns and villages as disruptive? Do you consider adding geo coordinates to many articles as disruptive? Do you consider adhering strictly to NPOV as disruptive? Do you consider adding references from RS sources as disruptive? You have very funny criteria for describing what is disruptive....

I shall be very polite and I shall be very truthful and I will use all the complaints procedures possible...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As to your timing you may notice that a lie remains a lie even well told some time ago. It's called records and records can be checked, you were also informed that User NoCal100 lied at the time. What action did you take?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk)

NoCal100

There is nothing "questionable" about this edit. The statement that the Johnston Plan 'has formed an important precedent. ' is unsourced - it is nowhere to be found in the given reference. The second statement - "Existing utilization patterns have also serve as an important factor in determining the allocation of water in the region." is not only unsourced, as it, too, does not appear in the given reference, but is also a generic claim about water rights which is true for every dispute over water rights, and as such, has no particular relevance to an article about the Hasbani. In any case, the proper way to deal with such content disputes is to discuss them on the Talk page of the relevant article, not to bring them up on AN/I under the heading of 'bad faith edits'. NoCal100 (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

There is everything questionable about your edit. Are you aware of the term plagiarism? Those ideas are from the source and are not copies of phrases from the source as per rules on plagiarising. See Plagiarism and familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Your behaviour is WP:UNCIVIL please desist. If you have a content dispute please use the talk page at the relevant article, and wait for a reply, before making further questionable edits.

The Hasbani is part of a wider dispute over water and the article up to the point I inserted reference work did not make that fact clear, at all. The article was therefore both misleading and inaccurate..The best place to deal with questionable edits is WP:ANI....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The place to deal with content disputes, which is what you are describing here, is the article's Talk page, not ANI. NoCal100 (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The new policy of anti-none-plagiarising is far more important than just WP:ANI...Also as you NoCal100 claim that the talk page is the place to discuss content dispute; Why didn't you use it? Were you NoCal100 being purposefully disruptive by not using the talk page? Shouldn't you talk on the talkpage first before making your controversial edits? Shouldn't you seek consensus with your controversial edits before making the edits?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The second statement - "Existing utilization patterns also serve as an important factor in determining the allocation of water in the region." You say is generic. What happens when it is put through google:-

First hit is JSTOR list of accademic aricles. second hit wiki This is the third hit, just after wiki:-

Gonzaga Journal of International Law Shared Water Resources in the Jordan River Basin By Karen Hudes.

“In the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty and the Interim Agreement, the allocations agreed in technical discussions among the riparians during negotiation of the Johnston Plan over forty years ago have served as important precedent.”

...This appears as though you diverge from academic thought and wiki guidelines on this subject?...Next time you find none-plagiarised material do not delete it, wiki is supposed to be full of none-plagiarised material. It is when you find plagiarised material that you are to take action, please next time try to get it the correct way round...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The material you inserted into the article was unsourced, so I removed it, explaining it is unsourced, The proper response is to take it to the Talk page, asking for clarifications, and then, possibly finding a source for the argument in question - which is what you have finally done, now. NoCal100 (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

So why didn't NoCal100 take it to the talkpage; is it because NoCal100 is an intentionally disruptive editor? I it took less than a second to find a similar phrase in a pertinent publication by googling. Third hit after wiki, maybe NoCal100 has problems with his/her ability to google? Or maybe NoCal100 is just a bad faith editor?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

NoCal100, the concern is in this diff here,[18] where you said, "rm unsourced", but the information did appear to be sourced, and in fact, you deleted the source along with the information. Can you please explain? --Elonka 15:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read above, at the top of this section (where Ashely has moved it from its original location, where it was posted as a response to your previous comment): The statement that the Johnston Plan 'has formed an important precedent. ' is unsourced - it is nowhere to be found in the given reference. The second statement - "Existing utilization patterns have also serve as an important factor in determining the allocation of water in the region." is not only unsourced, as it, too, does not appear in the given reference, but is also a generic claim about water rights which is true for every dispute over water rights, and as such, has no particular relevance to an article about the Hasbani. NoCal100 (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have access to the book itself. Could someone please quote what the book Evolution of Strategic Thought does say on the subject, on page 189? --Elonka 16:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going back up to Manchester to look for it not in this Christmas crush besides the Uni-library is closed now. NoCal100 says he has access. And the source does not have the phrases; as the phrases are not plagiarised. Maybe NoCal100 would like to lend you his/her copy?

I moved NoCal100's accusation of none-plagiarism to a separate section; as I found the accusation of none-plagiarism raised some serious questions. How far will editors be forced to take new anti-none-plagiarism policy, are the same words to be used but in a different order? Must the order and syntax be kept? What will the new policy be called? I vote for WP:NoCal100 anti-none-plagiarism policy; as NoCal100 is the clever editor that is pushing for the use of 'anti-none-Plagiarising'. Will Nocal100 be writing the new 'WP:NoCal100 anti-none-plagiarism policy guide' to this revolutionary 'new policy'.

I do find the Nocal100's charge that I do not plagiarise a very nice compliment though. I wonder how many other editors will be accused of 'not plagiarising'? Will NoCal100 be carrying out a article patrol to remove all other none-plagiarised material?. Will removal of all none plagiarised material be considered disruptive to the project?. What effect will this have on the wiki copyright? Will all editors be forced to comply with the new NoCal100 policy of anti-none-Plagiarism, what material will be allowed to be included in wiki? NoCal100's actions do tend to be opening up a large can of worms...Should we have an WP:ANI on this new policy where only Plagiarised material may be used? It will make it so much easier to copy paste and save time on reading..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion. Here is the link: http://books.google.com/books?id=HkhxRX1tP24C&dq=Evolution+of+Strategic+Thought&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=Bl1NYqrlI4&sig=sYIbhGeAGgGRYFRw7NIRP1Ty3AU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA189,M1 Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry my bad.. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Page 189 not included Tundra. And please sign next time...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ashley, 189 was included for me. Perhaps you have reached your limit of page-views? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

All rather mute now as NoCal100 rather condescendingly says:-

The material you inserted into the article was unsourced, so I removed it, explaining it is unsourced, The proper response is to take it to the Talk page, asking for clarifications, and then, possibly finding a source for the argument in question - which is what you have finally done, now. NoCal100 (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

As it took point 34 (0.34) seconds to google an alternative RS source one does wonder how Nocal100 managed to delete without googling an alternative. What would happen to articles such as Mamre, Banias or Nahum Goldmann with NoCal100's attitude? Would there just be big empty pages in the wiki project as they were all unsourced?...Maybe wiki needs to find editors that will go more than 0.34 seconds out of there way? ...Maybe wiki needs to find editors who will take the occasional visit to a library? Maybe wiki needs to find editors who will use books...Maybe wiki needs to find editors who will use their own words and not Plagiarise?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Come on tundra who put most of those 70 odd references in Nahum Goldmann here. You've been tarting around with the Nahum Goldmann article tundra, what was the state before and after? Why didn't I go the NoCal100 route and just delete, why did I spend days finding references, why did I spend more time than 0.34 of a second looking, why didn't I just delete, after all deleting is so much easier? maybe I too will adopt the lazy editor method of claiming "unsourced, content dispute", as that does seem to be the way forward and does not get you blocked; where as trying to find references and using your own words does get you blocked....Lets all us editors adopt the NoCal100 anti-none-plagiarising policy...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

had I quoted without giving due credit then your remarks would be pertinent. However NoCal100 has accused me of using my own words. Nocal100's complaint is that I have none-plagiarised.

NoCal100 is aghast that I've used a summary and not the actual words in the piece... therefore Nocal100 is against none-plagiarising as I didn't quote.... I am not accusing NoCal100 of plagiarising I am however saying that Nocal100 should not assume that everyone will copy paste direct from a book...His complaint that I did not plagiarise is, somewhat, a strange accusation...And filling an encyclopaedia with quotes is actively discouraged...Maybe you need to look around the articles a bit more to see the complaints expressed by some editors about un-encyclopaedic masses of quotes...I haven't quoted I have para-phrased, made a synopsis, used my own words. That is called none-plagiarism, NoCal100 has complained that I have none-Plagiarised...I you wish to defend the principle of anti-none-plagiarising; please do carry on...Ashley kennedy3 (talk)

PS please point out somewhere that I have accused someone of plagiarism...please read all the above to refresh your memory....Please try to be WP:CIVIL before making unfounded accusations...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

PPS please strike out your unfounded remarks after reading the postings...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am having a great deal of trouble understanding you. You're claiming NoCal100 accused you of "none-plagiarism"? Where? --Elonka 23:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Strike your unfounded accusations...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

an apology would be WP:CIVIL Elonka...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ashley, your block is going to expire in 24 hours. Based on what I've been seeing of your behavior here on your talkpage, I am concerned that your account access may just be re-blocked again very rapidly. If you do not wish this to happen, I recommend that:

Your concerns should be first and foremost for content of wiki; your lack of concerns for wiki content is noted.

1. You try to wipe the slate clean of any previous perceptions of injustice It's about POV content (PS It was you that brought up the subject of "injustice", please stop with the innuendo and false assertions that sort of behaviour is WP:UNCIVIL)
2. You keep all future communications very civil Civil is as civil does, unless you're expecting a higher standard than your own incivility from everyone one else.
3. You keep all future communications very focused on articles, and not on other editors I'm very focused on article content. This is why Israelophile POV being put in place of accurate and reliable content is a concern.

I hope you take this advice onboard, --Elonka 00:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

1. "You ensure that any future additions to articles are kept very carefully sourced". There are very few editors who do source their work carefully; I am one of them; NoCal100 does not. You may now go tell NoCal100 to source his work as I will be along to mark it later.

1. Please get your facts correct before casting aspersions. I have noticed a tendency in your postings for you to claim an inability to understand, may I humbly suggest that this is the reason for your inability to get facts correct.
2. On your talk page you have blamed everything and me for your own error; when you blanked out half the UK. You have harassed and harangued me on my own page and now write about being civil...may I humbly suggest that you go away and think about your own actions. The well known phrase about an eye and a beam comes readily to mind.

You are hereby banned from my user page and Talk page.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Arab-Israelis

I meant that 'Arab citizen of Israel' was not an adjective. It's a grammar issue, please don't make it into a POV issue. I retained one instance of 'Arab-Israeli' to make it clear that they aren't Saudis or Japanese Arabs (although I don't see how this can be unclear from the context anyway). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you see nothing wrong with 'Arab citizen of Israel elementary school'? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. My original change was to 'Arab-Israeli schools have been underfunded, and by 2000 there was only one Arab elementary school', which does say Israeli-Arabs very clearly, so I don't understand what you're talking about. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka Banned

Elonka has been informed that due to her Incivility that she is banned from this talk page and user page. The ban is for as long as I care to make it...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll do my best

To try and get the street map and the pictures. I'm hoping that we will be able to enter Bethlehem because it's Christmas. Generally, we Palestinians inside Israel are not allowed to enter Area A in the West Bank. On holidays, they make exceptions, which is why we could go to Nablus during the Eid a couple of weeks ago (my first time there, by the way, and it's beautiful). Since my family is mostly Christian, we generally have no problem getting into Bethlehem for Christmastime, though the few Muslims among us can sometimes encounter problems (we have Muslims in the family by way of marriage - yes, there is still intermarriage between Palestinian of different religious persuasions). Anyway, I'll do my best, like I said. I hope I have good stuff to pass on to you, Huldra and Al Ameer son when I get back. Happy holidays to you too.Tiamut^talk 17:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI NoCal100

obvious blatant lies on Banias

2 editors clearly state that the reasoning is for not wanting to get involved directly is fair words but obscene actions of Israelophile POV editor and not through consensus.[19]

Excuse me for saying so: but what a load of rubbish. "Consensus" on Banias (-Ashley) exist because the rest of us are sick to the bone of tag-teaming pro-Israeli teams showing up at certain articles...so we stay away. Yes, I admit: I "chicken out" of articles when NoCal100 et.al. shows up. And I am not alone. That is how "consensus" is achieved. Elonka: I had a higher opinion about you than this. Regards, Huldra (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Why a POV banner should be place on Banias article. Obvious POV on Banias Removal of source connecting Syrian reaction to Israeli actions.

Merge discussion notice

"I am surprised that the editor who posted the proposal has been so uncivil as not to have notified you" is not a helpful addition to the notice, Ashley. -- Avi (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is what watchlists are for. If people are suitably interested in an article, changes to the article pop up on the watchlist (like I saw your edits to User talk:Tiamut as I have her page watchlisted). In wikipedia, it is pretty safe to assume that a change made to an article will be picked up by those interested, and it is not a form of incivility, nor a lack of common courtesy, to make the change to the page and not inform individual editors. There are often so many editors that starting to inform individual people gets the editor in danger of canvassing issues. It is an extra courtesy to drop a note on the talk pages of the appropriate wikiprojects, and perhaps the talk pages of individuals who have been VERY involved in the extremelt recent past, but it is not a problem not to do so, in general. Further, due to watchlists, there is no need for you to act as a postman, as anyone involved will likely pick up the change.

Another point, if I may, Ashley. Ask yourself if you would be so vehement had Tiamut suggested the merge. The Palestinian-Israeli area of wikipedia is one of the most emotionally charged ones that there is, and so we editors must take extra pains to try and act civilly, even if inside, we are emotionally charged up. It is human to be frustrated, upset, insulted, etc. But allowing those emotions to bleed into our editing only serves to further exacerbate the problems here in wikipedia. I know the feeling, I edit those areas too, but if there is any hope of coming to reasonable compromises, we have to put our emotions aside and work together as best possible to build good articles. -- Avi (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Please realize that while you may find it insufficient, many others do, and giving others the benefit of the doubt goes a long way in preventing unnecessary frustrations among all sides. -- Avi (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Khalidi

As I am very involved in the current consensus-finding process, even though janitorial editing is permitted, it is better if I am not the one who does it. However, after weeks and weeks of discussions, we are very close to a compromise, so I'm hoping that the article will be unlocked in the next week or so, so I can look at the tags at that point. On contentious articles, extra patience is called for, Ashley. -- Avi (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if that were true, on contentious articles extra citations are always helpful. Ashley, I would once again counsel both patience and courtesy when dealing with these kinds of articles. A tone of righteous indignation, no matter how justified, will more often serve to distance those with whom you need to build a rapport—those whose opinions are fundamentally different than yours. -- Avi (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ma'ale Akrabim

Issues have not been addressed.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Pool of Bethesda

The coords you have added are those for Birket Israel. The Pool of Bethesda is located north of the Via Dolorosa. Regards, Chesdovi (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Khadra Mosque DYK nom

Hey! Are you interested in co-nominating al-Khadra Mosque for a DYK feature on the Main Page along with me and Fipplet? It fits the size criteria and is fully-referenced - thanks to you ;). --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You helped expand and reference the article, so of course you will get credit. However, I was just looking at the article and was wondering if you could add the coordinates to the "geo" section in the infobox. I'll put my views on the Mergers topic at the talk page by the way. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. You're getting credit whether you want it or not! --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no actual size limit (it can't be stub is all). However, in terms of broadness, the article lacks an architecture section, but luckily in the Pringle book [20] on pages 111-112 there is a decent architectural description. Right now I'm concentrating on the Great Mosque of Gaza (wanna absorb all the info on it that I can) and will soon nominate that article for GA review. If you have the will and the time you could add the architecture section on al-Khadra Mosque, and I'll make copyedits or touch-ups if necessary. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Blood Libel at Deir Yassin

I admire your ability to stir up battles long forgotten. Now it looks like we might have an edit war over quotation marks!

Anyway, if you were to nominate this article for deletion, I would support you. The book is cheap propaganda, of no importance: it was self-published, it was never reviewed by any Israeli newspaper (it was reported on an inside page in Haaretz, but no review), and it in fact stirred no controversy whatsoever. What Milstein presents as new facts are simply a rehash of claims that have been floating around for years. The only real reason this article was included in the Wikipedia was, in my opinion, to get the words "Deir Yassin" and "Blood libel" into the title of an article (Note, too, that the blood libel is not a libel of Palestinian supporters against the Israelis, but of leftwing Israelis against rightwing ones). It was written by an editor whose editing practices were so inflammatory and disruptive that within a month she was permanently blocked. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I don't want to start an argument about the Deir Yassin massacre, especially since we probably have similar views on the subject, but the appropriate way to convey the author's bias is to write "what the author describes as a raid on Deir Yassin", not to use scare quotes. See WP:WTA. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, but from my knowledge of the way he writes, I would guess that he didn't call it a "raid", but rather an "action". fyi. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Try not to guess. The author uses "Battle of Deir Yassin" in an attempt at aggrandisement of Lehi and Irgun (as part of his propaganda method and should therefore not be acknowledged). Battles occur between armies and are not carried out by a small group of irregulars against a civil population. Actions is normally used to describe an irregular attack but in this incident Uri decided not to use the term "action"....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand from your post that you have actually read the book. That you should devote the time to reading this tripe, all in the name of accuracy, is a reason for admiration.

You are right about not guessing. So I went back and read the English summary (the original Hebrew book is unavailable - where did you get a copy?), and there he uses neither raid nor action. He also makes none of the distinctions between battles, actions and raids that you so clearly (if somewhat arbitrarily) define. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Enough, Ashley

The issue is not whether Segev is a reliable. Rather, the issues are a) the first sentence is entirely unsourced, b) we have no idea who Rafi Rubenstein is (and Rubenstein is not Segev), and c) the citation you provided doesn't support the claims you have made for it. Is that clear? Now instead of blindly reverting, or responding with incomprehensible comments, please respond meaningfully to my questions on the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

help needed

After moving Church of Saint Lazarus from Israel (the church is in al-Eizariya) ...I have been looking at a few of the other churches, say Dominus Flevit Church..however, I don´t have a good map of the "green line". Could you please take a look and check? I suspect it is not only Church of Saint Lazarus which is wrongly "placed" in Israel on WP. Thanks! -cheers, Huldra (talk) 10:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Broader article restrictions

Ashley you've now received two article bans yet for some reason continue to be disruptive on articles related to water and water disputes between Israel and Palestine. Recently you have blanked sections and entire articles during content disputes. You also continue to be incredibly uncivil to other editors, recent examples would be this and this. Since you have not heeded the warning of article bans and simply moved on to causing disruption at new articles, you are now under a general topic ban from Israeli-Palestine articles for the next 60 days. Shell ^babelfish 10:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC) So what...wiki is about as useful for information as a cat litter tray...ask yourself why is wiki banned in education establishments? Why is wiki blamed for a decrease in exam passes? Just shows what jayjg can do, jayjg can reduce the sum total of human knowledge.......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not even certain what was meant by your response on my talk page. If you mean to say that your behavior is not disruptive then clearly you are mistaken. Deleting text you simply don't agree with, tagging articles and refusing to give reasons, adding hyperbole to articles that is not backed up by the sources you provide -- all of these are disruptive behaviors. Part of editing at Wikipedia is learning to work collaboratively with others - this means civilly discussing issues, adhering to WP:NPOV even when you have personal feelings otherwise and in general, finding ways to work together to improve the project. Hopefully you can use this break from articles that seem to be causing you concern to develop some skills in dispute resolution so that after the 60 days has expired, you can return to what is a rather controversial area with a better sense of how to work on those articles collaboratively.

I would also suggest that you may want to take a break at the moment until you feel you can stop attacking other editors. Continuing to make disparaging remarks may lead to a block on your account as well. Shell ^babelfish 11:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

When I said I wasn't certain what you meant, its not due to some odd problem with admins and articles, its because frankly, you're not communicating yourself very well. This seems to be a problem you've encountered frequently when trying to work with other editors - perhaps you could take some time to slow down while writing and make certain that you're being specific about what you're trying to say. As for the wiki, I'm certain that removing opinion and poorly sourced statements will be a net improvement. As far as your threats to stalk other editors on noticeboards and elsewhere, please understand that you're already at the end of a rather short rope - if the disruption continues, its likely you'll find yourself banned entirely. Shell ^babelfish 12:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If you put together a factual statement about your concerns with NoCal100 with diffs showing the behavior you're concerned with, there's any number of admins that would be happy to look into the issue for you. So far, you've told me that other editors are decimating articles without providing any kind of evidence or even what articles might be affected - there's really not much I can do without more information. However, to head off an issue, if your idea of destroying articles is the removal of information you inserted that turns out not to be backed up by the source you provided, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed by the response. Shell ^babelfish 12:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you haven't discussed them before with me, so I'm going in a bit blind at the moment. If you can show me where you've discussed the issue before, assuming you provided evidence and diffs there, you wouldn't have to go putting it together another time. I'm sure newspapers have had a lot to say about Wikipedia, but I don't think that's going to help us resolve the problem at hand. And when I was referring to the removal of information not backed up by the source you provided, I was referring to your recent edits on Water politics in the Jordan River basin which I don't believe NoCal100 has edited. You appear to have put in a lot of work on that article, so its unfortunate that a disagreement over content had to escalate to this point - has anyone helped you understand Wikipedia's options for dispute resolution? Shell ^babelfish 13:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ashley,
Please keep cool ! You should admit that the claims you write in the article are not supported by the sources you give. If you have these sources, just provide them and everything is ok. If you don't find them back (as it often happens - I have the same problem), just wait for some time to find them back, there is no hurry !
Kind Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for al-Khadra Mosque

On 3 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article al-Khadra Mosque, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gaza solidarity

Greetings Ashley kennedy3. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine#Gaza Devotion period. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Where have you been?!?

We missed you there bro. WP Palestine's active users are on a dry spell. Tiamut hasn't been here for a while, Huldra has been drifting in and out, although I haven't heard from her lately, and I've been contributing mostly to WP Syria for the past few weeks. I did create some new articles this month however. They are Khirbet al-Malih, Karatiyya, Bayt Jiz, Hims (camp), Hamam al-Sammara, Qasr al-Basha, Burayr, Juhor ad-Dik, and Soldier's Square. All could use coordiantes I think. By the way, Gaza is on its way to being listed as a Good article, and I was wondering if you could provide the coords for the city's districts, Rimal and Shuja'iyya. Regards, --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you add the coords to Tarrama (Khirbet al-Tarrama), Ibdis, Rafidia, and al-Sukhnah (in Syria)? --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Coords for Deir Razih please. By the way, great job expanding Bureij! --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Breaking the silence

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44104

• (in English) New York Times: Former Israeli Soldiers Tell of Harassment of Palestinians
• (in English) Breaking the Silence: The Next Phase
• (in English) CNN News: Soldiers' photo exhibit strikes nerve
• (in English) English translation of the photo gallery above
• (in English) New York Times: Former Israeli Soldiers Tell of Harassment of Palestinians
• (in Hebrew) Photo gallery presented by Breaking the Silence
• (in English) Aljazeera News: Fmr. Israeli soldier exposes abuse of Palestinians
• (in English) Haaretz: IDF questions reservists who organized Hebron photo exhibit
• (in English) Aljazeera News: Fmr. Israeli soldier exposes abuse of Palestinians
• (in English) Our reign of terror, by the Israeli army, 19 April 2008, The Independent
• (in English) Haaretz: IDF questions reservists who organized Hebron photo exhibit
• Video: Dotan and Yehuda - "Breaking the Silence: Israeli Soldiers Speak Out" (November 7, 2006), presentation by Dotan Greenvald and Yehuda Shaul, members of Breaking the Silence
• Death Squads A Soldier's Story The Independent, 01/03/2009

Coords

Marhaba Ashley, thanks for the offer... I've been going through the Category:Syria articles missing geocoordinate data and trying to look up coords for them, any help would be welcome! :) Yazan (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to put the link to the category. Category:Syria articles missing geocoordinate data.. Yazan (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha, actually I've been focusing more on coords for buildings and structures (most of them are well referenced)... But you're right, WP Syria has been quite inactive for a while. On a side note, we're using the Template:Coord missing template to categorize them. Yazan (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

To answer your questions briefly. 1. I don't know the people working on Syriac/Aramean articles, sorry! 2. I prefer DMS, it's easier to get from GE. 3. I am no such thing, actually I don't think we have that. But since I (along with Al Ameer who joined us lately) are the only real active editors on WP-Sy, we get to fill out all the "seats", so there... Again, thanks for the help! Greatly appreciated... Yazan (talk) 06:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Rimal and coords

Yes, I know. Just as there is Tuffah East and Tuffah West. However, in all the sources I've come across, they all describe one large Rimal district (neighborhood). On a tour guide map from google books it shows North and South Rimal, so we should at least mention this in the article. Good catch.

About Midan al-Jundi. I'm not sure what it's generally called, I just got the name from the source. I also came across the name "Unknown Soldier Square". You could rename it to what's appropriate, as long as there are sources to back it up of course...

I'm all for imitating WP Syria's coords program. How we all initiate it? --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Category:Palestine articles missing geocoordinate data

Re:Nuseirat power plant

Why not. We should also create an article on it eventually. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Governorate

Governorate is the closest english translation for the Arabic word Muhafazah, which is the first level subdivions in most Arab countries. Yazan (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the official word used in Syria. They can be used interchangeably but for example Britannica uses Governorate. Yazan (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Sheikh Radwan

I'm talking about the one next to Jabaliya at the northernmost end of Gaza City. Google maps actually has it labeled (as Sheih Radwan). Could you make the correction and the coords please. Sorry for the mix-up. Yea, I had my suspicions on al-Qubbah (also spelled Kuba). By al-Montar, do you mean Tell al-Muntar described in the bottom of the Geography section in the Gaza article. If so, we could create an article on it since we got info on it. It's not a district, but it could be a suburb or something like that. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying al-Montar. About Sheikh Radwan, I'm not sure if what you're saying is correct. The Sheikh Radwan I'm speaking of is clearly depicted in this map here, [21]. It's right on top of Gaza, next an-Nazla. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha! I still don't which one to believe (the location is pretty much the same, but not exactly the same). The map I'm using has the area labeled as an Israeli housing project which matches the information in the History section of the article. The UN Map is more reliable and detailed, however, so I agree we go with that one. The "Texan" map probably just misplaced it I guess... So, are we clear on the coords now? By the way, there is no Montar shown on the UN Map. In its place is "at-Turkuman". --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The Texans might be right, after all.... I searched for "الشيخ رضوان" (Sheikh Radwan in Arabic), and plotted the first nine results and then drew a blue rectangle around them. Jabalia (including Jabalia RC) and Beach Camp are in Yellow. Using this primitive approach I must agree (to a certain degree of confidence) with the Texans. I will try to do the same for "Nazlah", and update you on it. Here's the map I created for Sheikh Radwan, and here's An-Nazla. --Fjmustak (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Dammit! Which one is it! I want the coords!!! --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Rimal

The "uninhabited" part was OR I must admit, but the source (which you could read yourself if you want) says it was made up of sand dunes. Now, there could be a relation between the ancient and middle ages port of Gaza (Maiuma), but we need this to be written explicitly (or hell, even inexplicably) to include it in the article. Either way, we should start an article on the Port of Gaza, like there is one on the Port of Latakia or Port of Ashdod. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. I'm very happy you found sources to relate the port and Rimal. I thought they were at the same site, but I needed a source for it and you provided it. I restructured the article's History section to clarify that Rimal existed as the ancient port, and that the modern district was founded in the British Mandate era. About the Port of Gaza article... I don't think it should be named "Port of Gaza, Rimal" simply because it complicates things and I'm pretty sure it's not MoS. I haven't seen any city port article named as such, so I'll move it now. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You took out the bit about Rimal being the centre for the licentious and debauched pagan rituals (skinny dipping, mimes, plays and poetry reading) according to the Christians. You're a spoil sport....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hamas/number

I figured that "a number of" would be better. It lacks both the exclusionary connotations of "some" and the size of "many". -- Avi (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Gaza template?

Please give your input at the WP Palestine talk page. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yishuv rejects partition plan area

UN Doc Mr. Moshe Shertok as head of Political Department of the Jewish Agency statement to Ad Hoc committee on Palestine. ...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting ! Can you tell me where exactly in the document it is written because it is quite long and I didn't find this... Ceedjee (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI

[22]

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 19.03.2009 15:25

Warning / restriction re Israeli–Palestinian conflict

You've been reported on WP:AN3. I can't be bothered to wade through all your edits to find out if you're guilty or not, but you've definitely been edit warring. So I'm banning you from the article (but not talk) page for 24h. Also, that page gets enough edits as it is, and your habit of making huge numbers of minor edits pollutes the edit history intolerably. So don't edit it again until you have learned to use the "preview" button William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

'I can't be bothered' sums it up, Ashley. But you lead with your chin. You know that you're in NoCal100's sights, and that he will repeatedly follow you, with a little help from friends, to mark your record as one which, any administrator, at a glance, will judge as frivolous, because all too many just read the log of violations. The game is to make that look so bad, no one will even look at the details. Time doesn't allow for a mellow assessment of the games being played. Don't appeal, accept the judgement, though lazy, and look at what the other guy's trying to draw you into before editing. Of course, if you do as I do, and argue the point on a talk page, you'll probably be told your an edit warrior, in any case, as I have just been said to be. Heads he wins, tails you lose. In war, as you must know, the first rule is to keep your head down, and not charge like a wounded bull into crossfire, esp. when you know there's a practiced sniper out there.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

'I can't be bothered' ...hey, Nishi; at least Connolley is perfectly honest! Lets applaud that! Seriously, Ashley, could you please keep me company for a few days? Like, say in Idnibba and Jubb Yusuf?? Please? Looking forward to your company! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For improving countless articles by reference to the best sources. Ian Pitchford (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Apropos the original point for which you were hauled over the coals

I've had for some time this in my chronologies.

'16-19 May Israeli raids on military targets in Syria and Lebanon’ Efraim Karsh, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: the Palestine War 1948,Osprey Publishing, 2002 p.11

Since Lebanon wasn't involved in the war at that time, the implication is that Israeli forces raided Lebanon before the 3rd Malikiyya battle much later, in which Lebanese forces did engage briefly, some 700 yrds into Palestine, at a period when no belligerent respected the UN partition boundaries. So, from Karsh's time-line Israel was the first to attack within Lebanese territory before Lebanon itself committed its army to that 3 hour skirmish several weeks later. An army that retaliates cannot be said to 'invade'. I've been looking through my books, and checking the net, and cannot find anything substantial on these raids, but since no one believes you, I thought it best to drop you a note. You're correct: they are wrong. I hope we can get better info on this than a mere vague note from a timeline.Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the raids were actions performed by small Palmach units (commandos) in order to slow the entry of the Syrians and the Lebanese. In fact, they didn't know (or were not 100% sure) Lebanese would not intervene. Most interesting anyway is the attack performed by the Carmeli Brigade along the Galilee coast, in Arab territory, a few hours before the end of the Mandate (this is the 1st Israeli agression !) and directly on the way by which Lebanese were expected to enter...

Else, you are right. Lebanese troops were not directly involved in the war. Ceedjee (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Timelines here are determined as much by political declarations (Declaration of Israel/Arab Government declarations) as by events on the ground. A virtual civil wqar had been affot for several months, and at this point it was 'internationalized. Most of the older sources don't seem to understand that, but like the cliché Israel declared/the Arab hordes invaded Israel formula. The scholarship underway is now correcting this cradle story. Ther new sources say, for example, that the Palmach/Carmeli/Yiftach sorties into foreign territory were based on false intelligence as often as not. The sorties themselves then created reactions, and things precipitated. We substantially agree, but given the lamentable state of the page, I won't be editing here.Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Who shot first in the '48 war ?

Hi Ashley,
I am not sure to understand all the points of the discussion you have had on the talk page but :

• according to Ilan Pappé (1992), the Arabs first shoot
• according to Ilan Pappé (2006), this first shoot was not important and was to be followed by quietness and then, the Irgun, the Lehi and the Haganah started to use violence
• according to Saleh Abdel Jawad (2007), the fights in fact started in mid-december and the events before are not linked to the vote of the partition plan but was due to gangs
• according to Benny Morris (2008), p.76, all these analysis all together but add that in anyway, on december 2, at Jerusalem, a large Arab mob with 2 AHC officials, armed with knifes and clubs, attacked the Jewish commercial center and that many Jewish were wounded, some heavily... and he concludes : "(...) the war had begun".
• Yoav Gelber (2006) p.17 says nothing else but what Morris says.

I think it is not at all relevant to know who started the '48 war. It started 30 years sooner in fact but in that case, it seems to me that the first "violence" came from Arabs and AHC.

Please, you absolutely must stop to use the word Hasbara against contradictors :

• it is against WP:CIVIL
• it is false because most of them, at worst, don't know the topic but are good faith
• it is not pertinent; Hasbara refers to re-information related to recent topics, not for historical events.

Ceedjee (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

nb: I have also asked you a question here above about Shertok's rejection. Ceedjee (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of material

Hi Ashley,
Don't you think you are a little tiny bit of bad faith ;-))
What GHcool says is that the information he removed is a detail, important for the article about the 1947 partition, but too small a detail for an article about the whole I-P conflict story...
That's all.
What you have found is important from my point of view. I didn't know that and it clarifies what is a myth and what is not in the traditionnal Israeli historiography but I agree with GHcool that there is maybe too much material dedicated to this acception of the partition by a Zionist leader who is not much known...
That is wp:undue...
No ? Ceedjee (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well,

A good faith editor always being accused of hasbara each time he does something will probably remain of good faith but with bad will (mauvaise volonté)... ;-)

Keep cool. If all this goes on that way, you will (once again ?) ends up in jail ;-)

Ceedjee (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ein as-Sultan and ooopsh: Ain Sulṭān,

work, work, more work: I believe you started Ein as-Sultan some time ago, now I just discovered Ain Sulṭān, started earlier this year, which looks like the same place to me. However; the coordinates are not the same, and I have no idea as to which are correct; I hope you do. I guess we should throw anything which isn´t already in the Ein as-Sultan there, and make Ain Sulṭān a REDIR? Feel like doing it?

Otherwise; these days I´m mostly occupied with giving the 1948-villages a history, so to speak. Years ago I read a book by the Peruvian author Manuel Scorza, "Redoble por Rancas", about what happen in the Andes in the 1950-62. He wrote about "the villages that only existed on the military maps of the regiments that destroyed them" .....I got a bit tired of seeing all these articles about Palestinian villages, some hundreds of years old, that on wikipedia only existed as the IDF documents proclaiming their destruction...so I decided to do something about it... Cheers, Huldra (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, opposite!? you redir an article with three refs into one with only one ref? Huldra (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Opsh, I´m afraid I really didn´t read it at all..I just noticed because I was working on Az-Zakariyya, who had Nasr Abdel Aziz Eleyan listed.....who in turn had a red-link to Ein al-Sultan etc, etc... Anyway, I´m glad it is now in a place where I can type it on my computer...thanks for the work! cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Ihud

1990 Temple mount Riots

Just to let you know Jayjg has again reduced the article to a stub and the wording has been changed back from Al-aqsa to Temple mount. annoynmous 00:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than commenting on other editor's Talk: page, in the hopes of goading him into reverting on your behalf, why don't you instead find some reliable material on the article topic? And by reliable, I don't mean a Wikipedia editor's assessment of youtube videos. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In what way did I lie, I gave a basic description of what you did which is essentially reducing the article to a stub. Also videos count a sources. If you think the the editors mispresented the sources than put tags on the article and argue about on the talk page and add other sources you feel contradict them. Isn't that what you guys told me to do on the "A Land without a People For A People without a land" article. annoynmous 00:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, youtube videos do not count as reliable sources, and a Wikipedia editor's review of various videos is WP:NOR. Find reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it...I've seen the sorry arsed links that have been termed references by sections of editor...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

He needs to worry about WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. So do you. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source

Sounds like videos are allowed to me. annoynmous 00:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

a) Youtube is not a "reputable third-party". b) An editor's interpretation of a video is original research. Please stop making flawed arguments, and instead start respecting policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine then change the wording, but you don't reduce the article to nothing just because you don't like the content. I am making perfectly reasonable arguments in line with wikipedia policy, you are simply choosing to ignore them.

Plus, what makes youtube unreliable. If the editor made up the video then that would be so, but if it exists than it is valid. annoynmous 00:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Plus I reverted you on Munich because you were wrong in regards to the movie. The movie never definetely states that he was part of Black September. I saw it on your contribs page and got curious. I've looked at other articles you've edited and I haven't reverted them. One article doesn't count as stalking. I reverted it because I thought I was wrong.

I'm not going to be involved with the Temple riots article from now on. Ashley intends to get to it and I intend to leave it to him to decide how to proceed. Can we end this nonsense now. annoynmous 01:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg is a deletionist and doesn't approve of anything that shows opinions that Jayjg does not hold...he will game and wikilawyer until the cows come home...he will put forward spurious arguments that have little or no logic...get use to him and work around him..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Good edit

Welcome back, and good edit[23]. We should sit back and watch what happen, although 'and realistic considerations' might also be added before the fact tag. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Understood, but… looking at it from an equal, rather than ‘chosen’ pov, I gotta say the determining decision was taken, and made sense, at the time when it was on the table; they considered those specific historical circumstances, that specific geography, at that specific time (but there was also some heavy lobbying). That said, I am not inclusive enough to swallow that same sales-pitch to be legitimately re-sold so simply, considering quite different current historical circumstances, geography, demographics and imperialistic sense of righteousness. I look upon ‘religious’ bases as having two sources: the first is the well-known RS’d book, which is a legitimate, RS’d concept; the second is an overly ‘messianic’ interpretation thereof, which gives me the heeby-geebies (sorry, no link, and I couldn’t provide a good definition) because, as I have stated before elsewhere, that type of interpretation is well beyond everyone’s legitimate editing reliability. That includes all of Abraham’s three feuding lineages. I prefer to interpret personally, what He means, rather than exactly what He is reported to have said. I suspect that NPOV was not an accepted concept at that time. Cum grano salis and acceptance of waking up tomorrow and working toward the meaning, not the narrowly interpreted word. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is requested

at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel#History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Origins to 1967 --Ravpapa (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

1948 Lebanon

I do this asap. Ceedjee (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, see David Tal, War in Palestine, ch.14. Ceedjee (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, FYI. :-) Ceedjee (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Some excerpts of Morris (2008) concering the Lebanese army involvment

• p.194 : "[In parallel with the redeployment of the Syrian army on 14 May], The Lebanese army [moved] its point units from Ras al-Naqurah to the central and eastern sectors of south Lebanon - though with defense, not offense, in mind."
• p.205 : "[To the Arab invading armies forces] one should add [among others] some two thousand Lebanese army troops, who applied pressure on, and posed a constant threat along, the northern border, pinning down Haganah troops (...)."
• p.257 : "[The Syrian offensive south of Lake Hula] was probably coordinated with the Lebanese army, which on 5 June surprised and attacked the small Jewish garrison at al-Malikiya and overwhelmed it (the village had been taken in a commando style attack by the Palmah on the night of 28-29 May). (...) The Lebanese success at al-Malikiya marked their only real participation in the war and gave Beirut cover against accusations of indifference to the fact of Palestine".
• pp.258-259 are worth reading and go deed into details about the motivations for no participating to the war.
• p.259 : "Lebanon decided to deploy its army defensively. But to cover itself politically, in the inter-Arab arena, it also agreed to serve as a base for a small ALA "invasion" of Palestine and to provide that force with covering artillery fire, a handful of armored cars, "volunters", and logical support."

Ceedjee (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar - You deserve it

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your fantastic work in creating the long-sought after article, 1834 Palestinian Arab revolt. We also must appreciate your work on Gaza's neighborhoods and it's port. Keep up the great work! --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

prince abdullah?

Who is this prince? is in under paris accord etc i believe.

On 29 March 1921, the British reached a political settlement with Prince Abdullah calling for the establishment of the first unified national government in Trans-Jordan, over which he would preside, with participation by members of the Independence Party. Cryptonio (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Bethlehem

I'll try to get a better source too. Thanks for the congrats and only if you like... ;) --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Greeks

Hi. Greek, in Modern Greek, is "Ellīniká", thus the "el". Ancient Greek would be "grc". Here is a handy list of language codes: ISO 639-1 <-- two letter codes that are preferred if they exist, ISO 639-2, ISO 639-3 which includes dead languages. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

deleted article

where could we get a copy of the article that was deleted? thanks in advance. Cryptonio (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

try DeletionPedia (?) --Fjmustak (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. --Fjmustak (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome. :P Thanks compadre. Cryptonio (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Um Ashley, reasons to put a POV tag on article named 2008-2009 Israeli-Palestinian Conflict? thanks in advance. Cryptonio (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)