User talk:Breein1007

Welcome

Hello, Breein1007! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 08:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

please

Do not merge together articles without asking for permission. The source is accessible and reliable, if you feel otherwise, take it to the talkpage and wait for other views.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Asking permission? From whom... you? lol... you have deleted info in the past because you claimed the source was bad, so don't be a hypocrite please. Those sources definitely were not reliable at Wikipedia's standards. Neither you nor I are authorities on what constitutes a RS, because both you and I would clearly be biased in our selections. Read the page on RS if you need clarification.Breein1007 (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Radical changes like redirecting an article after the same move was reverted right before must be talked about at the talkpage, you also removed info from the other article which deleted all the info altogether. If you want to redirect an article you must make a post about it at the talkpage and if there is a clear consensus amongst editors for it to be moved, it can be moved. You also say that the source is not reliable, this is your opinion, if you feel this way bring it up at the talkpage and wait for what other people have to say, The source has already been called reliable by several editors: [1] [2][3] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It has also been called unreliable by many other editors. Don't think you're going to fool me here; I'm not blind. I won't bother getting links for you to show this, because I know you are completely aware of this fact and simply trying to twist the truth in your favour as usual.Breein1007 (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

It appears that when you redirect an article the previous history is lost. I believe the proper procedure would be to move the article instead, which will move its history & talk page as well; then a redirect will be automatically created. Please keep this in mind. Perhaps it will also be possible to undo & redo your earlier redirects. I am not certain, but it would be worth a try. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that from now on. That option wasn't available to me yet though because my account isn't 4 days old.Breein1007 (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate in some way that the mountains' names that they are known by in English are the Hebrew names, as you have asserted? If so, I will gladly rework the changes and try to straighten out the damage, which should be possible to do. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Aside from my own personal visits to the mountains where I witnessed with my own eyes signs noting the English names as the Hebrew equivalents - something that is not helpful as a source on Wikipedia - I can't really think of an appropriate way to find a source for this. These are minor mountains that are hardly discussed online. The only thing I can think of is to search for the Hebrew-English name and Arabic-English name on google (with quotation marks ie: "Mount Odem" vs "Mount Ahram" to avoid results mentioning other topics with common words). I tried a few of them, and the Hebrew-English versions had more hits by an extremely overwhelming amount.Breein1007 (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Greetings. I am glad you have decided to make an account and start actively contributing to Wikipedia.

In regards to your comment, it wouldn't be proper or fair for me to express my concerns only when an editor for the "other side" catches my attention. I do hope my concerns turn out to be unfounded, and that you choose to continue constructively contributing to Wikipedia.

Lehitraot --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 00:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Israeli wine. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. nableezy - 22:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I resent and disregard your warning. This is a total joke. However, knowing you and your edit history in this topic I am not surprised that you have chosen to issue me with a warning while saying nothing to the other user involved in the edits. I know the rules and follow them; your pretentious warnings don't change anything. Have fun with your power trip. Breein1007 (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Resent and disregard what you like, you made 3 reverts on the article, no other user made more than 2. Prior to sanctioning somebody they must be made aware of the rules, this notice was to make you aware of the 3-revert rule. If you continue editing in the way that you have you may very well be blocked from editing. That is not a "total joke" nor is it a "power trip", just the way of the world. Bye, nableezy - 04:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not break or come anywhere near breaking the 3RR. Not that you care to actually look into things properly before throwing around warnings to make yourself feel powerful, but the first revert you are referring to in the 24 hour period was for a completely different edit, and it was a very clearly appropriate reversion because the previous edit had used language that incorrectly implied that various regions of Israel were "occupied". As much as you or your friends may wish to push that POV onto others, it is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Therefore, even if I had made more than 3 reversions, under the 3RR that one would not be counted. I made 2 reverts later about other questionable content, the same as the other user who you conveniently disregarded. I'm done with this matter; I see no need to prove anything to you and thus have nothing else to say about the topic. Just understand that unlike some other users, you won't frighten me or intimidate me into not editing things to remove unfair POV by issuing me with unwarranted and inappropriate warnings or threats of bans that will not actually be implemented. If I continue editing in the way that I have been editing, I'll be on Wikipedia for a long time. I haven't done anything to warrant a block. Bye, Breein1007 (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to read WP:3RR, it is not necessary that the reversions be of the same material each time. And you also need to read an English grammar book, as your reasoning for the first removal was incorrect. I don't intend to frighten you, but if you continue editing the way have been I do intend to report you. That is not a threat, nor is it an attempt to intimidate. It is simply a statement of fact. You did make 3 reverts as defined by WP:3RR and if you continue editing in such a manner you may be blocked. Again, that is not a threat, simply a fact. But as you clearly do not have anything useful to add I'll say bye now. nableezy - 15:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

My reasoning was perfect, and your claim that I need to read a grammar book is pretty comical considering what I do for a living. The icing on the cake for me is that you're topic banned and all you can do is go around annoying people like this! It's really quite nauseating, but I do feel sorry for you. Bye, for the third time. I understand that you're lonely, but please - don't feel the need to come back. Breein1007 (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Previous accounts

You are clearly quite familiar with Wikipedia and its rules and regulations. What was the name of your previous account? Tiamut^talk 10:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason you find this information so pressing?Breein1007 (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not particularly pressing. Is there a reason you are hesitant to respond? Its a simple question after all. Tiamut^talk 20:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

My reason is that I don't like giving up unnecessary information when I don't see a reason. The simplicity of the question doesn't have anything to do with my hesitation to answer. That said, I'd be happy to answer you if you would just explain why you're so curious! Breein1007 (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Is being asked by an editing colleague politely not reason enough? I'm curious that's all. But if you would prefer not to answer, you are of course free not to. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 10:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no previous accounts. Breein1007 (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I'm a little confused though then by your subsequent statement that you are not a new editor. I'm sure there's a logical explanation. Would youmind sharing it? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 13:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Come on Tiamut, think a little! It's fun :) - you don't need an account to edit. What's next, you wanna know all my past IP addresses I'm guessing? Sorry, I don't keep track. Cheers, Breein1007 (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought that may the case, given that's the way I started here myself. I am wondering not about your IP addresses, but which articles you used to edit most intensely? Thanks again for the response and happy editing. Tiamut^talk 08:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Notice

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've already been made aware of this in the last 15 minutes... no need to keep linking it to me again and again. As it stands I haven't made any inappropriate edits, and while I understand that the topic is controversial, I won't let that intimidate me. I will continue to edit articles that are fallacious or employ weasel words that try to imply a meaning other than the truth without actually lying. As the note above states, anyone who makes edits to these pages can be shown this template to make them aware of the rules, so I could very well just go post this back to Sean.holyland, but I'll take the high road here and not mimic the immaturity. If someone has a problem with the edit I made that clarified dubious terms and added sourced information, I would appreciate if they would provide an evidenced explanation rather than simply reverting my contributions with a one word explanation of "nonsense". Thanks,Breein1007 (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is just so we know you know, in clear terms. While your edits exhibit a strong point-of-view, you've not behaved in a way that's put you in trouble or anything, so don't worry about that. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just want to point out that is kind of contradictory... if I haven't behaved in a way that would put me in trouble, then my edits shouldn't be identified as strong POV. While I personally may have strong POV (who doesn't?), I am here to contribute positively to Wikipedia and edit objectively. All that I do here is find inappropriate POV and remove it from articles, while adding factual and sourced information. Anyway, thanks for the notification. Have a good one. Breein1007 (talk) 06:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Two things

שלום בריאין! כמובן זה עניין של כתיב מלא כנגד כתיב מנוקד. שתי האופציות ניתנות בערך, אך יש העדפה לכתיב מנוקד בשורה הראשונה. האיות "רָמָה" אינו הנפצה, אלא איות שלקוח מה"לקסיקון ארץ ישראל" מספרי ידיעות אחרונות. בספרים מסוג זה יש תקן קבוע לתיעתוק של מושגים בערבית. בכל רחבי העולם מקובל שהמקור האמין ביותר לשם גיאוגרפי הוא לקסיקון גיאוגרפי (באנגלית: gazetteer), ועל זה ניסיתי להסתמך כשהוספתי ניקוד לכ-2000 ערכים על מקומות בישראל. כמובן, אם יש ברשותך את "לקסיקון מפה" או "מדריך ישראל החדש", אשמח אם תציג את האיות המובא שם.

בנוגע לעידן רייכל – כן, זה נוח לכולם להשתמש תמיד באותו שם משתמש כדי שיהיה קל לזהות :)

בברכה,
—Ynhockey

Gilo

Hi there. I realize you're a very new editor and may not yet be familiar with Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPOV. Just being sourced doesn't mean material belongs in an article, it must also be notable and exist in due proportion to other material in the article. I look forward to editing the Gilo article, and others, with you to reach an amicable consensus. As another note, I realize that some material that you seem to be keen to introduce in Gilo appears to not be sourced. This is afoul of WP:V, which is another core principle we have. --Dailycare (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a new editor, and I just want to note the irony that you have taken all the WP policies that I warned you to review and follow on your talk page, and simply rephrased an otherwise identical warning to me. I found that pretty comical. You have removed both notable and sourced info from the article, and if you want to somehow construe a presumptuous argument that the info is not notable, you can go ahead and raise your concerns on the talk page. You don't just go deleting valid information from articles because you feel that it hurts the POV that you are trying to push. As I mentioned on your talk page, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. We strive to write objective articles that allow the reader to learn about the topic without being subject to censorship and propaganda. I hope you'll be able to learn from this, and I similarly look forward to having more constructive and collaborative edits with you in the future. Breein1007 (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Halleluya. Finally someone with a brain. You are a rare breed on Wikipedia. --Gilabrand (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rollback

Hi again! Can you please provide an example of regular vandal fighting? If this is one of your primary tasks on Wikipedia, I will gladly grant you the request. Please also note that it is preferable to make such requests in English on the English Wikipedia. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Canadian_Monkey

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Canadian_Monkey. nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 02:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Thanks. I'm getting tired of this shit though... taking up too much of my time and then the anti-Israel fanatics just storm articles anyway and use mob mentality to push their POV all over the place. Breein1007 (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"Ring neighbourhoods" in east jerusalem

Hi, please propose an edit that you're comfortable with that entails the term "settlements" in the lead. The edit war on that article is ridiculous. --Dailycare (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just want to throw in that the Ring Neighborhoods of Jerusalem are in Jerusalem, not "east jerusalem". Thanks, Breein1007 (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, East Jerusalem is in Jerusalem just as West Jerusalem is. How about this:

The Ring neighborhoods of Jerusalem (Hebrew: שכונות הטבעת‎) are five suburban settlements built by Israel on territory Israel captured and unilaterally annexed in 1967 during the Six Day War. --Dailycare (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That would bring up the same problems that we have when people try to point blank classify other Israeli neighborhoods in the municipality of Jerusalem as settlements. This is highly contested; while some choose to call them settlements, some don't. Therefore, labeling them flat out as settlements in the first sentence of the article with no background is factually inaccurate. Breein1007 (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact my proposed text, above, also calls them neighborhoods. It's not really contested (much less highly contested, and even less factually incorrect) they are settlements (except by Israel), so we should simply call them settlements. I frankly don't see the problem. Israelis can call them whatever they like in the Hebrew wikipedia. --Dailycare (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, having attribution would be OK - we can say e.g. that the EU considers them illegal settlements, whereas Israel considers them neighbourhoods. I'll edit to this effect. --Dailycare (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, 200 edits, and a talk page that indicates much more than that

I don't know from whence you came, and it doesn't matter. You have decided to become an editor; this is good for the Wikipedia project. But to me, it appears that your conception of its rules is different than mine. Since we have tangled, it appears that you require some indication where we might stand within its scheme. While I have explained all and each of my edits in my edit summaries, you seem to have only indicated how I might be incorrect in my thoughts, not in my inserted content; you also seem to have missed the basics that we discuss an editor's insertion and comment on what in that content may be incorrect. Two may play your game. We are now down to the insertion of quoted and ref'd content; you can not get more simple than that. Since you have threatened the good ol' 3RR, and I believe I understand what that means, I am providing you a chance to put your edits where your mouth appears to be. I leave it up to you; it is your serve. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ghajar

I've considered your WP:AN3 report, and after looking over the page history and its talk page, I conclude that it's a content dispute by both of you. You should end the reverting now and utilise the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution. If reverts continue after this notice, then the reverting editor is likely to be blocked and/or the page will be fully protected until the dispute is settled. I'd prefer neither to happen. NJA (t/c) 07:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Like so many articles on Wikipedia, this one was a ridiculous hodge-podge of POV by "editors" hell-bent on demonizing a single party (that shall remain nameless). Thanks for the thumbs up.--Gilabrand (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy topic ban violations

I just wanted to pay you the courtesy of noting that I've made mention of edits made on your talk page by Nableezy in violation of his ban here.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You are really clutching at straws here. Informing a "new" user about the 3 revert rule after they have made 3 quick reversions would be a violation of my topic ban how exactly? nableezy - 05:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop spamming my wall. Breein1007 (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Nab--no need to reply, but if your disruptive edit was the result of following me to this page (and I recognize that may not have been the case), I would ask you to not wikihound me to disruptively insert yourself into my conversations with others. Please. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hanukah sameach

Just a friendly holiday blessing

--Shuki (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

תודה רבה, גם לך! Breein1007 (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The wrong version

With regards to your comments about edit protection of the Occupied territories article please read meta:wrong version --PBS (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning: occupied territory

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Your last comment at 02:56, 20 December 2009 on the talk page of the article occupied territory, contained a personal attack. Personal attacks do not help foster a collegiate atmosphere and therefore are damaging to the development of articles. As this is not a school playground, I suggest that you modify you comment and remove the personal attack. -- PBS (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks PBS, I appreciate that you actually warned both of us. I mean it. While I would in principle want to hold off on striking out the comment until after he strikes out his, since he attacked me first, I guess I'll just be the bigger man :) Breein1007 (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the lack of good faith that the two of you have shown to each other this edit was in my opinion unwise as it was provocative. People are given more leeway for what they say on their own talk pages. For that reason I am not going to do anything about this now other than I suggest you remove (not strike out) the comment you placed on NickCT's talk page. If you do that then NickCT's comment becomes meaningless and hopefully that will end the matter. If however I see what I judge to be an uncivil comment by you to or about NickCT. I will block you account for a time. -- PBS (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Neighborhoods in Jerusalem

Yes, if you know about these neighborhoods you may restore them to the template, then try to draft stubs about them. My method has been to look for untranslated articles on Hebrew Wikipedia and to translate parts of them. I looked for the articles about these two neighborhoods and did not find them. I concluded that they were either added in error, or subsumed in some larger neighborhood. If I made a mistake, you should correct it. Chutznik (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Another editor already corrected the error a few days ago so it's fine now. Breein1007 (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Self-revert

I suggest you self-revert your last edit to State of Palestine, as it is your fourth revert in less than 24 hours. In case, you did not know, there a policy against WP:3RR. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 22:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I actually only count 3 reverts though, and the first 2 were simply because the IP was flat out deleting sources and claiming that they were unsourced content. While these reverts still do count for 3RR, my latest one was only the 3rd and I'm going to be leaving it at that. I hope that you will refrain from simply reverting my edit and instead discuss it on the talk page (and not use an edit summary of "per talk" like you did last time while the discussion is ongoing). Breein1007 (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You counted wrong. You made four edits that restored the words "capital of Israel". Whether you did that by wholesale reverting or by editing it separately, it still counts towards the revert total. If you don't want me to report me for it, I suggest you self-revert. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 22:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am the person who originally inserted the words "capital of Israel" into the article. Making an addition to an article is not a revert. You should read over the 3RR page closely again to refresh yourself on the terminology and specifics; I can relate that sometimes it's easy to get mixed up. In any case, I don't really see the need to continue this game of cat and mouse here. If you feel the need to report me, knock yourself out. I didn't violate 3RR. Breein1007 (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought DrorK added it originally. But you should know that 3RR is not an entitlement. Stopping at three reverts isn't good. Its still edit-warring and if you do it a lot, you could still be reported. (I should know, I was blocked for it a lot when I first started here.) A friendly warning for the future: don't edit war. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 22:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the tip. Breein1007 (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein/Nableezy

Hi Breein1007. I would like to work on two things regarding what has happened to Nableezy. On is to file an appeal of Sandstein's decision which I will begin in my user space shortly. The second, concurrent to this, would be opening a User RfC on Sandstein regading his abuse of his admin powers. I have asked Gatoclass for some advice on how to proceed. I hope he responds soon. When I have drafts up in my user space, I will be contacting you for feedback. I hope you will co-sign both the appeal and the User RfC. Also, check out Nableezy's talk page to see what has happened most recently and why these steps are absolutely necessary. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 19:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Nableezy has decided to file an appeal at AE. Tiamut^talk 21:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem the chosen

I would like to try to convince you offline of the merits of my proposal at Israel. You, nsaum and others have latched on to this idea that writing "Israel has chosen Jerusalem" is in some way weakening Jerusalem's title to the crown. But no reader, other than those who have been personally involved in this convoluted debate, would ever read my proposal that way. Set yourself outside this argument, and read these two sentences:

"Israel has chosen Jerusalem, historically the religious and cultural focus of Judaism, as its capital. Jerusalem is the seat of government and the most populous city."

"Jerusalem is the capital, seat of government, and largest city."

Which of these two sentences leaves you with a stronger impression of Israel's claim on Jerusalem?

My point is that the revised text appears to be a capitulation to pressures to weaken Jerusalem's claim to capital status; but, in fact, to every uninvolved reader, we have actually strengthened that claim. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that most readers probably would understand both to mean the truth, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. However, in the chance that even some readers would pick up on the subtle difference between saying "Israel chose" and "is", I can't support the change. It has to be about the facts and only representing the truth. While you may be right in saying that your edit left a stronger impression, it wasn't as truthful as the original wording. I'm sorry that you're disappointed by the lack of consensus; it's not an easy thing to achieve in this area. Breein1007 (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel

Could you please move your comment on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel to the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Israel). As you said, your addition is not an issue to be mediated, but a comment, so the talk page is where it belongs. Thanks. -- tariqabjotu 21:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda

Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels."

— Richard Alan Nelson, A Chronology and Glossary of Propaganda in the United States, 1996

This is what I mean by propaganda.

Sean.hoyland - talk 03:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. The definition I am familiar with (Webster) stresses that the information is not only one sided, but misleading. Breein1007 (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

deadlinks

If a link is dead it is better to tag it with {{deadlink}} rather than remove it and delete the content it was being used to reference. A simple google search would have given you both confirmation that link in the article did exist (Google cache of the original) and a working link of the same Reuters article (here). nableezy - 21:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the deadlink tag. Thanks. Breein1007 (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

the left-wing Palestinian activist group Rabbis for Human Rights

'Nuff said. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry. That is not enough said. Breein1007 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That's called POV-pushing and it's not acceptable. If you read the news article in question, you'll also see it's not true. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific. Nableezy has mentioned that he has an issue with the word "Palestinian". If that is also the source of your concern, then I will remove the word and reinsert the rest of the sentence which is completely correct. The rabbi is the one who took the photo. Breein1007 (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Gilo

Hi Breein, I'd like to work with you on the US view on Gilo, I entered a comment on talk:gilo. --Dailycare (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finally attempting to discuss this rather than restart the edit war every few weeks. When I have time later I will explain my position on the talk page. Breein1007 (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Golan mountain mediation

I'm thinking about requesting an official medcom mediation for the Golan mountain names. If I start one, would you be interested in participating? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you start the process I will certainly consider it. I have quite a busy schedule for the next little while so I can't commit. I also don't think this is an appropriate situation for official mediation, because it's simply a matter of a proposal not reaching consensus. But like I said, if you start it, I'll think about joining. Breein1007 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Breein, Supreme Deliciousness opened this case at the mediation cabal and I have accepted it, could you confirm you are still willing to take part in mediation?Ajbpearce (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for not knowing exactly how the process works, but can you please briefly explain what the commitment is? I don't have lots of spare time these days. Also, I feel like both Supreme Deliciousness and myself have spelled out our respective feelings about the issue very clearly on the talk page, and other users did not support his requested change with consensus. Anyway, if I join mediation, what exactly will happen? Will I just be expected to rehash my arguments from the talk page? Breein1007 (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007, there was more support and sources for the standardized (arabic) than for hebrew, and based on that, I could change the names now. But I want to settle this in a better way, so this is a chance for you. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me Supreme Deliciousness... there was not more support or sources for the Arabic names than for the English names (which originated from Hebrew). We have been over this before. I don't appreciate you following me around and pestering me by repeating your unsubstantiated claims ad infinitum. If you do make the changes right now, I will revert them because you don't have consensus for the suggestion. Breein1007 (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, please do not continue with these unconstructive interventions if you wish to proceed with mediation, Brein mediation is a process whereby we talk through the issues in a structured conversation and try and produce a solution that is acceptable to both parties and that benefits the encyclopedia, it is a voluntary process and requires a willingness to compromise to build towards consensus. There is no time commitment beyond what you can manage. Ajbpearce (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC) (my apologies was not logged in when making comment)

Let me start by thanking you Ajbpearce for your effort in this case. Basically, what happened here on my talk page has convinced me that it would be a mistake on my part to participate in mediation for this matter. There were a number of people who were involved in the discussion, and after discussion and sources from several people, there was no clear consensus to make the suggested change. Some sources that were found showed Arabic names used on English maps, while some sources found showed the status quo English names that originated from Hebrew used. In all honesty, I don't have much else to contribute to the discussion, so I don't see what good mediation would do. I would simply be rehashing points that I have already clearly made on the talk page, and that some editors seem to be ignoring as they repeat ad infinitum their demands that their sources trump mine and there is clear consensus for the change (which there is not). I really am busy these days, and I feel that mediation would draw me into long, frankly pointless, circular debates about the issue. I can't let this issue hurt the more important things in my life right now, so as I said, I have to decline. Breein1007 (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Was there a boy, who was tied to the tank?

No, it is just another lie. Please read here As you would see that very boy appears over and over again in a different Arab, Muslim and left wing media. From 2005 to 2009 he has been used as a human shield in a different parts of Palestine. He's never grown any older that poor boy. The image should be deleted, it is not a reliable source, it is a lie, but you know what, it will never be deleted, and you will never be allowed even to change the description because you will never get consensus for doing so. If you do not understand why you will never get the consensus, please take a look at the world map and the world demography. If you add to that idiots Self-hating Jews you may get the right picture. Any more questions? Good luck with your quest for the truth on Wikipedia! BTW here's an image of another boy . I added it to Qassam rocket. Guess what it was removed because it is "inflamatory" Oh, well.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I share many of your frustrations. But I can't bring myself to give up and allow the propaganda to win the war here, even if they have worked up quite the impressive system and have won their fair share of battles. Breein1007 (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Hi, there is an unresolved NPOV dispute concerning the Israel article that some editors are trying to resolve. You are edit-warring to remove an NPOV tag that is correctly placed in the article to indicate the existence of this dispute. If you care about the dispute, I encourage you to contribute to resolving it, not edit-warring over the tag. Please consider this message a warning in the sense of the discretionary sanctions Regards, --Dailycare (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I still say WP:UNDUE, WP:POINT and possibly WP:Wikilawyering -- (ie: well the RfC didn't achieve our preconceived results, so lets using WP's NPOV tag policy...and if that doesn't work, well we will something else) -- is ongoing at that article, in regards to tags etc, but I no longer have a desire to take part in circular arguments and have threats directed towards me. And, I hardly call Breein1007's single edit to the page in the past week as being "edit warring"...but if we're going to call it that, then both parties are guilty of it as it takes two sides to edit war... Just my 2 cents. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 20:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks nsaum for the message - I'm not concerned though. Dailycare is not someone whose warnings I take with much heart based on his history. Breein1007 (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response on my talk page. I can't help however but be puzzled by your claims that firstly, there would be a "strong consensus" about the article (the discussion ongoing the past month, for example, has so far not yielded consensus), and secondly that the tag would trivialize something. The tag only indicates there is an NPOV dispute, nothing more. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm done wasting my time with your games. That's not why I'm on Wikipedia. I once again encourage you to find a way to contribute positively. Breein1007 (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Breein, can you at least comment on the proposal at the bottom of the talk page? -- tariqabjotu 21:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll do that. Breein1007 (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be good. It would also be good if you stopped removing the tag. A quick review of WP:NPOV dispute reveals the following: " In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. However, repeatedly adding the tag is not to be used as a means of bypassing consensus or dispute resolution. If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag." Tiamut^talk 21:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And a quick review of the last couple of sentences of your post shows exactly what is going on - people are using the tag to bypass existing consensus and trivialize facts. This is an abuse of Wikipedia policies, and littering the article with tags is inappropriate. Breein1007 (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Qualify facts, don't pre-empt them with trivialization. Must you assume the worst in everybody, even people you generally agree with? As I mentioned to okedem, when he politely suggested reordering the phrase, the reason for putting the non-recognition point before, rather than after, was because I thought putting it second would seem to nullify the capital fact, rather than say that, although X is the case, it's still the capital. The best example I can think of would be:

"Although I'm not sure if this is true, I'm quite certain the moon has gravity."

The speaker is emphasizing his certainty that the moon has gravity. Compare to:

"I'm quite certain the moon has gravity, although I'm not sure this is true."

The speaker is emphasizing his uncertainty that the moon has gravity.

I don't really care either way, especially because reordering the piece would sound much better. But I thought doing so would elicit more complaints. Obviously, I was wrong and having the qualification first is actually eliciting more complaints. But I'm a bit shocked that you would think I'm trying to "pre-empt and "trivialize a fact", especially one that I agree with. I'm sure you thought someone else, like Tiamut or Dailycare, proposed that wording, but that doesn't make it any better. Regardless of who wrote the proposal, you had no evidence that the sentence order had such ulterior motives. Just say you want the piece reordered and end it there. -- tariqabjotu 22:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Tariq, don't get ahead of yourself. I'm not assuming anything about anybody. I am saying that the sentence structure MAKES IT SEEM as if the fact is being trivialized. It was not a reference to anybody's motives. Please back off... you're creating an issue out of something that really doesn't need to be one. I was justifying my opinion about the wording, and I feel that saying capital first is better. Saying I want it reworded doesn't explain why, and I am going to back up my opinions with explanations. It's really not pleasant having you hounding me for that. Breein1007 (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

For someone who thinks a pointed command like the one I mentioned is akin to a more innocuous "it seems like..." statement, you seem remarkably offended by my comment ("don't get ahead of yourself", "Please back off...", "not pleasant having you hounding me for that"). I can see from here nothing will come of this thread, so I won't waste my time going any further. -- tariqabjotu 09:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand why I would be offended? With all due respect your comment was very rude and you yourself assumed the worst in me. You misjudged my comment and took it as directed towards you personally, rather than towards the wording of the proposal. After your mistake, you went on the offense and sent me the message above. I don't know what you expect from me... an apology for disagreeing with your proposal because I thought the words trivialized the content of the article? I really don't think that this is something that needed to be an issue in the first place. It's clearly a misunderstanding. I'm sorry you think that working things out and creating a positive atmosphere between editors is a waste of your time. Breein1007 (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop call me "disgusting" and delete my addition to article as "vandalism". Thank you. Ani medjool (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)