User talk:Pluto2012/archive 2012-2013

Your absence over the years has been strongly regretted, and I am refreshed to see you here again, even if you intimate that you will only contribute on this version of wiki occasionally. It has so far taken 5 years, but the al-Husseini article you prompted me to work on is certainly in much better shape that most of the junk about him on the net. If you have the time, I'd appreciate you casting a critical glance at it and finding out if there's anything that needs more serious work. Best Nishidani (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Nishidani. I will have a deep look at this.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pluto2012. You have new messages at Philippe (WMF)'s talk page.
Message added 03:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Rather perplexed, and no quick answer required. For your deliberation

The figures for combatants in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.Laurens, La Question de Palestine, tome 3 (2007) pp.105-6 p.105 has an interesting table based on a contemporary intelligence summary. Two things (re the flagicon matter, on which I have agreed with you).

• It lists the Lebanese and Saudi armies. His narrative of course suggests, certainly for the Lebanese, that, as recent studies affirm, weren't quite part of the mythical 5/6 corrdinated national armies attack on May 15. But he does list them.
• Secondly, the figures. Our infobox has huge figures, which perhaps may show the results of combatants on the warfront throughout that war. I don't know. But they are way out of whack with the initial numbers arrayed, which was the calculated numbers on the front on the day of the invasion, which Laurens puts, at the outset at 20,000 for the non-Palestinian contingents (plus an indeterminate number of Palestinians) as opposed to 30,000-35,000 for the Israeli armed forces on the eve of this second phase in the conflict.

People, which editors mostly are, hate nuances, while the historians takes as his motto that the devil in the details is to be faced and exorcised by the absolution of facts. I don't ask that you reply to this. It is best to simply mull the points over at leisure, and in one's den, until one can see if any adjustment is required, or this source, and my reflections on it, can be dismissed as not quite abreast, unlike yourself, with the latest specialist research on this vexed issue. Best wishes. No need to reply. Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hishidani,

I agree that the initial numbers are important to have a complete information. The main problem is that the forces changed a lot during the war as it is difficult to display a synthetic picture that would be fair regarding this issue, particularly on 15 May.

Usually, historians take into account only the mobile or semi-mobiles forces. About these, on May 15, by my memory, there was 5000 Egyptians + 5000 volunteers on their side + 6000 Arab Legion forces + 5000 Iraki + 3000 Syrians + 6000 ALA volunteers. To this, maybe 2000-3000 thousands Palestians from Jihad al Muqqadas. In front of them, there was 6 Haganah brigades (15,000-20,000) + 3 Palmach brigades (9000-1200 ?) + IZL (3000) + LHI (800). Next to this, all villagers and kibbutz had small fixed forces and Yishuv was in full mobilisation (creation of the 7th brigade and reinforcement of all others).

I already tried to summarize what historians say but their number differ too much and numbers have no more sense.

What I find interesting (but this is pure OR - no historian states that in these words) is that on May 15, the Arabs had not a single chance given the forces that they engaged in the fights were too small but would have they mobilised 6 months sooner and therefore had engaged on May 15, what was ready in October 1948, they would have crushed Yishuv with not far from 70,000 trained soldiers. So, New Historians are right that they Arab and the Palesitians had no chances but Israelis had good reasons to fear the extermination. Of course, Palestinians are even more right when they remind they had not a single chance in any scenario. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, pal. I agree. Wars are won or lost by logistical efficiency, munition supplies, tactical coordination under a unified and networked central command, and morale, of course. In all these regards, there is no doubt that Israel was far better placed to win the conflict than its allies: the only forced that constituted a real threat was the Jordanian army under Glubb, which probably was the equal if not the superior in all these dimensions. Laurens gives the following breakdown, saying only a fraction of the Iraqi and Egyptian forces were employed, being ill-prepared, in Palestine-

• Syrian army 1,500
• Lebanese army 1,000
• Iraki army 1,500
• Jordanian army 4,500
• Saudi force 1,500
• Egyptian army and volunteers 10,000

Total =20,000 (Laurens, 3:105-6)

Add some thousands of Palestinians and Arab volunteers and you get less than 30,000

Israel had 30,-35,000 troops, which included the 6,000 Palmach elite, while the highly motrivated Irgun and Stern/Lehi forces amounted to 3,000. (p.106)

If you analyse the casualties, on the other hand, the strong numerical advantage of the Israeli forces vs those of the uncoordinated Arabs is reversed.

Israel suffered some 6,000 deaths and double that figure in wounded, amounting to 1% of the Yishuv's population.

By contrast, the casualties by the numerically inferior Arab forces are half that.

• Egypt 961 dead, plus 200 irregulars
• Jordan: 362 plus 200 irregulars
• Iraq 199 plus 200 irreguliars
• S.Arabia 68 plus 105 irregulars
• Lebanon 11 plus 150 irregulars
• Syria 307 plus 204 irregulars
• l'armée de secours 512

Others (Yemen, Sudan, N. African) 200

Non-Arabs (Armenians, Greeks, Europeans, Hindus) 42

Totalling 3,700

With regard to Palestinians who fought, there the figures are particularly high, if we can trust Laurens's figures for the number who engaged in the war.

• Palestinians who died in combat 1,953
• Unknown names, but number, place and date known: 4,004
• Names and dates not known but places of death known 7,043

=13,000 Palestinians, double the number of Jewish losses, and statistically, in terms of relative populations, far greater a percentage of the relevant population. The largest part of Palestinian loses however relates to non-combatants.(Laurens 3:194)

We're not editing so WP:OR is irrelevant here. I think personally that the scenario of 5/6 invading outside national armies vs one small Yishuv force dominates historiography. If one analyses just the Israeli and Palestinian figures (and Palestinians had no united command or army) then one's perspective on the actual ground would probably alter the classical account considerably. In a year's combat the outside Arab forces and Israelis suffered an attrition rate of some 13-15% of committed forces. If one looks at the fighting between Israeli units and Palestinian villagers, then the latter suffered massive losses, much of them civilian. We are only amateur (in the best sense) students of history, of course. But it is useful to keep these figures in mind as one reads each new professional book on the period. Best wishes. Nishidani (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pluto2012. You have new messages at Talk:Palestinian_National_Authority#Palestinian_Authority_-_an_organization_.28government.29_or_a_geopolitical_entity.3F.
Message added 17:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Kind request

I kindly ask you to stop going araound all my well sourced editions, reverting them one by one. Please take this message as my notification that I take this incident very seriously. On the page regarding the Nazi relationship with Arab world, 4 editors supported the current wording and you do not have consensus for removal of well sourced material.--Tritomex (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Workshop on Wikipedia and the Middle East

Hi Pluto2012, I noticed that you edit a lot of articles about the Middle East and I'm organising a workshop for a group of researchers from the University of Oxford and the American University of Sharjah, about representation of the Middle East and North Africa region on Wikipedia. We held a workshop in Cairo for Wikipedians in October 2012 to discuss barriers to participation on Arabic Wikipedia. Our next workshop will be taking place in Amman, Jordan on the 26th-27th January 2013. We have funds to pay for participants' travel, accommodation and food. This workshop will concentrate more specifically on the representation of parts of the MENA region on Wikipedia and the ability of local editors to contribute to those representations. We are therefore looking for participants who edit articles about the MENA region (can be places, local historical or current events, local people etc.) We wanted to invite you because we noticed you have been involved in editing about contentious topics in the region and would really value your input. If you want to know more about this workshop, please contact me on wikiproject@oii.ox.ac.uk. Many thanks, Clarence (Project Manager)OIIOxford (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a discussion at Talk:Transport in the Palestinian territories#What is the scope of this article? about what the weather the scope of that article should be the Palestinian territories or the "region under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority", i.e. Area's A and B of the Palestinian territories. In particular I would like to know if you would object to the article's scope covering the Palestinian territories, rather then just area's A and B. I invited the percipients in a similar discussion, but I later realized that there seamed to be a "The PNA is just a government" conclusion there which is disputed at Talk:Palestinian_National_Authority#Palestinian_Authority_-_an_organization_.28government.29_or_a_geopolitical_entity.3F, so I'm inviting you and Japinderum to that discussion to compensate for that bias that I accidentally introduced. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pluto2012. You have new messages at Brewcrewer's talk page.
Message added 14:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian exodus

Perhaps it will help us come to more agreement if I understood your interpretation of the events of April 1948. Or, rather than sharing an interpretation which might be misconstrued by others in any way, you might point me in the direction of a book which better illustrates your understanding. You are also more than welcome to message me personally if you feel that your views are better protected in that way. I'm confident that we can work together to create statements in an encyclopedic tone which are neither spurious nor vague. ClaudeReigns (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You may stard with Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited and the critics that he received from Norman Finkelstein and Nur Masalha

Then read Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948 and Rosemary Esber, Under the Cover of War.

If you succeed in writing something on the topic and state "all these 5 scholars would agree with what I write", then you can claim that you understand and practice WP:NPOV with excellence.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

So far, I have searched these texts for each author's thesis as to the main cause of the evacuations. I feel that certain sources should carry more weight than others, especially since there is a dialectic process between Morris and Masalha. Finkelstein's work taken as a whole is problematic. Gelber zeems to engage in logical fallacy. Beyond the main thesis, I have not had a chance to explore Rosemarie Esber's "Under the Cover of War" to make any judgment on the text. These were good suggestions and I took the main debate a step further, reading "Response to Finkelstein and Masalha" by Morris.

Whereas Masalha's critique of Birth reads:

Morris' findings constitute a landmark and are a remarkable contribution to our knowledge because they show that the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians was a result of direct attacks, fear of attacks, intimidation, psychological warfare (e.g., the whispering campaign), and sometimes outright expulsions ordered by the Haganah/IDF leadership.

Morris replies:

I ended up with a multi-causal explanation in which the primary precipitants of flight, in most places, and at most times, were Jewish attack and the fear of Jewish attack.

Is there perhaps a better criticism of New Historians than Gelber? ClaudeReigns (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi ClaudeReigns,

If you decide who is right and who is wrong by advance, you may move forward very fast but not in the right direction.

You should read Morris and Gelber's book and not just read what is said about these or just take some parts of their books. If you don't like Gelber, you can try Karsh but his work is poor and biaised, on the contrary of the one of Gelber's. If you read Karsh, read also Pappé. There is no problem with Finkelstein's work. Anybody is able to read what he says and with some know-how on the topic consider if what he says is pertinent or not.

After reading Morris, you can read these articles :

• Finkelstein, Norman (1991), Myths, Old and New, Institute for Palestine Studies, XXI, n°1, pp. 66-89.
• Masalha, Nur (1991), A critique of Benny Morris, Institute for Palestine Studies, XXI, n°1, pp. 90-97.
• Morris, Benny (1991), Response to Finkelstein and Masalha, Institute for Palestine Studies, XXI, n°1, pp. 98-114.
• Finkelstein, Norman (1992), Rejoinder to Benny Morris, Institute for Palestine Studies, XXI, n°2, pp. 61-71.
• Khalidi, Walid (1993), Benny Morris and Before their Diaspora, Institute for Palestine Studies, XXII, n°3, pp. 106-119.
• Masalha, Nur (1995), Review Essay: '1948 and After' Revisited, Institute for Palestine Studies, XXIV, n°4, pp. 90-95.
• Karsh, Efraïm (1996), Rewriting Israels History, Middle East Quatterly, III, n°2.
• Morris, Benny (1996), Undeserving of a Reply, Middle East Quatterly, III, n°3.
• Shlaim, Avi, A Totalitarian Concept of History, Middle East Quatterly, III, n°3.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Not about right or wrong, per se, but just accuracy on a particular point. A contrary assertion without real evidence is not weighty. I would rather read Karsh nit-pick certain peripheral points in a logically accurate manner to be assured a wider argument is not distorted. I would also hope that Karsh's corrections to Morris go well noted, so as not to distort other authors who rely upon him as a source. Vis a vis Deir Yassin, I think Karsh halfway poo-pooed Morris' claim that the fear inspired evacuation - and then instead of positively sourcing a Palestinian pointing to another cause, he just makes further assertions about Haganah intent (not relevant to Palestinian motivation) and how Deir Yassin is not interprested (again, says nothing about Palestinian motivation in 1948). Quite frustrating.

All the while I have the picture in my head of the Palestinian Arabs which Brunner had on camera talking about how they were afraid after Deir Yassin. Makes for a very plausible motive. Nothing about this ascribes intent. It's not a discussion about intent. The tales were likely exaggerated, true, it's like a game of "telephone" - messages are always distorted the more they spread. Most of the time, Gelber is spot on. But not engaging a supported point effectively, to me, is yielding that point to the consensus. At least this is my line of thought at this time.

Which makes me wonder how I'll view Esber when I get around to reading her. Masalha was so busy praising her, he forgot to say Massllah, but none of the other scholars responded (at least as far as I've been able to find). Which either means 1) there's no refutation 2) no one considers an Arab woman worthy of refutation 3) no one considers her arguments worthy of refutation. The tone Finkelstein and Morris debating was unpleasant. Rather unacademic, especially considering what's at stake. I want to devour all of the sourcing you've laid before me, but I have to prioritize because my time is not unlimited. And so I begin with what challenges me, and avoid the logical failures which are easier to discount. I must hope that this process leads me in the right direction, because it has served me well elsewhere and has been used successfully by others elsewhere. But without your guidance, I would not have had the opportunity to test these deeper waters. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Hi, I was typing a comment to the "@tariqabjotu" thread but then decided against saving it. As tariq may get very upset if I address his arguments, I figured I can help him keep his composure. However, here is the comment I typed, feel free to use it if you feel like it, or to not use if if you don't feel like it, I leave it entirely to you. --Dailycare (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Concerning "this article should be written based on reality", to be exact this article should be written based on high-quality sources rather than editorial views on what constitutes reality. WP:NPOV states "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". The BBC's editorial policy describes Jerusalem's capital-of-Israel status as an unrecognized claim. As it relates to mentioning the Israeli and Palestinian claims side by side, that should turn on whether sources mention them side by side. There are such sources in this edit.

RfArb: Jerusalem

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jerusalem and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -- tariqabjotu 20:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

2012-12 request for source

Hello Pluto2012, Could you check the source doi:10.1177/1081180X03256999 for the claim that "A 2003 study in The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics found that Haaretz reporting was more favorable to Israelis than Palestinians and more likely to report stories from the Israeli side." ? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Vfp,

I hope that you are fine and that you succeed in taking some pleasure on wp:fr despite the chaos that reigns over there without ArbCom and any mediation support not to talk about these childish edit wars between Hamas defenders and the Israeli Golden Team.

I don't have access to this study but I only see in the abstract the first part of the proposition, ie that "Haaretz reporting was more favorable to Israelis than Palestinians". Even if the second part is obvious "and more likely to report stories from the Israeli side" it is not in the source.

Best Regards, Pluto2012 (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Hi Tariqabjotu,

What about the solution of a "binding mediation" or a "binding RfC" to solve this issue once for all ? The question remains who could be the mediators. That is why I asked to the ArbCom to suggest some. If you find this a good solution and if you support this (as the "other party"), that will enable the situation to move forward. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe I've already said the same in my comments at the RfArb. -- tariqabjotu 14:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

Sorry, I had not read this.

We are on the same wavelength for the process to solve all this.

I hope the arbcom will understand us.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi again,

I think (and I think you think so too) that if we want to move forward and be efficient, the first think will be to set up a "protocol" of discussion (whatever the binding RfC, binding mediation or discussion).

Regarding this latest, this is a total no-sense with nobody listening to anybody else.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi,As I was absent and busy did I miss the RfArb regarding Jerusalem?--Tritomex (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

So we got it.

Any idea of what is next step ? Pluto2012 (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop bothering me. I completely reject your self-proclaimed peacemaker title after this condescending remark. I suggest, as I've already begun to do, speaking to Stephen Zhang, someone who I hold to much greater esteem and who expressed some interest in mediating this dispute during the RfArb. -- tariqabjotu 16:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not at all a "self-proclaimed peacemaker". I am just civilised with people who are civilised. Regardigng the diff, I am also not a fan a hypocrisy. I say what I think and I think what I say. That is the more simple.

You are obviously good faith but you are also particulary upset.

After reading the Jerusalem's talk page, I was coming to suggest you that we try to write a common proposal for this lead of "shit" (goodness I wrote "shit" ;-).

Anyway, I stop "bothering" you. Give you some days to think about my suggestion. If you think it may not be bad ; just leave a short message here. Else, I will not insist.

Pluto2012 (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I meant what I said at the RfArb, despite someone's description of it as a "hissy fit". As far as I can tell, there is no progress being made on the talk page at present. While proposals are being made, they are being presented too quickly to foster clear discussion. With an RfC or mediation just around the corner, I see no reason to put forth something else and add to the fray. And explaining my position on this matter and trying to make sense of others' positions have proven to be massive time sinks with no gain. Once again, I'll say for the record that while I think the current formulation is fine, I am fine with changing the wording. But I don't have time for pointless exercises in arguing at the moment. I'd be happy to invest (if I can restrain myself, a little) time in resolving this issue when the structure for doing so is set up. -- tariqabjotu 16:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 January 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, --WGFinley (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Asia topic

As a participant of the discussion Talk:Palestine#Requested_move regarding naming change of the page Palestine, you might be interested in discussion Template talk:Asia topic#State of Palestine on changing the redirection target of "Palestine" from "Palestinian territories" to "State of Palestine" at Template:Asia topic. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Relaible source noticeboard

This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.-- (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "1948 Arab–Israeli War".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 18:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Pluto2012. You have new messages at Francophonie&Androphilie's talk page. Message added 19:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. reviewer Put in a request at WP:PERM for the reviewer right, that way nobody will need to approve your changes. nableezy - 20:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Moderation of Jerusalem RfC Hello. You are receiving this message because you have recently participated at Talk:Jerusalem or because you were listed at one of the two recent requests for mediation of the Jerusalem article (1, 2). The Arbitration Committee recently mandated a binding request for comments about the wording of the lead of the Jerusalem article, and this message is to let you know that there is currently a moderated discussion underway to decide how that request for comments should be structured. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, you are invited to read the thread at Talk:Jerusalem#Moderation, add yourself to the list of participants, and leave a statement. Please note that this discussion will not affect the contents of the article directly; the contents of the article will be decided in the request for comments itself, which will begin after we have finalised its structure. If you do not wish to participate in the present discussion, you may safely ignore this message; there is no need to respond. If you have any questions or comments about this, please leave them at my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Reviewer rights I have granted the reviewer rights to you. I was hesitant to do so yesterday due to the controversial nature of the article you wanted to work on. I read through the pages as well as your talk and your contributions but see no reason not to give you the reviewer rights. Apologies for the delay, James086Talk 23:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC) I understand the complexity of the situation. No worry about this and thank you for your support. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC) 1948 Arab–Israeli War Hi, I'm trying to do an analysis of the edits to 1948 Arab–Israeli War and the talk page between 2012-04-08 and 2013-01-10 to examine the extent of the sockpuppetry problem amongst other things. It covers 508 article edits, 366 talk page edits and involves categorizing edits based on various attributes e.g. edits by socks, edits by users with an edit count > 500, new editors with an edit count < 500 etc. One of the issues I've encountered is not being able to reliably distinguish between IPs and legitimate non-sock editors with an edit count > 500 who are editing while logged out. Looking at some of the IPs below I'm wondering whether any of them were you editing while logged out, specifically the Belgium based IPs. Would it be possible for you to confirm whether any of the IPs were yours ? If you would prefer not to that's okay. They can just be categorized as edits by editors/IPs with an edit count < 500. 220.238.42.127 Australia 2012-07-07T12:24:24‎ 58.109.95.89 Australia 2012-06-26T11:14:40‎ 81.247.176.216 Belgium 2012-06-11T17:01:01‎ 81.247.40.95 Belgium 2012-05-19T15:44:29‎ 81.247.52.36 Belgium 2012-05-26T08:47:05‎ 81.247.71.163 Belgium 2012-05-28T06:58:44‎ 81.247.87.96 Belgium 2012-06-12T05:14:44‎ 81.247.97.117 Belgium 2012-06-10T18:32:31‎ 87.65.230.171 Belgium 2012-05-20T17:33:34‎ 87.66.161.11 Belgium 2012-05-30T19:35:05‎ 87.66.161.203 Belgium 2012-06-03T08:27:42‎ 87.66.187.162 Belgium 2012-05-26T20:08:50‎ 91.180.63.48 Belgium 2012-06-20T08:16:44‎ 91.180.64.65 Belgium 2012-06-14T06:23:03‎ 91.180.65.140 Belgium 2012-06-11T07:44:21‎ 91.180.71.148 Belgium 2012-06-01T06:47:36‎ 91.180.72.97 Belgium 2012-05-31T05:33:07‎ 91.180.76.137 Belgium 2012-05-23T06:50:43‎ 137.186.238.249 Canada 2012-09-04T23:31:23‎ 201.195.204.42 Costa Rica 2012-05-15T18:00:51‎ 94.253.206.252 Croatia 2012-07-17T02:28:49‎ 82.122.45.128 France 2012-07-07T19:56:55‎ 85.183.56.74 Germany 2012-05-31T13:38:53‎ 122.169.36.79 India 2012-04-13T09:52:35‎ 83.160.95.141 Netherlands 2012-09-23T15:25:43‎ 88.235.11.62 Turkey 2012-05-08T13:01:26‎ 88.235.126.53 Turkey 2012-06-06T08:15:25‎ 88.235.19.70 Turkey 2012-04-08T14:44:04‎ 88.235.191.205 Turkey 2012-05-22T10:43:33‎ 88.235.20.203 Turkey 2012-04-10T18:27:50‎ 86.171.215.62 United Kingdom 2012-09-23T20:10:29‎ 88.104.208.74 United Kingdom 2012-07-24T10:17:03‎ 92.2.213.102 United Kingdom 2012-05-19T06:06:19‎ 108.253.72.26 United States 2012-11-10T18:53:11‎ 130.76.96.156 United States 2012-11-10T04:47:37‎ 173.216.250.42 United States 2012-05-14T15:02:53‎ 192.138.83.34 United States 2012-09-24T17:32:59‎ 50.140.111.39 United States 2012-10-04T00:24:59‎ 71.232.189.239 United States 2012-05-11T05:27:53‎ 75.99.43.78 United States 2012-04-20T14:34:20‎ 76.246.39.221 United States 2012-10-01T07:22:41‎ 99.1.220.22 United States 2012-10-04T02:01:07‎ Thanks Sean.hoyland - talk 09:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Hi Sean, It is highly probable that the edits from Belgian IP were mine. I edited a lot under IP after using ceedjee's account. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC) New RM of Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem There's a new New RM of Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem at Talk:Jordanian_occupation_of_the_West_Bank_and_East_Jerusalem#Requested_move_2. I'm telling you about this because you were involved in the previous one. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC) problematic article Did you read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices? I also find this sort of article inappropriate, but trying to get it deleted would not succeed. Zerotalk 13:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC) I was going to say... Pssymoneyweed247 is an Andreas sock[1] and I don't have time to deal with them but I see Elockid has just blocked them. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Personal attacks Hi Pluto2012, We recently had an argument about content and sourcing at 1948 Palestine War and you have made personal attacks against me in two separate articles, here and here. I was in fact extremely surprised by this, seeing as how we collaborated on various articles in the past. Please strike out the hurtful comments so we can continue our discussion. —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC) You opened the fire in stating that I would have misrepresented sources, which is certainly the most insulting thing that could be done on wikipedia. I will not discuss with you untill you change the title of your section. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Hi Pluto, I have been out of the country for a while and have not been able to fully address the situation until now. Misrepresenting sources is a term widely used on Wikipedia (I'm sure you are aware of this as a veteran editor) to denote behavior where someone uses a source to back up a statement that the source doesn't actually back up. I believe this is the case here, and have provided evidence for it for anyone looking into the issue. It is used to clearly indicate to anyone reading the page what the dispute is about. I can change the title but then it would be less clear (although if you have specific suggestions, please let me know). Your comments would've been understandable if I had not provided evidence, but because I did, they are baffling and inappropriate. If you believe that I am wrong, please explain why without resorting to personal attacks, and please kindly strike out your previous personal attacks. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC) You didn't provide any evidence. On the contrary yourself falsified Morris and accused me of doing such in cherry picking quotes. You accuse me once more of personal attacks. This is manipulation and you should stop this. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC) If you believe that my evidence is faulty, please provide counter-evidence. On Wikipedia providing direct quotes is a standard way of providing evidence that certain statements are in a source, so please feel free to provide quotes from the same pages where Morris says what you claim. That would be counter-evidence. Personal attacks are not counter-evidence and they only hurt the discussion and by extension, Wikipedia as a whole. I am waiting for your response on Talk:Battles of Latrun. —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC) That will be done when you have changed the title of the section. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC) al-Qassam Hi, I have the Lachman source. Are you asking if it is reported correctly, or if it agrees with other sources? Zerotalk 10:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC) 1Rr violation I believe this violates 1RR restriction in force for all articles related to Arab Israeli conflict. Please consider reverting it. Sisoo vesimhu (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Nomination of West Jerusalem for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article West Jerusalem is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Jerusalem (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hadassah medical convoy massacre revert Greetings, Pluto2012! You reverteed my edit to this article. I understand that there may be some problems with my edit. Please re-read my edit summary to understand what I was trying to do. I took issue with a trivial aspect relating to the number killed and the fact that there is an official number recognized by local autorities. I believe that my edit was appropriate. Perhaps specific wording can be changed to make the point. You said, "many Haganah fighters died ..." in your revert summary. I believe the phrase, "Ancillary Personnel" is inclusive (unless you wish to specifically mention Haganah fighters). Surely there is some concise wording that would bring truth to the article and include all possible interpretations. Kind regards, --@Efrat (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Hello, Pluto2012. You have new messages at Atefrat's talk page. Message added 06:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Hadassah medical convoy massacre minor change Greetings, Pluto2012! After you removed the number 78 from the infobox, the wording seemed a bit ambiguous. "79 including doctors, . . . and 1 British soldier." It sounded as if the total was 80. In the text, the sentence is structured differently (seventy-eight ... , and one ...) The word "including" is not used, so it is clear that the total is 79. In the infobox, therefore, (leaving the word "including") I replaced the number "1" with the word "a". To me, this makes it more clear that the British soldier is included in the 79 total and not additional to it. I hope you agree. --@Efrat (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Unacceptable behaviour I cannot stand reading this without reaction : Don't ask me to "drop" anything, because I have nothing to drop; you created an argument where there was none before. I am tired of this game (all too familiar on Israel-Palestine topics) where you insert pithy remarks intended to do nothing more than stir the pot, then play innocent, insult others' intelligence, and ask that others cool down when someone points out your irrelevance and hostility. -- tariqabjotu 14:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC) If we place this in the context of the behaviour that you adopted, as well as NMMNG due to the way Mr Stradivarius closed Question 5, we could wonder if the accusation against Nishidani should not target yourself. It is obvious and not discussable that the use of a dictionnary here is WP:SYNHT and Mr Stradivarisu closed the question the right way. There are official and reliable sources that state that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and they should be used to support the point instead of attacking other contributors who underlined the unadequation of the "dictionnary reasonning" with Wikipedia principles. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC) As your comment demonstrates, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about, so I suggest you stay out of this. -- tariqabjotu 18:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Tariqabjotu, I ask you to stop making pressure on the Mr Stradivarius because this RfC does not go to the direction that you want; You are uncivil and do not respect WP:AGF on this talk page in accusing other not to respect this on their side. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Oh please. Get off your high horse. There was nothing inappropriate about my comment to Mr. S. If you have nothing to contribute to the RfC discussion other than your holier-than-thou attitude, don't participate at all. Further remarks on my talk page about the RfC and the discussion will be categorically reverted. -- tariqabjotu 18:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Your edits on Zionism With your edits on Zionism you broke 1RR. Please revert immediately!--Tritomex (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC) I really wonder which ones ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC) 1r:[2] 2r:[3] 3r[4] --Tritomex (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Revert yourself or ill file a report.--Tritomex (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Theres only one revert there. nableezy - 06:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC) No there are 3 and this is more than obvious: 1) revert of my edition 2) revert of Israeli flag 3) Placing the Herzel picture. --Tritomex (talk) 06:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC) The 2 consecutive edits below are treated as 1 edit. Are you saying that they are a revert of this edit @19:57, 27 February 2012 i.e. that Pluto was edit warring with user R-41 more than 14 months after they made the edit ? 2013-05-12T17:25:28‎ Pluto2012 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (97,022 bytes) (+132)‎ . . (don't mix this with Israel. Israel came long after.) 2013-05-12T17:21:46‎ Pluto2012 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (96,890 bytes) (-58)‎ . . (→‎History: moved up) 1RR is to prevent edit warring. Use it to stop edit warring and only use it for that. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC) The overriding of my (and others) editions for many consecutive times without proper explanation combined with removal of other sourced material and its replacement at least twice in 24h in the same article, though violation of 1RR is edit warring. Any change made to the article constitutes revert.Not to mention the clear context dispute to which user Pluto2012 is very much involved.I made my best by notifying the editor and asking him for self revert.--Tritomex (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC) So to be clear, you asking Pluto to self-revert this edit which replaced an image added here @19:57, 27 February 2012 by user R-41 more than 14 months ago which you regard as a 1RR violation, and if they decline you will file a 1RR report ? Please answer the question yes or no. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC) (incorrect diff fixed Sean.hoyland - talk 09:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)) I was already very clear when I asked Pluto to stop breaking 1rr and to remove all of his edits, changes or reverts made in violation of 1rr, otherwise I will file a report. All changes to the article under 1RR are edits, especially as all of this changes are done in context dispute through changes of other people (short or long standing) editions in highly sensitive subject.I really do not understand why others are replying to my clear request on his behalf.--Tritomex (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC) The reason I'm asking you to explain yourself and be very explicit about the details is because I don't understand the basis of your request. If it were me I would not self-revert because I don't agree that the 2 consecutive edits that replaced an image added 14 months ago was edit warring. You can argue that it was a revert of a 14 month old edit but I don't think you can reasonably argue that it is edit warring. The editing restrictions like 1RR are there to prevent edit warring. They are not there to prevent article development and improvement. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC) What's going on? Is this 'get at Pluto' week? Three obscure remonstrations on his page over the last few days, by Ynhockey, Tariqabjotu and now Tritomex. I'm sure they're unconnected, but he is, Tritomex, a very experienced and learned editor. I don't understand 1R, and always ask outside editors who do, to comment. If, as here, they make a 'no violation' call, respect it, or, elsewise, ask for a third party admin to examine it. They will probably give the same verdict. These vexatious comments or complaints are all piddling, however, and mature editors should not nag away like this at a highly productive editor known only for his meticulous attention to documentary records.Nishidani (talk) 09:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC) ==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion== Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Tritomex (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC) By the way, several months ago I told you you often confuse edit and edition. Please try to fix this, as it is an eyesore to keep reading your comments about 'editions' when you mean 'edits.' The difference is that between издање 'edition'((cf.Russian издание) and уређивање 'edit' (cf.Russian редактирование). They are two different practices, not synonyms.Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Hello guys, I was amazed to discover all these discussions on my talk page. I hope that Tritomex understood what is 1RR now. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. stop making false claims reverting something twice does not violate the 3rr rule and i am well aware of that rule. Also just calling an article published in a respectable journal by a hoogleeraar from the KU Leuven anecdotal and not reliable is. by definition not being open minded. It is not WP:OR, and there is nothing wrong with grouping them. Pinfix (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Hello This message is to let you know that I have made some changes to Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community which address concerns you may have raised in the deletion discussion. Please view the revised article and the talk page, and consider changing your vote. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Gift Gift[5]. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Thx. But as you may assume, I already got it... ;-) Pluto2012 (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC) AFD repeat An AFD you recently participated in earlier this month is back at AFD again. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Israeli Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2013 (2nd nomination) Dream Focus 08:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC) a notification of vandalism According to the rules, I have to notify you before claiming in the incident board, that your deletion of the section "British diplomacy in support of the Arabs" in "1948 Arab–Israeli War" at 30 May 2013, is a vandalism in my opinion. I have asked you few times to show evidence to your claim that this section is biased, but your responses have not indicated any error or biased point there. (except Benni Morris sentences , that could have been amended to the section instead of deleting it.) Ykantor (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Ttwo contributors have written on the talk page that your action was not appropriate. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. .... Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. " You have not obeyed this Wikipedia policy, and instead, you have vandalized by deleting the whole section. Ykantor (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC) It was explained to you before you introduce this material that what you wrote was WP:OR. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC) I have opened a note in Dispute_resolution_noticeboard . You can write there your view. Ykantor (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Your message to Ykantor at Third Opinion The message that you left for Ykantor at the Third Opinion page has been moved from there to Ykantor's talk page because posting messages at Third Opinion is not appropriate or in keeping with the guidelines of the Third Opinion page. — TransporterMan (TALK) (As Third Opinion volunteer.) 12:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Hi TransporterMan, I was not aware of this principle. Sorry for this. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Pluto2012. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page. Message added 18:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. didn't ignore the rules MZ 'se conformait aux règles'. On aurait dû dire peut-être:'il était bien au courant des règles..' (He was quite familiar with the rules')? Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Oh... I've made a big mistake and the meaning is the contrary of what I wanted to state. Sorry for this. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC) No apologies needed. 'ignore' is like so many faux amis, (pretend (to hide one's intentions/pretendre 'to claim'), etc. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Dispute - 1948 Arab Israeli war to Pluto: I have re opened the Dispute. You can post your opinion here Ykantor (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv was usually on the defensive According to the rules, you are noticed (again): ( a copy of my previous notice). You deleted again this content: "For four months, under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv was usually on the defensive while occasionally retaliating". Your reason is: "undue weight is not a question of number of words but the information itself regarding all other information". In my opinion it is important to add it to the article header. Please re-install it, otherwise I'll have to open a dispute. Ykantor (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC) Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 01:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC) to Pluto: bombing attacks against Arabs? where is your Npov? If you do not reply at Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War, I will have to apply at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard . (Hopefully, this is the right noticeboard for this issue). Ykantor (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for July 28 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hasan Salama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black September (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Pluto2012. You have new messages at Smileguy91's talk page. Message added 10:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. smileguy91talk 10:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC) why did you deleted: before the invasion, several Arab states asked secretly the British to extend their stay in Palestine You have not replied 9 days ago. see [6]. I will have to open a dispute if you do not reply. Ykantor (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC) to Pluto: I will re state this sentence again. If you delete it again, I will follow an advice received in the DRN :try restoring the material and if the user reverts then file a report at ANI for disputatious editing. This note is copied from the article talkpage. Ykantor (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Pluto: You are offending wikipedia rules Pluto: You are offending wikipedia rules As you claim to be a knowledgeable editor, you are probably aware of this rule. Please restore immediately my contribution to the original state Ykantor (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC) You have not responded yet. If you do not recover the deleted details, I will have to open a dispute. Ykantor (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Refactoring and reformatting, which includes adding and subtracting section headings, is a normal part of life on Talk pages. You won't get anywhere by complaining about this incident. Zerotalk 01:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Pluto2012. You have new messages at Philg88's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Will you please reply to my proposal of 11 days ago? or should we proceed in wp:drn My proposal of 11 days ago is here Ykantor (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC) done for long Pluto2012 (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Will you please reply to my proposal of 6 days ago? or should we proceed in wp:drn My proposal of 6 days ago is here . Your last reply is not clear. Ykantor (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [7]Pluto2012 (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Will you be able to reply in the DRN ? Will you be able to reply in the DRN Ykantor (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Will you be able to reply in the DRN. The volunteer "TheHistorian" is looking for replies. Ykantor (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC) French needed Victor Guérin described a lot of Palestinian villages in the 19th century, alas, he did so in French. Which I have never studied. If you could help out, it would be great. Take a look at Talk:Ijlil_al-Qibliyya, it is the "Edjil" part on 374. Thanks! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Battles of Latrun - Page needed The diff page "David Ben-Gurion put his argument to Cabinet to attack Latrun again in order to "push the Legion back across the [Jordan] river" and conquer West Bank." I could not find the source. Will it be possible for you to cite the exact page? If it is not yours, just ignore this note. Ykantor (talk) 11:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC) myths about Israel Gift: Special:LinkSearch/http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths (for example Views on the Arab–Israeli conflict since march 2006). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC) LOL... Many thanks. A lot of talk pages anyway, which is not a problem. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC) The battle for Latrun- I have placed a question at Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard The battle for Latrun- I have placed a question here Ykantor (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Pluto2012. You have new messages at לולק's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. AFC - Gilad Margalit Thanks for nursing לולק's new article. This note is just to let you know that there is a better, and much easier, way of moving AFC articles into mainspace. See WP:AFCR, scroll down to "Step 4" and open the box there to see the instructions. Basically all you have to do click a couple of buttons, and enter a few details - details you'd have to enter anyway. Saves you having to do a lot of the routine work involved. Hope this is useful for next time. --NSH001 (talk) 07:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC) Thank you NSH001 and thank you too for your support to our new Israeli contributor. I was not aware of this. On wp:fr we used to create the article in our personnal page (eg user:Pluto/New article) and then to move this to the main space when we think it is ready. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC) You can do that as well in en:wp (I do it myself, sometimes) but I think our new editor still needs some hand-holding, and would be well advised to use the AFC process for his or her next few articles. Amitiés, --NSH001 (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC) Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firkin Flying Fox (talk • contribs) 22:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC) I've closed the report without blocking, but please take care to abide by the 1RR rule in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC) I thank you for your indulgence. I should have been blocked. (Note that I took my wikibreak before I was aware of this complain.) Pluto2012 (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Elie Wiesel Hi, I noticed you reverted me here. I think that quote belongs to Wikiquote, so it's good you did that, but just for your knowledge, Wiesel does believe in God. There are numerous sources that say this and he explicitly said it himself in an interview, watch it here. Do you think his belief in God should be mentioned somewhere in the article? Regards, Yambaram (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Read Le procès de Shamgorod by Elie Wiesel. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Ykantor (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC) You have posted on the wrong board. Reread your comment there which more or less states that you do not feel obliged, as an editor rewriting an article, to give both sides of the story, because the common but by no means universal 'Israeli' version is correct, and 'the truth'. This violates our obligations under WP:NPOV. Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. So you have no argument with Pluto. You dispute policy, and therefore should address your questions to the NPOV board.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Iranian Jews Yo Pluto, just for short: I've found best possible source for this issue: article Israel ii. Jewish Persian Community from Encyclopædia Iranica, written by Jewish professor David Yeroushalmi (NOT this one) from Tel Aviv University, leading expert on that particular topic. Article is comprehensive and updated very recently (April 5, 2012). I'm OK with removing David Littman, not because of political background or possible factualy issues, but because we have better source above. Regarding that politics-scholary issue, Bernard Lewis is interesting case - he made some stupid political motivated claims about "Iranian planned nuclear armageddon in 2006", but he's still acclaimed historian cited even in Iran. I have book Religious Minorities in Iran by Eliz Sanasarian, but when I checked her sources yesterday I've realized it's mostly media outlets, so data from Yeroushalmi's article may freely replace it because it's based on much reliable sources. Greetings. --HistorNE (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)