User talk:Doron/archive

I've filed a complaint against user Jayjg for abuse of Admin powers and Anti-Arab bias. The link [[1]] will take you there. I see that you too have been subject to Jayjg's treatment, and I would appreciate any additional evidence you can provide.A.Khalil 02:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Although I may not always completely agree with him/her, I find Jayjg's editorial work to be fairly balanced.--Doron 03:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have been subject to Jayjg's Anti-Israel bias. Most of the administrators practice censorship of material that tries to stop making things Anti-Israel.

The fact that s/he is blamed for being both anti-Israel and anti-Arab speaks volumes. I find him/her fairly balanced.--Doron 03:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You've misunderstood. You are responding to someone who is saying that Jayjg tries to censor material that he considers anti-Israel. No one in their right mind would accuse him of being "anti-Israel"!

How should I understand "I have been subject to Jayjg's Anti-Israel bias"?

Please consider reading this new article I just created. --AladdinSE 12:05, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

It's very rusty, so in my fervor to eliminate vandalism I mistook a good edit by anon as a prank. Thanks for watching! ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom Doron: As you can see at: History of the Israel Defense Forces#List of Chiefs of the General Staff, there are no articles about six (out of 18) of the Israel Defense Forces' Chiefs of Staff: (1) Dan Shomron (1987-1991); (2) Moshe Levi (1983-1987); (3) Mordechai Gur (1974-1978); (4) David Elazar (1972-1974); (5) Tzvi Tzur (1961-1963); (6) Chaim Laskov (1958-1961). Are you able to provide some history and information about them? Thank you. IZAK 11:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been done. IZAK 07:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doron: Please contact User:Humus sapiens who wishes to start a Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel See his request below. Thanks IZAK 07:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IZAK (and everyone else here :), Do you think it's time to create Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel similar to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/India, Wikipedia:Wikiportal/New Zealand and other Category:Wikiportals? I'm writing this here because it was you who made those wonderful templates and we don't have a portal yet where we could communicate. What do you think? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Humus, it's only me here, but I will pass your message on to "everyone". Yes, your suggestion is excellent, it is certainly time for what you describe, but I have no experience with Wikipedia portals, and if you know how, go ahead and start an Israel portal and I am sure editors of Israel-related articles will support you and join in the effort/s. Behatzlachah. IZAK 05:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doron, consider youself invited to WP:WNBI. Spread the word. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to the querulous anon at Talk: Israel was brilliant! Jayjg ^(talk) 17:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks...--Doron 22:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Doron, please see the heated discussion at Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah#Israel or Palestine for the region? over revisionist attempts to eradicate mention of (ancient!) "Israel" and "Judah" entirely in favor of "Palestine". Please add your views. Thank you. (P.S. why have you not entered your Email to your own User "toolbox"? so that you can be reached at times when plain "talk" is insufficient.) Thanks again.IZAK 11:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought I did, try now. By the way, I generally prefer "talk" (especially for invitations like this), but feel free to email.--Doron 20:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kafr Qassem is a common Arab pronounciation. I included the note so it would be clarified. [2]

Regards,

Guy Montag 06:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kfar Kassem is a mispronunciation by Hebrew speakers.--Doron 06:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being abrasive and I feel bad for it. I'm dealing with some demanding and draining articles at the moment, and I was losing my patience in explaining to you the naming convention and reason as to why "Wikipedia['s] naming policy (generally) use[s] the most common english name" (Raul whould know, he's been an admin longer than I've been a Wikipedian; is the Director of the Wikipedia's featured articles and an Arbitrator) and why the Hebrew abbrevations/acronyms were used for Israeli Security Forces bodies (not of my making; before I joined Wikipedia, I believe). In light of what I've said, I hope you will change the IBP back to Magav. And please *do* contribute to A'man in any way that you can. Any improvement whatsoever counts positively, of course. Sorry again. El_C 11:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) ,בברכה

Apology accepted :) --Doron 12:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since it strikes me that the defence of your renamings has turned personal (and less than rational, seemingly even spiteful) on your part, I will try my best to avoid any contact with you unless absolutely necessary, but the outstanding issues remain with: a. Your unorthodox approach to naming conventions (not in accordance to English-language notability), for A'man specifically, which you consistently refuse to address (and, honestly, I remained mystified by). b. Your seemingly total unfamiliarity with the use of the apostrophe (or single quote) in Hebrew transliteration (and its phonetic aims), including when mentioned and employed by the very source you yourself have brought fourth. Please do review Wikipedia's no original research policy closely. I'm still sorry for being abrasive earlier, but this really has no bearing on accuracy and notable English usage. I am more flexiable with BP [3] viz. BG [4] viz. Magav [5] as all three seem to be in frequent use (but BG is a more correct translation, which is why police.gov.il/english/BorderGuard/Mission features it most prominently in the title and category frames on the left – though of course they stress on it being the combat arm of the Police). And, incidentally, the only work I've done on Magav is placing it in lower case as it is an abbrevation, not an acronym. I note that you placed no notice of renaming it in the article's talk page (perhaps elsewhere?). Sorry, I don't have a lot of time to devote to this, and it has already consumed far more than I wished. As for your complaint that you had to wait over five days; I was, in fact,gone for a few days, and afterwards I did manage to overlook it. For that I offer my apologies, though at this point and considering the tension already built (hopefuly not beyond redress), perhaps in vain. Anyway, as a self-fulfiling prophesy, I will be taking a break from Wikipedia for a while, in part but far from limited to this dispute, I do hope that does not please you. El_C 23:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doron, while we await a response from the spokeperson and while my break is ongoing (for which this has been just a poorly-timed last straw), I want to perhaps redress some of the grievences and also try to better articulate my point. I realized that the apostrophe article dosen't address this issue, at the time I thought you were denoucning its existence, so that's all I was concerned with. And it is possible that I am wrong about the transliteration, admittedly, I haven't studied it in many years. English is also non-native to me, and much of what I do is intuitive, perhaps there are some minor errors in the course of this with this being one of them — I have translated published works from Hebrew to English, thus far there has been no complaints (though perhaps the copyeditors took care of minor issue without telling me). At any rate, I am no longer as confident of my point, but I was in light of how the jvlibrary as well as Amazon.com used it in this exact way.

The reason I was so confident is because I thought of naming it that without ever having seen those links, so it all fit perfectly for me at the time. Clearly there is a tendency to spell it that way, which was very welcomed to me since, as said, I could get rid of the (spy) in AMAN, thereby avoiding conflict with Aman while retaining the actual word. Now, it dosen't really matter what the Mossad's official name is, except in so far that it is noted clearly as such in the lead. Naming conventions do not follow the official name, but the most notable one (as is the case with Aman, unlike Tzahal for example). Note, then, how the National Socialism redirects into Nazism and not vice versa; many countless examples (Khmer Rouge PoDC, etc.). So, on that point I'm afraid that I have to stand firm, since it is the convention in Wikipedia, and I fail to see why this needs to be an exception so much viz. other examples (the Mossad, whatever it's called officially, Khmer Rouse, etc.). We still need to know what it's called, the translation I had was not enough (it was descriptive, better than nothing; perhaps it can be included as translation, though I don't see much use in that), but at any rate, having searched it, I'm fairly confident the IDMI is the offical name in English.

So I am comfortable with the current format, though remain open to persuasion (really). About the border guard/border police/magav, I am less sure, we'll see. It seems close enough as per notability in English, so using the official name may indeed be preferable, so I retract on that, and offer my apologies for undue haste. I would like to keep A'man, but if Danny concurs that it is in error, if he concors that the rest of my transliterations are in error, then obviously they would have to go. Perhaps I just suck in the transliterations and never knew it, having copyeditors hide it for me (spare my feelings?), I doubt it's something I really would have picked up on reading the translated works —much of were poetry and prose, so it would scarecly play a role anyway— after the fact (I didn't even think if apostrophying A'man, and wanted to go with Aman, had it not been for Aman; then I tried to make it consistent with the other agencies, perhaps I messed up). I'll let to you and Danny fix these if needed during my break, and I'm trusting both of you to make whatever changes you see fit. I'm confident they will be up to par.

About my break: it is a product largely of disputes elsewhere: Latin American articles, Israeli-Palestinian ones, infamous Govt. of Australia, and others. These were particularly vicious, whereas our dispute, while a catalyst, was just, erm, grumpy, which is to say without malice. The main issue that I took with your position was the naming convention, that Aman is the propper name because of English notability, no matter what the organization calls itself in English. But, if consensus (let say both Danny, Raul, and others) opt for the official name, that's fine. It really should not be an issue to me. I just want to see the article expanded further, in history, organizational structure, current news, etc., really, I should not (therefore, I do not) have any attachment to what it's named. It dosen't make sense. So while I am firm on this point at the moment, I'll bow down to consensus and would not insist. Whatever redirects to what, it still ... redirects, no big deal (I'm just stressed out here, so I acted badly in view of being correct, which was wrong). I should have just waited rather than go on and on. That was a mistake on my part.

I hope that once I get back we can collaborate collegially, even coridally. I have seen your work and I am impressed by it. I streched myself to thin with too many disputes, and as a result committed errors here; misinterperted your own anger at the reversions, which now upon reflection I can better grasp. I have acted and spoke with too much haste and not enough self-criticism and, in certain areas, research. But this was my choice, all of these disputes including this one were a conscious choice on my part, and I bare the responsibility for it. And I am ashamed, I will not try to save face. In a way, I'm almost glad such a lapse took place over such a minor issue, and not the more critical and far more sensitive ones, where I am confident I made no serious errors of this sort (conduct, and potentially, content-wise). I'm only sorry that you became a victim of this, which is unfair for you. You did the correct thing, you made the comment, you waited for more than a courteus length of time. I have no excuses, but plenty of explantions, apperently. Twenty minutes of non-stop writing, my hands hurt. My last appreciable act on Wikipedia for a little while, I hope you will view it credibly and redemptively. And most definitely, I do not wish to "avoid contact with you unless absolutely necessary," I retract that, and again, apololgize (I seem to have that habit, but can I draw lessons from it?) without reservation. Yours, El_C 14:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am really grateful for what you've written and I'm especially glad we can put this behind us and be on good terms in the future. You don't need to be too harsh on yourself, I can totally understand the situation in which you were, and it turns out that admins are still only human after all (congratulations on the appointment, by the way, it is well deserved!). Hope you have a good time unwinding and that you come back soon refreshed and bursting with creativity, or something like that :). Sincerely yours, --Doron 23:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Doron, I managed to forget about this. I left Danny a note, and I'm inclined to follow his lead on it, either way. If he concurs with you, I suggest we go for Aman (IDF). If you don't mind waiting just a bit longer (I know, I know, you've waited for how long now...?). Also, thank you for all the kind words. And if you really feel strongly about the name, you can go ahead and change it, I will not revert. I just want to see if Danny agrees with you and whether I (& others who use that) are incorrect. Best, El_C 12:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits to the article I created today. I actually did mean to go back and track down the names of the cities (I suspected Shechem very strongly), since I just grabbed the names from the Catholic Encyclopedia rather than hauling out a relatively modern Bible and looking them up. Thanks again.--Scimitar ^parley 21:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! (I hope I got it right...)--Doron 23:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing such a thorough job on this list. One note: throughout Wikipedia they're spelling it Qiriat rather than Kiryat (as in Qiriat Belz). Should we change this list, or do re-directs (I don't know how to do that)? Yoninah 21:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for referring me to this article. Very interesting. Yoninah 13:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I think describing Har Homa as primarily an "apartment complex" is, to say the least, disingenuous. I know it wasn't you that stuck this phrase in, but it just misses the point. As regards Jerusalem, I think the current formulation adequately explains that Israel considers Har Homa to be part of the Jerusalem municipality, even though it is outside the city.

As far as I remember, the villagers of Beit Sahour were trying specifically to prevent the destruction of the forest on Jabal Abu Ghnaim.

Personally, I think there is no need to get into any of the argument about legality or otherwise of Israeli settlements on articles about individual ones, so if you think that should all go, and the article still makes sense, fine. Palmiro | Talk 15:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think the paragraph mentioning it is fine the way you wrote it. In the Har Homa article in particular, this subject is worth a paragraph for clarity, given the political dispute and campaigns that took place when the neighborhood was created.--Doron 22:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of the Gaza Strip, which is why I didn't write West Bank myself. But thinking about it now, I have a funny feeling that something may have changed there lately... :( Palmiro | Talk 23:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doran, Can you please add source and copyright information to this image? Otherwise it will eventually be deleted. --Duk 03:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Talk:Israel;

"Don't kid yourself, less than 10% of Israeli jews voted for anti-zionist parties. Desmond Tutu remains a leftist useful idiot, all the same. Klonimus 04:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I have an uncle who says that anyone who is left of Kahane is a leftist anti-zionist idiot. --saxet 09:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I wish he were right.--Doron 18:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)"

I don't understand your comment. Of course you don't have to explain yourself in any way to me, I'm just curious. --saxet 21:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Israel would have been a better place if all those left of Kahane were indeed leftist anti-zionists. Not idiots, though.--Doron 22:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doron. I thought you might be interested in improving the Religion in Israel article. Cheers. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As there is a great deal of inconsistency in the naming of articles about Jews, I have proposed that they be made consistent. I'd appreciate it if you could commment on this here: Template_talk:Jew#Name_of_articles_on_Jews. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking a look at a dispute I am having with User:Al-Andalus at Mizrahi Jews? It's regarding various wordings, and I'd appreciate some outside opinions. Thanks, Jayjg ^(talk) 17:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt to Hebrew and naming conventions, the group's not very active, but you should probably join Wikipedia:WikiProject Hebrew languages if you're going to work on such articles and proposals. jnothman ^talk 00:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Doron 07:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that neither שוא נח nor שוא נע is a vowel. I contend that נע is indeed a vowel (thus the use of נע as in תנועה). It never creates a closed syllable, but nonetheless acts like a vowel in many other respects, making a בגדכפ"ת consonant following it רפה, for instance. Please explain your understanding! jnothman ^talk 10:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly basic, I'm no linguist, I just remember this stuff from highschool.

מתוך א. אבן-שושן, המילון העברי המרוכז, מוסף ג', עמ' 921: עיצור שאינו מונע בתנועה מסומן בשוא מתחת לאות... יש שני מיני שווא: א) שווא הנמשך אל התנועה שלפניו -- נקרא "שווא נח", למשל: יצ-חק. ב) שווא הנמשך אל התנועה שלאחריו -- נקרא "שווא נע", למשל: בני, ראה. ... שנים הם הסוגים העקריים של ההברות: א) הברה המסתיימת בתנועה, כלומר, אין אחרי תנועתה עיצור בשווא נח או דגש; היא נקראת "הברה פתוחה"... ב) הברה המסתיימת בעיצור, כלומר אחרי תנועתה בא עיצור בשווא נח, או שבעיצור הסמוך לה בהברה השניה יש דגש חזק... הברה זו היא "הברה סגורה". א

Thus:

1. A shva (either nah or na) is not a vowel (tnu'a).
2. A shva that opens a syllable is na, and a shva that closes a syllable is nah

--Doron 15:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready to believe Even Shoshan... Maybe I'll have a look in the library tomorrow. Still, a shva that closes a syllable is nah' is true, but A shva that opens a syllable is na' is not, because a shva never opens a syllable. Nonetheless, what it may be saying is that you often can't determine whether a syllable is open or closed unless you know whether the following shva is na or nah. jnothman ^talk 08:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true -- a shva na opens a syllable. The dictionary gives an example on page 922 in rule §16: יקראו=יק-ראו. The kof has a shva nah and the resh has a shva na, the former closes the first syllable and the latter opens the second syllable.--Doron 08:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doron, ...the references put in edit summary are destined to be lost. This is regarding [6]. I suggest put it in the text, it belongs there anyway. Cheers. Humus sapiens 10:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put (AP, Mar 26, 2002) which seems sufficient to me...--Doron 10:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm the one who inserted the citation request a while ago - thanks for finding it. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!--Doron 17:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you "fixed" the Hebrew spelling of Iraqi Jews at the Mizrahi Jews article from "יכודי עירחק" to "יהדות עיראק". Now, it was also obvious to me that the spelling was a bit odd when I wrote it as the title associated to the link, but I was quoting the title as it is written on the site itself. I'm changing it back. Perhaps we should add a "[sic]". Al-Andalus 11:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

No, you've misread, it says "יהודי עיראק". Perhaps the confusion is due to the usage of Rashi script.--Doron 11:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I was reading it as modern Hebrew cursive script. The Rashi script didn't even occur to me. Still though, on the site it says "Yehudi" not "Yehudit". 'Al-Andalus 10:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Doron,

I don't know if you are interested, but I felt you might be able to make an informed contribution to this article, which is rather inadequate and suffering from a bit of conflict at the moment. Regards, Palmiro | Talk 13:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your view that nakba was orchestrtaed by Herzel 40 years in adavnce or that he created an idology for it but it is only your POV, not more. Wikipedia is the palce for NPOV articles. The Nakba article is not the place to start a discussion on "Mishnato shel Hertzel" I f you rad Hertzel vision "Medinat hayehudim" (which is the reason you live in Israel) you will see that he planned to work according to Int'l law and cooperation with the local poulation.

There need to be anrticle about the Nakba but it does not need to be a distorted one Zeq 10:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Herzl is a prominent Zionist, and since the Palestinian exodus took place during their war with the Zionists, the predisposition of Zionists with regards to the prospect of a Palestinian exodus is highly relevant to the article. The reason why I live in Israel has nothing to do with it and is none of your business.--Doron 12:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, this is your POV. Other do not see it this way. Zionism does not equial nakba (although you may think it is). You want to discuss the "predisposition of Zionists " to ideas about trnasfer - do it on the zionism page. The nakba is a specific event that was part of the war not part of some design by Hertzel. When disussing Hertzel plans in "zionism" or "Hertzel" you will need to bring both his (complete quote) from his diary including other ideas that he has about cooperation with the Palestinians. This "cherrypicking" of selective qyuotes from Herzel diary is not NPOV. Zeq 12:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

seen this: User_talk:Zeq#Palestinian_exodus Zeq 18:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doron,

first of all it is discussed. see talk of the article. 2nd please self revert you have violated the 3RR rule. Zeq 12:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well are you going to self revert ? Zeq 12:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doron: Please see the Vote for Deletion (vfd) for Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 4#Category:Cities with significant Arab Israeli populations. Thank you. IZAK 13:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put this article up for featured status. Your input would be most welcome. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doron - I am working on a much improved article about Sh'erit ha-Pletah. I'd like to also have the title written out in Hebrew. Could I trouble you to perform that edit on the article? And of course if there is an article in the Hebrew edition, a cross-link would be great. L'hitraot v'Toda rabah! --Leifern 16:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, I'm glad to hear all is well. This place can be so addictive, it's good to take a little break once in awhile. And thanks for your support.  : )

Your views on the ongoing deletion of good sourced content, references and footnotes and the addition of dubious material and original research to this article would be much appreciated if you have time. --Ian Pitchford 22:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:PalestineMap.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 08:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, Spensky (talk · contribs) reckons there's a few problems with the map - check the image description page. Cheers, Alphax ^τεχ 14:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, There is a discussion on the talk page for this article regarding his inclusion in the category Anti-Semitic people. You have previously contributed to the discussion and made edits to the article, so I thought I would ask if you would like to join the discussion, so that we can find a consensus. Thanks! Jll 08:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doron: Hope all is well with you and yours. You have not enabled your Wikipedia Email feature in your "tool box" on the left hand side of your user page. Sometimes editors overlook that when it's a useful way of staying in touch with other editors. Best wishes. Lehitraot, IZAK 14:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to enable my WP e-mail but it never happened. Doron has been here much longer than me, but it could be that critics of Zionism (even ones living in Israel!) find it difficult to make this feature work it looks as if I may have mis-understood the instructions. I've now recieved a confirmation mail, so presumably it's finally working. Maybe my suspicions (reinforced when nobody answered my complaint, first voiced in the middle of November), are unfounded. PalestineRemembered 22:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:SubaRuins.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Doron, please check out Suba. Is the sentence in the last paragraph about the present situation still correct? My source for that is 20 years old. --Zero^talk 15:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doron, I have the whole of Palestine both on paper and electronically at about twice the resolution of that image. Send me mail by the link on my home page and I'll send you more. This particular sheet ends at 34:56E - is that far enough west? Cheers, --Zero^talk 09:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doron... You are absolutely right, in this case the word "Al" (which is actually pronounced aal in Arabic and is written differently than the definitive article al-) means "house of" and is a separate word. Your addition is correct. I don't know if you know Arabic letters, but the difference is "آل سعود", versus "السعود", the former being the correct one. Regards, Ramallite ^(talk) 23:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in all cases where it is "aal" not "al-", it is appropriate to change. Let me know if/how I can help. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doron. I've a question for you about this article. It refers to Golan Druze and Golan Muslims, leaving there no doubt that the Golan Druze are not to be considered Muslims. As you probably know, this is a tricky question. I'm aware that in Israel it is common not to regard the Druze as Muslims, and the Israeli Druze themselves generally take this view. However, in Syria and Lebanon, the Druze are very keen to emphasise that they are Muslims, and are treated as such for all official purposes. Indeed refusal to recognise them as such seems - in those countries - like bigotry. And of course, the majority of the Golan Druze remain Syrian citizens. Have you any idea as to the views of the Druze residents of the Golan, and if not, any idea how best to deal with this issue in the Golan Heights article? Perhaps it's OK as it is, but to me as someone rather more familiar with the Syrian and Lebanese Druze, it strikes a very jarring note. Palmiro | Talk 13:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. As I said, it's a complex issue, and I apologise in advance for the convoluted nature of my remarks here. I've put some excerpts from a paper on the subject here which might give you an idea of the issues involved, and I'll see if I can find anything else, though whether there is anything to be found directly relevant to the Golan inhabitants I do not know.

Incidentally, it's not so much the case that the Druze are generally regarded as Muslims - in Syria, and probably in Lebanon (at least by Sunnis and Shia), I'd say they are generally regarded as non-Muslims, but they are themselves keen to state that they are indeed Muslims (whether this in fact represents their own private self-identification or not, which is a further complication), and both states recognise them as such. My point, I suppose, would be that if the Golan Druze like other Syrian Druze regard themselves as Muslims (and this of course is the point that isn't as yet clear, at least to me), we probably shouldn't imply that they aren't. Palmiro | Talk 14:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you could establish that the Muslims/other Muslims are all Alawis that would get us around the issue, as you could simply refer to them as such and the text would therefore no longer imply that the Druze weren't Muslims. Incidentally, many more conservative, if that's the word, Sunnis in Syria don't consider Alawis to be real Muslims either (something the Alawis greatly resent), but that's not really relevant here. Palmiro | Talk 15:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palmiro and Doron, Pardon me for interrupting ;-). From Tayseer Mara'Ii and Usama R. Halabi, Life under occupation in the Golan Heights, J Palestine Studies, XXII . no, 1 (Autumn 1992), pp, 78-93, we have the following information. Before 1967 the majority of the population was Sunni, but most of them left. After the war: "At all events, by July there were but six villages remaining in the entire territory: Majdal Shams, by far the largest, Buqa'ayta, Masada, 'Ayn Qinea, S'hita, and Ghajar. Except for Ghajar, which lay at some distance to the west near the Syrian-Israeli armistic line, the villages were within a few kilometers of one another near the cease-fire lines. And again except for Ghajar, which is Alawite, the remaining villages were almost entirely Druze." S'hita was destroyed in 1970. This paper does not explictly answer the question of whether the Golan Druze self-identify as Muslims. However, before 1967 they were not distinct from the other Syrian Druze and so presumably had similar attitudes. After 1967: "The Israelis also banned at the beginning of their occupation the Syrian curriculum and replaced it with one specially designed to inculcate a sense of separate "Druze identity," distinct from the Arab identity-as if members of this eleventh-century offshoot of Islam constituted a nation rather than a religious sect. This policy was refined over the years, and became more pronounced in 1976 with the creation of the 'Educational Committee for the Druze.' Special history books were developed entirely in contradiction with the facts: one reads, for example, of historic ties between the Jewish and Druze communities by virtue of their common minority status, and of traditional enmity between the Druze and their Sunni brothers. The message is driven home in countless ways that the Druze are a special community, superior to and distinct from other Arabs-indeed not Arab at all." (p81). There is also interesting information on the relation between the Golan Druze and Druze in Israel and the WB. Consistent information also appears in Bashar Tarabieh, Middle East Report, No. 194/195, (May - Aug., 1995), pp. 43-47. Cheers, --Zero^talk 10:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite an interesting issue, and as this discussion progresses, I really think it would be better to move it to Talk:Golan Heights, I'll copy the relevant contents from the user talk pages, if there's no objections.--Doron 10:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems entirely appropriate. Palmiro | Talk 18:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with your opinion that the temp. position is not a title.

i think that dalia itzik article should be fixed as well, and i don`t have much experience with complex editing such those info boxes and don`t want to do it wrong. asking for your help.

also - do you read\write fluent arabic? amos 04:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the reason i`m asking you about arabic is to know if you are willing and able to overlook the israel article in the arabic wikipedia. what is your opinion about this subject? do you think it is blanced to the truth? amos 04:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago, you came by Talk:Fetus and said the fetus in the jar image was disturbing. That image has since been removed, but I am trying to get the cat fetus image re-instated. Do you have an opinion regarding this image: Image:Catfetus1.jpg? Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 01:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yehuda HaKohen   Elie Yossef   Karma Feinstein-Cohen   Magshimey Herut   Zionist Freedom Alliance

Looks like a non-notable group of activists writing vanity pages about themselves. --Zero^talk 11:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw that you left a message for User:213.219.16.20 about a related page, so I thought I'd drop you a line for some help if possible. I've just had some interaction with someone (possibly the same person) at the same IP address about changes that had been made to this article. The IP user escalated the temperature of the discussion very quickly, as you will see. I don't want to get into an edit war, and I didn't want to get into a discussion about the rights and wrongs of the conflict, so I'm going to leave the article alone for now and see if I can find some people to have a look at the changes that have been made and express their views. Can you think of an appropriate place to mention this page for others to have a look? Might you be able to have a look yourself? Best wishes, Bencherlite 12:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, RFC requests go on the top of the page, not the bottom. THF 23:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't realise, WP:BLP says that you can ignore 3RR in order to remove the Gil White trash from Gideon Levy. In fact it also says that I can protect the page, but for various reasons I'd prefer someone else to do it. --Zero^talk 10:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know for next time, though I think I removed it anyway.--Doron 10:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The italicised words following a word written in a non-Roman alphabet are guides for pronounciation rather than transliteration (which is present in the article title). For English speakers "kh" is about the closest you can get to the Khet sound. Number 57 11:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood my point. I am not that bothered about the article title (Mizrahi (political party), which is the transliteration of the name. The italicised bit after the Hebrew (i.e. Mizrakhi) is not a transliteration, it is a pronounciation aid (as is putting "Yerushalayim" after ירושלים). Number 57 11:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it is written Mizrahi: Look at the article title, otherwise it would be Mizrakhi (political party). The italics are just an aid for pronounciation. Is it clear now? Number 57 12:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there was (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew)) but ended up unresolved (not entirely surprising given the endless string of reverts and moves regarding Israeli places and names), although I see Ruakh has just reopened the debate. Number 57 12:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doron, thought you might like a heads-up on this. You'll recall User:Ryan4, whom you've encountered on a number of articles trying to add inappropriate links to Francisco Gil-White's conspiracy theory website at http://www.hirhome.com . He's previously been reprimanded for this sort of thing by other administrators on his user talk page (User talk:Ryan4#Stop spamming) and on AN/I (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive123#User:Ryan4). However, he appears to have learned nothing from the experience and has now brought a mediation case, singling me out for some reason. See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 ChrisO‎. Given your previous intervention in the matter, I've added you as an involved party. My response is at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 ChrisO#ChrisO. Naturally I think the whole thing's a waste of time and I'm encouraging the mediator to dump it on the grounds of Ryan4's bad faith, but it would be helpful if you could add a comment or two so that we can have a record of where things stand. Unfortunately I don't think this will be the last we'll hear from the hirhome fan club - Ryan4 now appears to be coordinating with fellow hirhomers. -- ChrisO 18:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pls check email. Thanks. --Zero^talk 09:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doron,

...You dropped the ל from ישראל in Template:Infobox Israel, I can't fix it because the template is currently protected...

Thanks for spotting!  This copy-paste error duly corrected. Best wishes, David (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I agree with you on the term kidnapped, all these acts in the M.E. are kidnappings, but it isn't right to say one is a kidnapping and the other isn't. It (kidnappings) goes both ways. Thank you for your posts, we try to maintain an NPOV in that article, but run into obsticles here and there. Ahmad Husseini 23:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although Google may show many pages with the word התנחלות - any official, i.e. legal document - such as laws, or more pertinently - military order of the Aluf Pikud - use the word יישוב. --Israelish 22:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I please ask you to review WP:OWN, which I believe is your main problem from my experience with many of your edits, and to try not to remove sourced material again, which I'm sure you're aware of. Thank you. Amoruso 23:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Follow the guidelines (see my talk page) and do not blindly revert things you don't like. Do not say there is a consensus when there isn't either. Thank you. Amoruso 13:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail :-)! --Zero^talk 13:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me. I have a question, which I've posed on the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Tel Aviv (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 20:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [7] Can you help? Todah rabba ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, look at what some new IP did to Israel Eldad. It really looks like a copyvio to me but I can't find it anywhere. Maybe a translation of some Hebrew web site? Also the tone is too lauditory. Thanks for looking. --Zero^talk 12:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it encumbers the article and results in an image jam (at least in my browser). We can't illustrate all the monuments of the valley there, you know. It's enough to provide links to well-illustrated articles about those monuments. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, thanks for adding some superb images to my articles about Kunya Urgench and Itchan Kala. They look much better this way. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remove the infobox from stubs because it clutters tiny articles, making them an eye sore to look at. I believe it was created and added to all those articles rather unilaterally, without much prior fanfare. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments on the community noticeboard re PalestineRemembered, you may wish to have a look at my take at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence#Evidence presented by ChrisO. -- ChrisO 08:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:MardinOldTown.jpg, by Strangerer (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:MardinOldTown.jpg is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:MardinOldTown.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 07:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Palestine is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Palestine. Ahlan wa Sahlan! (Welcome!)

Removing sourced material like you did in East Jerusalem with your personal WP:OR is not allowed. Please take note before we take procedures in the future. Thank you. Amoruso 14:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding following your violation of wikipedian rules. you can feel freely to discuss the matter, but I find it amusing you feel reverting is wrong and do it instantly and with weak reasoning in summary. Feel free to discuss the issue while not removing whole chunks of sourced material. IF the inforamtion was not sourced or poorly sourced, you could have removed it per the rules, although it's also not advised. Thank you. Amoruso 15:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read through the basic pillars of wikipedia if you're not aware of how wikipedia works. Amoruso 16:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means you're not aware of wikipedian pillars. It's disturbing. Amoruso 16:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to why you removed the sources from the Israel article. I haven't read through the first source, but the second one clearly states what it says in the article - namely, that if Israel was 100% sure of an Iraqi attack, they would also hand out gas masks to Palestinians. The article also adds that the masks can also be used against Israel (presumably that's why they have to be 100%, and not any less, sure that Iraq will attack). That does not change the facts in the article. I am confused as to why you removed the source. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doron,
Good job with {{Infobox Weather}}. The better we can make infobox weather, the less there will be a need for single use templates like Template:Johannesburg weatherbox or the one on Toronto's page.

A couple suggestions that I was thinking would be good: What about making the table a collapsible table (like Toronto's)? Also, it would be better to include dual automatic unit conversions. By that, I mean if someone inputs the imperial values the metric values will automatically be converted and displayed and if someone inputs the metric values the imperial values will be converted and displayed. However, the conversion could be overridden if needed by entering both values; which is currently how the template is set up now. {{Infobox Settlement}} currently has this form of unit conversion. Are these things you could include in your Doron/test page? —MJCdetroit 18:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree - good job. I also agree with the collapsible notion, it would make it look more "swish". Bennelliott • Talk • Contribs 12:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you were able to cut down the pre-expand size down to 228K. Is there anything else holding back the retooling of infobox weather? —MJCdetroit 13:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the progress with infobox weather coming? —MJCdetroit 02:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The site was apparently down when I checked it, and now it's up again. Not a big deal. -- Gabi S. 12:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doron - Thank you for adding "margin" parameters to the Template:Peoplepalicanon table. It helps a lot! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page has been restored. It's here. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]