User talk:ZScarpia

Welcome!

Hello, ZScarpia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Sceptre ^(Talk) 14:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am sorry not to discuss more with you on the topic. I really have very few know-how about this event. I suggest you undertake modifications you suggest and then submit them to Zero.

Good work ;-)

User:ChrisC 21:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with you ! You are welcome here if you want to give your mind in what was an edit war few days ago 1948 Arab-Israeli war. User:ChrisC 07:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but (if classed as a terrorist act) isn't couched, it's justification, as if taking the position that it possibly may not be considered a terrorist act. The only place that it isn't considered a terrorist attack is in Israel. Just like the only place 9/11 isn't classed as a terrorist attack is around Bin Laden's campfire. Pablo180 (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the point is, that there are two different opinions on whether the attack was terrorism or not, and if you insist that it was terrorism then you're quilty of the heinous Wikipedia crime of point-of-view pushing. I wrote that IF the bombing is viewed as terrorism, then it was the most lethal attack until the 80s. That was an attempt to make the statement acceptable to people of both viewpoints. As a matter of fact, there will be many within Israel who would view the attack as terrorism and it was condemned as such by people in the Jewish Agency at the time. The Irgun was a minority splinter group. Chaps like Begin and Shamir only started to object to being referred to as terrorists (it seems to me) when it became politically burdensome - it implied that they weren't any better than than the people practising terrorism against Israel. Also, I don't think that Bin Laden's friends would get too uptight at being seen as terrorists. -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day ZScarpia,

I didn't set out to remove anything from the Jewish Defense League article. I was doing RC patrol (attempting to scan all new changes to Wikipedia and remove vandalism, POV-pushing, defamation and other damaging material as soon as it's created), and I noticed what appeared to be an unregistered user's attempt at POV-pushing added to the JDL article. So, I clicked the little button admins see that says "rollback", and the changes were undone. However, looking at the changes in the cold light of a new day, they're not actually all that objectionable. So, I apologise for my hastiness, and I've reinstated the user's edits. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to you here: User_talk:Jaakobou#King_David_Hotel_bombing.
Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll reply there as well. -- ZScarpia (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. Not knowing the relevant literature at all well, I tried merely to copyedit. There was a lot a loose phrasing, and in tightening it, I appear to have made the wrong inference at that point (perhaps at others). Thanks for the note. Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise. You didn't make an error of fact, which, in the last couple of days, I have done. -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from adding your personal opinion to this page with your edit [1]. Please note this has now been removed by an administrator here [2] --Rockybiggs (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he's been warned for deleting other users' comments.

It might be worth requesting that he restore all deleted comments - I don't see how it is unreasonable that he do the work (or restoring). If he refuses, then - well, kick things up a notch. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages: Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems he hasn't been more than "advised" - if he strays from the topic at hand, or his comment is not substantive - delete away. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allora, dimmi. I'm full of advice, which I never follow, since I forget it as often as not. But if you're game, you can't really 'shoot'. Nonetheless, shoot.Nishidani (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm looking for opinions and advice on what's been happening at the King David Hotel bombing article.
Firstly, I've been trying to negotiate with an editor, Mr J, an acceptable form for a sentence which he objected to in the Terrorism section. Mr J has refused to give me direct answers to my questions and ended by commenting that he couldn't understand what I was trying to ask. I'm looking for an opinion on whether I wrote clearly and logically (in which case Mr J was just being an erse) or not.
Next, Mr C appeared and turned the article upside down. After I made some restorations, he appeared on the talkpage along with Mr H, talking about removing the Layout section and cutting down the Attempted Attack section and merging it with text elsewhere. They copied the text of the latter over to the King David Hotel article, making it a mess in my opinion. They seem to have a real thing about getting rid of the heading (in fact, they seem to have a bit of a mania for getting rid of headings in general) of the Attempted attack section and (sub)merging the text elsewhere. The obvious reason for doing that is that they want to hide the information in that section as much as possible, but I can't see a reason why the information there would bother them overly. They do seem very keen to reduce the size of the article even though it isn't particularly long. The only reason that occurs to me is that they don't want information in the English Wikipedia article which isn't in the Hebrew version. Something else odd is that Mr H appears to have pulled some information from Thurston Clarke's book, so you'd expect him to have a reasonable grasp of the KDH bombing story, yet from the questions he's asking and some of the material he's been trying to insert, he obviously doesn't. I wondered if you would take a look at the article and the talkpage and tell me what you think and whether you think that I should be handling things differently?
The article seemed to become very popular suddenly. Do you know of any reason why? Thanks. -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're coming under examination, and this is what G-Dett called the catenaccio technique. You're probably in line for a dose of the Chas Freeman treatment. I'm busy examining the stuff on the Judea/Samaria Arbcom page, which is turning, predictably, into the usual fiasco of fogged evidence, but will, as in the past, keep my eye on things in here. Most of the new editors have, as usual, no knowledge of the subject you've studied and worked on meticulously since Dec 2005. That gives you a certain standing as a serious, long-term, committed editor, and the record is one of informed knowledge, readiness for dialogue, and intelligent editing. Don't get unnerved. That's the aim.Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. -- ZScarpia (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sari Nusseibeh, Once Upon a Country, Halban, London 2009 p.41 Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy filed a report and it turned out User:Los Admiralos was a sockpuppet of User:NoCal100. While I have good instincts, I'm terrible at piecing the evidence together. But I do appreciate your trying to make it easier. Cheers. Tiamut^talk 21:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I would admire NoCal100's persistence if it wasn't taken to such an extreme that he's clearly obsessive (and it wasn't so damaging and disruptive). It's curious that it was so obvious that the Los Admiralos account was created by an experienced user. Presumably NoCal100 realised and didn't care that it would be exposed as a sockpuppet sooner rather than later. Hope the current Drorking doesn't get too unbearable or last too long. -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drork aint NoCal, you can verify that pretty easily. Drork edits from Israel, NoCal did not (one of his IPs was 12.54.125.181 (talk)). nableezy - 07:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I realised after Drork had typed a couple more sentences that his "personality" is very unlike that of NoCal100 and his family of socks. Probably I was confusing him with another editor (perhaps Epeefleche, who, of course, was eventually sanctioned for use of sockpuppets){struck-out: ZScarpia (talk)} who also looked to me to be a vexatious litigant against editors such as you and Tiamut and whose contribution history had very sock-like characteristics. Unfortunately, such confusion isn't uncommon in me. -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know; I read that section. Among the other reasons why I have little tolerance for removing other users' comments you don't like, even if they are personal and negative, from talk pages other than your own is that a) it very often leads to exactly that sort of edit war as the original commentator restores it right back and b) the energies that go into the ensuing edit war would be far more productively used building consensus on how to improve the article. Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It was just the idea that editors removing the most vile, vicious hate speech ... wouldn't be on the right side of policy that I was baulking at. It is conceivable that comments can cross a line beyond which their removal becomes beneficial. (Just in case you're interested, the Jayjg - deletion of comments section above illustrates one dispute over deleted comments, by the way) -- ZScarpia (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sticking up for me during my latest block. If there is anything I can do for you in the future just let me know. Factsontheground (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Does that mean I've earned the right to patronise you with some advice? -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is right. I'm not sure it's really notable that they were disguised. Presumably they didn't walk into the building wearing clothes that announced who they were! I just really disliked the "Wearing various types of disguises" language. And by-the-by it takes more than that to irritate me. NickCT (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Thanks for letting me know. -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer you question about Masada 2000. First-of-all I have never visited the site neither before nor after it was mentioned at AN/I. I did not know about the site before I read about it in the post. I looked only at the differences mentioned in AN/I post in the wikipedia article itself, and very briefly. Only few of them were from Masada 2000, but I read the same stories about refugees in Jerusalem Post and in some books: please take a look at pages 289 and 288 Should I consider Jerusalem Post a racist site? I do not think so. Other edits were taken from American Thinker and Palestinian Media Watch, hardly racist sites either. I agree they are controversial, but I do not consider them to be neither racist nor hate speech. Once again, I am not talking about the site Masada 2000, only about the edits to the article that were made by Gilabrand. If you are to look at the thread, you will see that I was defending the actions of Gilabrand, but the only thing I said about the site in question was: "About Masada 2000. The site is not blacklisted on Wikipedia, so the user had the rights to refer to it.", and remember, when I said it, I only saw the edits added to the article, the very same edits that I knew about from the books I read before. Please also consider what me and Gilabrand felt, when we read the article that was written by the user. My heart is going out to people in Gaza in West Bank. They are suffering I know. The only thing in which our opinion is different from mine is that I believe they should look at Hamas and Islamic Jihad actions as for the main source of their sufferings. Israelis want peace, and I do too very, very much. I hope that answers your question. Please feel free to ask me more.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz1, you've obviously put a lot of effort into writing and deserve a proper reply. While I consider what to write, I'd like to let you know that, while I hope you appreciate the reasons why I intervened on the noticeboard, I apologise for offending you. -- ZScarpia (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ran HaCohen: Israel, a New Decade (10 April 2010) ... Am I being brainwashed?     ←   ZScarpia   15:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZScarpia. I just noticed you've started editing the Murder of Meredith Kercher (and checking sources)—excellent! I think that several of us who have been editing that page for a while are getting quite jaded by all the controversy and some serious incivility, which has hopefully stopped for the moment. So it's good to see someone else (you) taking an interest in the page. Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kind words. Thanks! -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. For your unsolicited comments on this talk page, including this inflammatory and wholly inappropriate comment: "Probably, neo-Nazis would be pleased about the differentiation between Jewish and German nationality." Plot Spoiler (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that. nableezy - 16:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia   16:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Spoiler, please don't leave messages which imitate the look of official warnings on my talk page.     ←   ZScarpia   16:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.First, I doubt there would be problem using image of Noam Chomsky (or Norman Finkelstein) since it is not one of wikipedia policy describe at WP:Non-free content criteria. And, it doesn't give you the authority to impose your view on me just because you perceive it as mispresentation or defamation given that some people may share similar view as me alluding to Noam Chomsky. You should delete the images if it's a copyright violation or if such image was a violation of wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for Mahathir Muhammad, he was well known for hatred towards Jews and Israel, and I don't find the information I posts in the userbox any violation of Wikipedia policy nor libellous. Again just because you perceive as it defamation doesn't give you the authority to impose your view on others by editing user pages. Lastly , I hope you will ask for my permission before editing or deleting my user page in the future. Do let me know if such content violate wikipedia policy. Thank you.--Thundera m117 (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ZS. Jacob Bernays (a relative of Freud's wife), in his 1850s lectures, would always raise his hat and bow his head in respect whenever his discussion of ancient texts in Greek or Latin happened to mention the name of Scaliger, one of the most praeternatural emendationists in the history of classical philology. I've always thought of this as the best argument for me to purchase, against my natural grain, a cap, or beret, and following his example, whenever I read the name of Chomsky, Finkelstein, Amira Hass, Gideon Levy, or a thousand other of those folks who have taught me to belong to the modern world, beyond parochial origins, ethnic liens on one's sensibility and intelligence, people who excite in me something of that sentiment so awkwardly, and even comically, alluded to in the middling but well-meaning poem by Siegfried Sassoon, 'The Grandeur of Ghosts'. Cheers, pal.Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. It's good to hear from you. Drop by any time.     ←   ZScarpia   17:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worse things have happen... Don't worry, be happy Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia   10:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please pardon my opacity, but I don't know what this comment means:

Scotch-Irish is the most commonly used term for the descendants of Scots who migrated to North America, but lately Scots-Irish has begun to gain currency among those who know that Scotch is considered offensive in Scotland. Oh dearie me, don't say you weren't warned!

Yopienso (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I underlined the section at the end of the first sentence to emphasise it: Scotch is considered offensive in Scotland. By changing the ending of the category name from Scots-Irish to Scotch-Irish, I suspect that you may find some rather irritated Scottish editors descending on you. But, if Americans prefer to refer to their ancestry that way, why listen to anyone else's complaints? Apologies if I've made a mistake and you were not the editor behind the name change; it just looked from the talk page as though you were. I have Ulster Scots ancestry myself by the way.     ←   ZScarpia   02:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! An ally! Here's my original post: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chester_A._Arthur&diff=prev&oldid=360011129 I was trying to get "Cydebot" to call the category Scots-Irish instead of Scotch-Irish. I reverted his change and he reverted it right back. Yopienso (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to invite you to join a centralized discussion at WP:IPCOLL to contribute any thoughts you might have regarding Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive 6#Multiple articles - the founding myths of Israel harlan (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The request for mediation concerning Israel and the apartheid analogy, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). If you have any questions, please contact me.

Ronk01 (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor at the MoMK article and/or talk page, please take a look at the new draft and the draft's talkpage and voice your opinion. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here for the thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know.     ←   ZScarpia   13:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Helpful One 14:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, we are running a straw poll on title choices on the mediation page - see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Straw_poll_on_titles. If you pitch in a vote or three, we can move this along. --Ludwigs2 06:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current consensus seems to be to move the article to Israel and Apartheid with an appropriate disambiguation line to prevent any misinterpretations. Please weigh in over the next few days. --Ludwigs2 17:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that little bit of striking. I obviously hit a raw nerve. BTW are you talking a step back. In notice that over the last couple of days, you're only doing minimal comments on talk pages.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peter. I spent time wondering whether just going ahead and striking the comment on your talk page was the right way to act, so am glad that you didn't mind. Occasionally I like to step back from Wikipedia for a while, but the reason I've been writing less than normal recently is that I've had a friend staying. On Wikipedia, I've left loose ends all over the place. Hopefully I'll get round to tying up the most important ones sometime. Also, I do have a tendency to lurk on article talk pages rather than contributing content.     ←   ZScarpia   20:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been searching for a long time for this book. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to know I did something useful today.     ←   ZScarpia   22:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was intrigued by this edit of yours: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Preemptive_war&diff=399148953&oldid=397432537 What was the article, and do you think the content might be a useful addition to the article on the Six-Day War and its kinship? Shoplifter (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a search and see if I can dig out the article. I've only ever seen it reported in one place so you might find, if we can find anything, that its inclusion is argued against on the ground that its not mentioned in the major sources.     ←   ZScarpia   13:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re your note on Nishidani's page. He will be away until February. Paul B (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know Paul.     ←   ZScarpia   00:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given your apparent general interest in the Arab-Israeli conflict, perhaps you will find this article of interest. I began a major upheaval of it some two weeks ago and the current version is about 8/10 my work. It's a fascinating story the consequences of which are still felt today. My nearest goal is to make it GA status. If you do read it, all edits and/or criticism are more than welcome. You can find me in #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia-ipcoll on irc.freenode.net. Thanks! :-) Shoplifter (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ZScarpia. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 00:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Read. All the best.     ←   ZScarpia   03:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the Arbitration Enforcement complaint you submitted today[3], and to the comment I made there, I would ask that you please endeavour to use edit summaries when editing in future. Edit summaries, as you might know, assist your fellow editors in figuring out what is happening on an article without having to examine in detail each diff; and it is especially useful to uninvolved administrators who are reviewing problematic exchanges of edits on articles (and whom you probably don't want to annoy! :P). If you struggle to remember to leave an edit summary, you can check the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in the "Editing" tab of Special:Preferences. Thanks and regards, AGK [•] 16:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read and understood. When I initially submitted the report, the instructions seemed to be saying that I should leave the summary field blank. After that I made a series of fast edits, mainly to try and sort out the diffs, before many people had read the report. I thought that the section title was information enough as an edit summary. In future I'll remember to add extra information.     ←   ZScarpia   18:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZScarpia, I'd like to thank you for the comment you made on AE. You've got it right, and it was really kind of you to make this appeal. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Good luck!     ←   ZScarpia   13:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said [4] "rather than delete material better to add the part that balances it". But at the same time, you had just deleted a balancing part in parathesis from this source [5]. Perhaps you would like to take the issue to the talk page where you will find that I had already added some remarks when editing about the misuse of the interview in the article? In the circumstances meanwhile could I suggest you self-revert out of courtesy, since your undo seems out of order? --BozMo talk 14:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added text similar to that which was in parentheses to the Lead. Sorry, I hadn't noticed that you'd added a comment to the talk page otherwise I would have discussed before reverting you.     ←   ZScarpia   14:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, we all do it sometimes. --BozMo talk 15:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you decided to delete the description of the case with forbidden (according to the SA law) sex of white woman and black man? It seems very impressive

--LReit (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Diffs] I began re-working the section because the source, YNet, didn't support what the article was stating about what had been called Goldstone's acquittal script. While I was doing that, I added detail about the point the YNet article was trying to make, that "even when it came to far less serious offenses, Goldstone sided through and through with the racist policies of the Apartheid regime." Having done that, I thought that the resulting text (a statement of YNet's point and a listing of several, fairly trivial, examples) was giving way too much weight to what the YNet article had to say. Therefore, I removed the example listings, leaving just the statement.

When it comes down to it, I don't think that the source should be being used except as an example of the vilification that Goldstone was subjected to after the report was being produced. I'm sure that, as far as dealing with Goldstone's legal career in South Africa is concerned, far better sources are available. I think that the YNet article probably resides in BLP-concern territory. Here's what Richard Silverstein in the Tikun Olam blog has to say about the YNet article.

    ←   ZScarpia   23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC) (Material copied over to the Richard Goldstone article talk page. ^{00:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)})[reply]

I'm waiting for you comments here LReit (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading my response on Talk:Richard Goldstone, I decided it could have been phrased much better. My intent was to point you to reassurances that you were not completely alone in your opinion. I did not mean to sound like I was chastising you for not reviewing all the archived discussions on the page, something which I myself rarely have either the time or the inclination to do. Apologies for the lack of clarity. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I didn't read it as criticism. In fact, I was very grateful that you drew my attention to the header because it made me realise that I hadn't properly been checking that I wasn't breaking the 1RR restriction on the article. Drawing my attention to the the notes about the previous discussions has probably helped me look less of an idiot too, of course. My latest edits were of the type where you get drawn in much deeper than you'd intended. Initially, I was just going to replace the word burglarized with burgled. While doing that I read the source and realised that it didn't support everything that had been written, including that the policemen had been acquitted of burglary, burglary being technically more than breaking-in. Also, I realised pretty quickly that the style was overly incendiary for a BLP (an impression which was reinforced somewhat when I scanned down to the comparisons with Mengele).     ←   ZScarpia   03:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the useful links on my user talkpage and for pointing out my mistake. It was highly appreciated. Poyani (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Good to make your acquaintance.     ←   ZScarpia   00:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'm looking to de-redlink this template and I wonder if you could assist me with your valued opinion and shared knowledge on these questions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#1985_PLO_ships_bombing Shoplifter (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you've assembled an impressive array of sources, perhaps you could assist me in finding a stellar reference for the lede to this article. I would like to further clarify what the "final status" issues are, and buttress this with a solid source. To my knowledge, the Declaration of Principles that was agreed upon as part of the Oslo Accords affirms that the issues of borders, settlements, Jerusalem and refugees are to be decided at permanent status negotiations. From what I've read, security concerns are usually bundled together with the dispute over borders. Some sources also list water rights as an issue that was postponed during the Oslo talks to be included in negotiations on final status arrangements. Shoplifter (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look and see what I've got. How about asking Harlan, who has a much better understanding of the legal stuff and a better array of law sources than I do (though he hasn't been active for a month)?     ←   ZScarpia   01:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, Harlan is the doyen of this field, but as you say it looks as if he hasn't been active for a bit. But I'll check in with him anyway. Shoplifter (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know why I've gone quiet, I'm about to be away from home for about a week.     ←   ZScarpia   22:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I looked at the articles and merge suggestions and got confused, so figured I'd leave it to others. Cheers, Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia   11:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scarpia, The Oxford English Dictionary, Chambers Dictionary Collins Dictionary, Roget's, the BBC, The Guardian, the Daily Telegraph all recognise the word 'elder'. In fact the Daily Telegraph, Terry Gifford , Hughes biographer and Oxford University Press use the word to write about Hughes himself. If you feel sure it isn't an English term, perhaps consider contacting them to discuss it further. Best wishes Span (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. What I was trying to say wasn't that the word 'elder' is not a correct English term, but that it was not being used correctly. You can say that his brother was the elder by ten years, his brother was older by ten years or his brother was ten years his elder, but it isn't correct English to write "his brother is elder by ten years". Look at the examples that you've given. None of them use the word 'elder' in the way you did. If you look at the dictionary definitions you've linked to you'll see that the word is only used as an adjective if it precedes a noun of some sort. I have full versions of most of the reference works you listed. Before reverting you I consulted my copy of the OED which gives a far more detailed description than anything you've linked to.     ←   ZScarpia   22:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were engaged in a previous conversation on this topic, please join the ongoing discussion here.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw your edit on the British mandate for Palestine lead. While I think it is an improvement, my question is this:- was there ever a single "geopolitical polity" that was "sanctioned" by the British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument). Or was it in fact that the MfP legal instrument (along with the transjordan memorandum) sanctioned the creation of two geopolitical entities - Palestine and Transjordan (which were never administered as a single polity during the mandate period). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlv999 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and edit. My edit was just trying to address the problem where the Mandate for Palestine was presented as 'the' polity, rather than the authorisation for the creation of one or more of them, in the original. In the interests of plain English, I think that the term "geopolitical polity" should probably be replaced.     ←   ZScarpia   11:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ZScarpia,

Thank you for your suggestion. I have reverted the article on the King David Hotel bombing. The article on Sir John Shaw covers the situation well. He was my father and as a fifteen year old schoolboy,I with my younger brother was flown from England to Palestine with other children of the personnel both of the mandatory government and the Iraq Petroleum Company arriving just a week after the bombing at the end of July 1946. Regards,

Jeremy Shaw John Jeremy Shaw (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful comments re: tone.86.12.129.12 (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope things are going well for you in Salford.     ←   ZScarpia   14:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZScarpia, please could you kindly take a look at the demerged article British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument)? I know that you and Greyshark (who I have also messaged) took self-imposed leave from the debate, but you are both knowledgeable on the subject so your input would be very helpful. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing by now you've seen WP:UP#POLEMIC. In that effect, you should undo your operation here[6] or the matter will be brought for administrative consideration.
p.s. I trust you don't need someone explaining to you why content such as "It is not enough for the [[Israeli settlements|settler]] to delimit physically" , and "Hath not a Palestinian eyes?" is otherwise inappropriate.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you need to persuade that the text is polemical. Secondly, you have to establish that it was correct for you to just delete the text from the user talkpage without discussion. From my experience, you would find that, particularly in the IP area, it's frowned on to delete even personal attacks from user talkpages unless the text is grossly insulting. Does your removal of the text conform with the conditions expressed in the section of the talkpage guidelines dealing with editing other people's comments? You might like to note that WP:UP#POLEMIC only describes what should not be on talkpages, it doesn't say anything about whether it is justified to remove material, with or without permission, which you think fits the description. By all means, take the matter to arbitration, but perhaps you should make an effort to discuss it further first.     ←   ZScarpia   15:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Epic Barnstar
		for consistent, diligent, high quality work in the Middle East department over several years. Zerotalk 02:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha-ha-ha ... thanks! Totally without any prompting on my part! It should, of course, have been me awarding you one ... but, if I did it right now, we'd probably be accused of being in some wikiclique.     ←   ZScarpia   02:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello ZScarpia. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[7] {Shrike @ 12:30, 10 April 2012}

I will amend my comments concerning the blocks, and will not ignore this point. I am currently editing from my phone, so am unable to properly do so just yet. Thank you for your patience.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 00:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Regards.     ←   ZScarpia   14:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your lynx-eyed attention is required at Murder of Shalhevet Pass to evaluate the status of my edit. It may be pure scruple: I am sure that if one edits a page, and then someone just automatically reverts you, you are entitled to one revert per day. Work on the page didn't revert anyone. I just brough the page at several points in line with sources. The predictable revert challenge occurred. I examined the nature of that revert and the additional material adduced to overcome my objection, and it all failed WP:V, so I reverted. If that wrong, and I fail to see how it is, then does the 1R rule mean you cannot edit the same page twice in one day, if others in the meantime have edited it? Thanks, and revert me if I erred.Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't think that the 1RR rule applies when you're reverting an IP editor, which you were in this case of your counter-reversion. If you can show that the material you were changing breached WP:V, I should think that you're pretty safe, as that would show that your edits were not disruptive. Hope that all's well in the garden.     ←   ZScarpia   19:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for enforcement: [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powder Hound 3000 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you find pleasure running into old friends. Cheers, nableezy - 02:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back.     ←   ZScarpia   06:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office ^connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have participated in enough discussions on that page to know there's no consensus for your edit. If you don't revert it I will take this to AE before it turns into an edit war. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions that I have participated in were run into the ground by point of view pushers. No consensus was formed. By all means, take it to AE. There, I will demonstrate the double standard and biased logic being deployed by a number of editors, you being one of the principal ones. As you know, I and a number of other editors object to the current wording of the Lead because it presents Jerusalem's status as the capital of Israel as a fact rather than a disputed position, breaching Wikipedia policies about how things should be presented if reliable sources disagree about them. You were one of the editors arguing in the last discussion that I took part in, that, no matter what anyone else says, Jerusalem is Israel's capital. As you'll remember, you even argued that, no matter what anyone else says, if Israel declared the Moon as its capital, Wikipedia would have to report that the Moon was Israel's capital. Well, Palestine, though, like Israel, not a state recognised by everybody, has declared East Jerusalem as its capital. Given your previous arguments, shouldn't you now be supporting the addition of a statement to the effect that Jerusalem, or at least East Jerusalem, is also the capital of Palestine?     ←   ZScarpia   18:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, are you feeling frustrated? Is that leading you to make edits you know there is no consensus for, in a topic area under ARBPIA restrictions and discretionary sanctions? Maybe you should take a break from editing before you get yourself into trouble.

I'd appreciate it if you could show me a diff of where I said that "if Israel declared the Moon as its capital, Wikipedia would have to report that the Moon was Israel's capital" I don't recall saying it, and wouldn't want to call you a liar without giving you the opportunity to show you weren't in fact lying. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patronising ... and deluded about whether and what consensus has been established. You're right that you didn't make the statement about Israel's capital and the Moon, though. It was brewcrewer (at 21:24 UTC on 5 January 2011). My bad. Also, brewcrewer used Mars, rather than the Moon, to make his point.     ←   ZScarpia   02:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you should check before attributing stuff to me if you don't want to look foolish.

Based on past discussions, did you think your edit had consensus before you made it? An honest answer would be appreciated. We'll ignore for a second the fact that you knew based on my revert that I objected to the edit, but decided to edit war it in anyway. I'm just interested in how someone who thinks other people are "deluded about whether and what consensus has been established" thinks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're in no position to give advice about checking what editors have said so as not to look foolish. As far as looking foolish goes, other ways of managing it are by using hyperbole, such as inflating a couple of edits into an edit war, and expecting other editors to act in a way that you don't yourself, such as not making edits that you anticipate other editors will object to.     ←   ZScarpia   03:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that to mean you knew you didn't have consensus for your edit, but made it anyway. As I thought. Do it again on an article like Jerusalem and I'll go directly to AE without the courtesy warning I gave you this time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few POV-pushers with poor reasoning skills and specious arguments who have difficulty adhering to fundamental Wikipedia policies doesn't make a consensus. Nor do I have to refrain from making an edit because I anticipate that they will object. You, yourself, reverted an editor while claiming to have a consensus that you didn't have, while applying a double standard and also in the knowledge that other editors would object to your revert.     ←   ZScarpia   04:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is ridiculous on several levels. 1. You didn't need to anticipate anything, you already knew that someone objected to that edit. 2. The current wording is indeed the result of consensus (not to mention STATUSQUO). You are confusing your inability to achieve a consensus to change it with the fact that it was consensus that got it in there in the first place. 3. I did not anticipate any editor who has participated in the previous discussion objecting to my BRD revert. Most experienced editors don't try to edit war a contentious edit into a sentence that's the result of multiple discussions. 4. Your name calling is amusing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. I repeat, I do not have to refrain from making an edit because I anticipate that it will meet objections from some other editors. N_maram would probably have objected to your revert. You objected to my revert of you, but, chances are, it would have been approved of by N_maram. You approved of Hertz1888's reversion of me, but it was objectionable to me and, probably N_maram. So what? You have a patent right to have your objections taken into account?

2. The current wording had consensus behind it a long time ago, but, it should be apparent to anyone neutral reading the article talkpage, it also lost it a long time ago. You refer to my inability to change the consensus. Well, who knows exactly what the consensus is now? You're suffering from delusions of grandeur if you think you know what it is or that your "arguments" have somehow won out.

3. You've made a big deal out of my knowing that at least one editor, you, would object to my revert of you. Well, you would have known that at least one editor, N_maram, would have objected to your revert of him. Again, so what? N_maram's addition was a "contentious edit", while the current state of the article is "result of multiple discussions!" Re-read the "multiple discussions." I doubt anyone neutral would say that the current wording is either not contentious or the result of multiple discussions (rather than being as it is despite multiple discussions).

4. "Fools laugh at what makes wise men weep."

5. "If you don't revert it I will take this to AE before it turns into an edit war." Except no edit war occurred, did it? And it doesn't look as though the developing consensus is going the way you would like it to.

    ←   ZScarpia   14:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Have you heard of BRD?

2. Do you understand the difference between "consensus to include" and "no consensus to change"? Apparently not. Go read WP:STATUSQUO.

3. a. BRD, b. see 2.

4. "When a wise man points at the moon, an idiot looks at his finger."

5. No edit war occurred because luckily for you someone stepped in and opened a discussion before you got in trouble. We'll see how the developing consensus goes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. More patronisation. Unlike you, I don't think that I'm the only one allowed to revert.

2. You do know that WP:STATUSQUO is only an essay don't you?

3. See 1 and 2.

4. Hopefully you're not so immodest to think that you're either a wise man or pointing at something worthwhile.

5. Lucky me, being saved by the intervention of Hertz1888. And there was me in complete ignorance that I was in danger of having an outbreak of edit warring.

6. Now get off my user talkpage, you've outstayed your welcome.

    ←   ZScarpia   21:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... just so you know, major reasons for reverting you concerned YOU, specifically the lazy edit summary you gave for reverting N_maram (if you're going to tell someone to look at "multiple talkpage discussions", you should be prepared to point out exactly which ones you mean if challenged) and the partisan double-standards, reasoning processes and behaviour you show on that particular article. You should try reasoning towards a conclusion, rather than starting with a conclusion and constructing an argument around it. The BRD cycle depends on editors acting in good faith. Good faith editing doesn't include the methods you have show on that article, stonewalling and i-didn't-hear-that-ism.     ←   ZScarpia   16:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still talking to me after you asked me to get off your talk page? And still editing your previous posts over and over? If I say I find that funny, will I get another silly quote?

Thanks for admitting you made your edit not because you wanted to improve the encyclopedia, but because you have some kind of problem with me personally. And then you lecture me about good faith editing? Hilarious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be exact, I have a problem with your behaviour. I thought that your revert deserved to be re-reverted, though I did expect my revert to be quickly undone in turn. The first part of that was your edit summary. Hopefully the reason why I called it lazy doesn't need explaining and also why I would ask you to point out which bit of the talkpage and its archives you were basing your deletion on. Another part was the strong suspicion that you were just reflexively deleting the edit. If you had simply asked the editor to take his text to the talkpage first, I would not have reacted the same way. I doubt that you were really that interested in having a discussion, though. Based on what I've seen of your behaviour, I think that you would have listed a bunch of whatever reasons came to hand for not changing the Lead at all, stonewalled and refused to compromise.

As for editing my posts over and over, it's something I'm embarrassed about, but not embarrassed enough to stop doing it. I'm embarrassed because it's a fault. I don't think it's odd that you would find a fault funny. I do it, I suppose, because I'm a dweller and over-thinker, something that's a fundamental part of my personality and unlikely to change.

You're wrong to suppose from what I wrote that I had no interest in improving the article. When it comes to good faith editing, I think that we probably have different ideas of what that constitutes.

    ←   ZScarpia   03:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 2016, AI:Noticeboard User:NMMGG. Persistent refusal to stop suggesting my editing at Ezra Nawi has personal motives.

The said behaviour goes back a long way and effects almost every discussion talknic (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something I wonder about with some editors is whether they're conscious that their reasoning is partisan.     ←   ZScarpia   11:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the new arrivals seem oblivious of both partisanship and guidelines. LOL talknic (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem". 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 19 November 2012. 

Dear user, since you participated on a geopolitical context discussion on Palestine [9], you might be interested in expressing your opinion on a reformulated discussion Talk:Palestinian National Authority#Palestinian Authority - an organization (government) or a geopolitical entity?. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem, 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. 

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 20:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ZScarpia. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Jerusalem. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. 

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. 

Yes, I'd be willing to work with you on that, and then maybe we could present the results to Sean, Claude, Dailycare and others for comment. I have run into some major complications here, however, involving a self-proclaimed Zionist and his over zealous editing and commenting, including labeling me an Anti-Semite, etc. I'm hoping to get the topic ban lifted. Here are some links, if you have the time. Some of the editors recommending the topic ban are virtually unknown to me. ANI Today, Nableezy apparently made a mistakenly false report about me on the ANI page User_talk:Nableezy#Colonialism, and I have been topic blocked. This scenario has been devolving rapidly over the course of several weeks, and I've been having a hard time trying to settle related issues. I filed a related content dispute case which has been closed because a related RfC is still alive, and I had been in the process of filing a an editing conduct against the interlocutor that is the other party of the IBAN, having confirmed the conduct issue with Malik Shabazz User_talk:Malik_Shabazz#Colonialism_article_revisited, when Malik in turn notified deskana User_talk:Deskana#Evildoer187_and_Ubikwit, and deskana filed the IBAN case.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm taking a look.     ←   ZScarpia   20:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 ♪} 12:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. This is just a quick message to let you know that unless there is significant ongoing discussion, I intend to wrap up step two in a few days, probably on Thursday 31st 28th February. I invite you to have a look at the discussion there, especially at question five where I have just asked a question for all participants. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit you may be interested in joining the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Guerrilla of the Renmin removing links to China in many articles. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia   04:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in the paragraph "Army and police reports" the word "after" is in italics twice. Should the second one be "before"? I don't have Clarke handle, though I have Bethel. Cheers. Zero^talk 13:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, the second after should, instead, read before. Reading that section, I think the last sentence could do with a rewrite too.

Recently, I came across some interesting information, in A Line in the Sand by James Barr, I think, which casts light on the claim in the reports that the warning given to the French consulate was sent five minutes after the explosion. The book deals with French government support of the Zionist militant groups (which the French feared would be exposed by the documentation taken in the raid on the Jewish Agency). On the hotel bombing, it says that the statement about the timing of the warning to the consulate originated from the French consul himself. Again if I remember correctly, he lied to cover French embarrassment over questions such as why the consulate was picked-out to receive a warning (it wasn't the closest building to the site of the bomb and was also sited at the opposite end of the hotel from where the bomb was planted) and what actions they took in regard to notifying the authorities or the hotel about the warning that they'd received.

    ←   ZScarpia   10:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some journal articles by Meir Zamir about France's aid to the Irgun. I can send them if you like. Also, Bethel says that the French ambassador testified about the 5 minute delay. Zero^talk 12:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please, do send copies of the articles.     ←   ZScarpia   03:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sent. Zero^talk 10:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia   11:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. We have finally reached step three in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. In this step we are going to decide the exact text of the various drafts and the general questions. We are also going to prepare a summary of the various positions on the dispute outlined in reliable sources, per the result of question nine in step two. I have left questions for you all to answer at the discussion page, and I'd be grateful for your input there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A request for clarification has been submitted regarding the ArbCom mandated Jerusalem RFC process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. We have almost finished step three of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, but before we move on to step four I would like to make sure that all the participants are happy with the drafts that we have chosen. The content of the drafts are likely to dictate what ends up in the actual article, after all, so I want to make sure that we get them right.

So far, there hasn't been much interest in the process of choosing which drafts to present to the community, and only three editors out of twenty submitted a drafts statement. I have used these three statements to pick a selection of drafts to present, but we still need more input from other participants to make sure that the statements are representative of all participants' wishes. I have started discussions about this under question seven and question eight on the RfC discussion page, and I would be grateful for your input there.

Also, there have been complaints that this process has been moving too slowly, so I am going to implement a deadline. If there haven't been any significant objections to the current selection of drafts by the end of Wednesday, 8 May, then I will move on to step four. Questions or comments are welcome on the discussion page or on my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. We are now at step four of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, where we will decide the details of the RfC implementation. This is the home stretch - the RfC proper will begin as soon as we have finished this step. Step four is also less complicated than the previous steps, as it is mostly about procedural issues. This means it should be over with a lot more quickly than the previous steps. There are some new questions for you to answer at the discussion page, and you can see how the RfC is shaping up at the RfC draft page. Also, when I say that this step should be over with a lot quicker than the previous steps, I mean it: I have set a provisional deadline of Monday, 20th May for responses. I'm looking forward to seeing your input. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, everyone. I have now closed all the questions for step four, and updated the RfC draft. We are scheduled to start the Jerusalem RfC at 09:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC). Before then, I would like you to check the draft page, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and see if there are any errors or anything that you would like to improve. If it's a small matter of copy editing, then you can edit the page directly. If it's anything that might be contentious, then please start a discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#The final countdown. I'll check through everything and then set the RfC in motion on Thursday. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again everyone. We have finally made it - the RfC is now open, and a few editors have chimed in already. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. I'm sure you don't actually need me to tell you this, but please go over there and leave your comments. :) You are the editors most familiar with the Jerusalem lead dispute on Wikipedia, so it would be very useful for the other participants to see what you have to say. And again, thank you for all your hard work in the discussions leading up to this. We shall reconvene after the results of the RfC have been announced, so that we can work out any next steps we need to take, if necessary. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ZScarpia. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 01:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello again everyone. Now that the Jerusalem RfC has been closed and there has been time for the dust to settle, I thought it would be a good time to start step six of the moderated discussion. If you could leave your feedback over at the discussion page, it will be most appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are only permitted to comment under your own section - that page is NOT for threaded discussions. Please either remove your comments, or move them under your own section. Thanks. ES&L 10:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, your comments consisted of "saucy" and "really", and one sentence unrelated to the process. If you wish to re-add such comments, create your own section as per the page guidelines. Otherwise, I have removed them as out-of-process ES&L 11:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My recollection is that in February 1948 the British government stated that the Mandate would end. Without being able to see the relevant British document, it is hard to speculate exactly when that was. Further, if it said, for example midnight on the evening of 14 May 1948, does that mean Palestine time or London time. Do you know what the document said? Trahelliven (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[10]. Zero^talk 08:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zero. In Palestine and Washington DC, at least, it was understood as being midnight Jerusalem time. That fell during a sabbath, so part of the reason for the timing of the Declaration was to allow the observant among those attending to be home again before the sabbath's start. It could well be that, as the Jewish day runs from sunset to sunset rather than midnight to midnight, that explains why some Israeli sources say that the Declaration was made the day before the Mandate ended. In the Declaration article's talkpage archives, or that of the Mandate article, there will be a couple of discussions on the subject of the timing of the Mandate's end.     ←   ZScarpia   23:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that midnight Jerusalem time is what was understood. There is also an issue of whether the independence of Israel began at midnight or one minute past. The one minute past version seems to derive from the memo from agent Eppstein to the US government on the eve of independence, but it is not supported by any official documentation that anyone here has found. In some talk page archive there is a discussion of it. Zero^talk 02:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roger Waters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Counterpunch (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) 09:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, concerning your revert [11], making edit without providing and edit summary is disruptive, and in this case, since the topic is being discussed on talk(which you are fully aware) it also constitute edit warring.--PLNR (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you please explain why you reverted my edit to the King David Hotel bombing? As you acknowledged when you reverted it, it was not part of intercommunal violence in Palestine. I had removed the "Intercommunal violence" and replaced it with Jewish insurgency in Palestine, a far more apt choice given that this attack was aimed against the British authorities and not the Arabs.--RM (Be my friend) 18:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, somehow I mistook the order of versions. I've reverted my revert.     ←   ZScarpia   22:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Jewish insurgency in Palestine page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying. Or maybe not. Brad Dyer (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to get the impression that you're not very good at understanding definitions. Wikihounding: "is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." Keep off my talkpage until you've got something sensible to say.     ←   ZScarpia   01:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NoCal100 Sockpuppet Investigation Archive: Brad Dyer.     ←   ZScarpia   15:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain to me why you reverted my edit? It should be obvious that the reason the regulations were enacted were in response to insurgent attacks, and in addition, I believe the version I put in is a far more neutral one. I don't really think it's appropriate to state the British were trying to maintain civil order as required by the Mandate for two reasons: The British were arguably fighting to maintain their empire rather than civil order, and the British had very arguably violated the Mandate with the White Paper of 1939 and at one point claimed they were no longer bound by the Mandate due to the end of the League of Nations, so its misleading to insert the claim that they were simply maintaining order and following the Mandate.--RM (Be my friend) 22:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't change sourced text just because you don't like what the sources say. Misrepresenting a source by substituting your own unsourced opinions about what the truth was is not a form of rendering the text more neutral. If you want to make statements about what is 'arguable', source them. Whether the White Paper violated the Mandate is a matter of opinion. Obviously, the British Government argued that it didn't. In any case, whether it did or didn't is irrelevant to the question of whether the British had a responsibility to maintain order in Palestine. The British may (or may not) have argued that they were no longer bound by the terms of the Mandate in the period between the end of the League of Nations and the creation of the United Nations, but, during the relevant period, the United Nations had assumed responsibility for overseeing the mandates and, it follows, that the British were required then to abide by the terms of one covering Palestine. A request: when you add text in the middle of a section, do it without messing up the referencing.     ←   ZScarpia   01:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ZScarpia,

you wrote : "Strictly speaking, what Ben-Gurion declared on 14 May 1948 was the creation of the state of Israel, to take place at midnight when Mandatory Palestine officially ceased to exist"

Strictly speaking, for most -not to say all- historians, the 1948 war didn't start on 15 May 1948 but on 30 November 1947. They call this the 1948 Palestine War. That's what they call the Independence war. The 14 May Decleration is just the victory assessment. The next day, it is a war against Arab League that started.

And we could even argue that the Independence of the Jews from the British started in 1944 and kept growing until they get the UN Vote. In truth, Yishuv lived 3 phases in their independence war :

• 1944 - 29 nov 1947 against the British ;
• 30 nov 1947 - 14 May 1948 against the Palestinian Arabs ;
• 15 May 1948 - February 1949 against the Arab States.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Different people take different start dates for the War of 'Independence'. Here are a couple of sources which appear to take May, 1948 as its start:

• [12]: "The War for Independence: On May 15, one day after the creation of the State of Israel, the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon invaded the new Jewish state."
• [13]: "On May 14, 1948, David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, declared the establishment of Israel, a Jewish state in the biblical homeland of the Jewish people. Immediately following Israel’s birth as a nation, five neighboring Arab nations – Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Iraq – declared war on the fledgling state and thus began Israel’s War of Independence."

The discussion you're referring to was about WHO the Israelis gained 'independence' from. You'll notice that, even using the longer period to bookend the war, the combatants were Jews and Arabs. Strange that, if you're going to argue that the Israelis wrested 'independence' from the British, isn't it? And strange that something that hadn't existed before becomes 'independent' at the moment of its creation.     ←   ZScarpia   22:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ADL (!!) and unitedwithisrael (??!) websites ? Don't be silly.

It was just for your information. I totaly don't care. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA3 is now open and evidence can be submitted until September 8. 62.90.5.221 (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]