User talk:Onceinawhile/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Oncenawhile, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard
  if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Hi, Plz bring sources and propositions of modifications for the article Jerusalem. Thank you in advance. --Helmoony (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Islamic Barnstar
		For your constructive and encyclopedic contribution to Islamic heritage at Jerusalem article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to copy to your your

What was the name of the previous account you used on Wikipedia (either the English one, or others) ? HupHollandHup (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Israel. Thank you. I'm referring to "what I personally suspect to be coordinated Astroturfing" . Marokwitz (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On such a contentious article, I think you ought to make that case on the talk page before adding large amounts of content to the article. Since quite a lot has been written on the subject of Israel, I think substantiating your claim that every source considers Israel to be disproportionately criticised will require a lot of research and talk page discussion. I would suggest that there are sources that do not support this claim, it's just that they are not the one's you selected.

Just to let you know, in case you are new, Israel-related article are under special admin sanctions, so be careful about getting into edit-warring. --FormerIP (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a fair point that you did present sources on the talk page. But the Israel article is a very obvious flashpoint within WP, so I think it would be better to have given fuller details about what the changes you proposed to make were. I actually don't think your changes were all that bad, but 10K of text in one go is a lot and I don't think it's realistic to expect it to just be accepted without comment. It is rather obvious that you've exercised a preference for pro-Israel sources, and I also don't think it is realistic to expect a whole section of an article to be accepted on that basis. The thing about "disproportionate" is it seems obvious to me that there are many sources that criticise the international community for not being critical enough of Israel. All mainstream points-of-view need to be represented. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Criticism of Israel is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Israel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did you find Mel Etitis' deletion?Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying to insert a section concerning "International criticism" until you have built consensus to include it in the article. Continuing to do so while the topic is under discussion is

Please try follow the MOS in the future. Also, you may wish to consider fixing the overlinking in articles you've already changed. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding this edit to the

Hi, and thanks for your kind words on my talkpage. I agree that tagteaming is a problematic issue and tagteams are too rarely exposed and banned (although that too has happened). In principle I think the best way to counter them would be to expose the tagteam and block the editors, but this is difficult as they can use non-wiki channels to coordinate their actions. I've sometimes thought that wikipedia should have a few editors with the permission and task to try to infiltrate and then expose tagteams. Absent blocking tagteams, something that can help is to invite broader participation from the community (for example via RFC) so that the "team" is rendered in the minority. This only really works for more key issues. Thinking of BLUDGEON, on the other hand if the tagteam is there, they're unlikely to be persuaded by any arguments so replying to all won't likely resolve the issue. What do you think? --Dailycare (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you make a good point that I hadn't thought of, namely that a tag team wouldn't need to coordinate offsite. I've always understood offsite coordination as a key feature of tagteaming, and if we consider a block of "patriotic" editors (for example) a tagteam it complicates the issue. One thing that could work is discussing the matter until the ninjas' arguments are plainly in sight. To keep withholding consensus they have to repeat them, and if they're rubbish arguments the ninjas can be blocked for tendentious editing. If their arguments make sense, on the other hand, then they should of course be incorporated in the editing process. Of course, initiating a process to get editors blocked for tendentious editing sort of spoils the "good faith atmosphere"... --Dailycare (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want "corrolory" to be corollary. --Noleander (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be doing more editing on that article? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's rules concerning free images (those unencumbered by copyright) and the

What do you think? Koakhtzvigad 58.178.163.234 (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had in mind that if you could source those statements and the underlying conclusion, we would be able to build consensus to use it to structure the article.

talk) 02:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Following your work on Nehemiah ben Hushiel, I created a page on Benjamin of Tiberias. Let's keep on this project and thank you for cooperation.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Made general updates on Jewish revolt against Heraclius, you are welcome to contribute more.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Onceinawhile. You have new messages at Talk:Ottoman Land Code of 1858.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm at a loss to understand why you keep pushing that label on the coins. You provide two refs, yet neither uses that term. Then there are other sources which explicitly place the text as Paleo-Hebrew: Bar Kokhba Coins from Masada, 132-135 CE and Bar Kokhba Coin, 132-135 CE. Any reason not to revert? Poliocretes (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed you changing multiple links on Wikipedia from

You are correct that these links were changed, but your understanding of the rationale is not correct. You will be aware that Southern Levant defines a wider area (or set of areas) than Palestine, and that certain articles are more relevant to former rather than the latter. The three articles in question all discuss topics which are more relevant to Palestine than the Southern Levant as shown below:

• Archaeology of Israel - includes two references to Palestine, and discusses the West Bank, but does not mention Southern Levant anywhere
• History of Zionism - includes over 100 references to Palestine, as Zionism and the concept of Palestine are intrinsically linked. No mention of Southern Levant
• History of the Jews in the Land of Israel - includes 35 references to Palestine and only one to Southern Levant. The article is about the historical narrative of zionism, and therefore as above is intrinsically linked to the concept of palestine
• Land of Israel#Historical Kingdoms - this link was changed to History of ancient Israel and Judah, not History of Palestine - if you read the article you will note that such a link is more appropriate.

Please could you kindly self-revert?

talk) 08:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The Southern Levant is synonymous with both Israel, Palestine and Jordan, a history of the Southern Levant includes a history of ancient Israel and Palestine, which is the reason the links were chosen. Substituting the links from a History of the Southern Levant to a History of Palestine only provides less relevant information, as for example, the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah extended into Jordan and Syria. You could have simply added a link to the History of Palestine, it's the replacing of one link with the other which I find confusing. Drsmoo (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your last point - I was thinking that when I saw you do exactly the same with your reverts.

talk) 00:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

If you agreed with my last point then you shouldn't have done it in the first place. I simply reverted the edits because it was quicker. If you had added a link to History of Palestine without removing anything, I wouldn't have changed it. Nor will I change it if you add the links now/in the future. Drsmoo (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw what you and TheCuriousGnome did this evening. While you may blame TheCuriousGnome for starting it, you should not have reverted. I reported TheCuriousGnome at

Hi Malik, ok thanks for letting me know - am sorry to hear that. Please could you explain why I should not have reverted - I honestly thought i had been acting as a model wiki-zen?

talk) 03:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. Sorry if I came on too strong. You had no way of knowing how TheCuriousGnome would respond, but your revert seems to have provoked a strong reaction. I guess it's a good thing you stopped when you did. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best if everybody stopped worrying about the name of the template and tried to focus instead on its content, don't you? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think you should heed the advice

WP:ANEW

: "Anyone who proposes to reorganize templates in the I/P area needs a lot of patience and ought to listen carefully for consensus."

But move it if you must. I won't interfere. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained why I don't think it should be moved. On top of that, anybody who types Template:Palestine topics is redirected to the new name. If you feel so strongly about moving the template, please find another administrator and convince her/him to move it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a move request discussion going on at

Since I know you have a lot of knowledge in the subject matter I would gladly appreciate any help you can provide in improving this article (which I have recently created). TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TCG, thanks for your message. I saw your new article, which I think is a good idea. I can add a lot to it pretty quickly, but I have a few reservations. Firstly, the name, which I would prefer to be consistent with "History of Palestine", but could live with "History of Palestine (region)". Secondly, there are a few (not many) statements in there at the moment which are wrong, and I do not want to get into another edit war with you. I am still very disappointed with what happened with Template:Palestine topics - our positions were not far apart, but our interaction undermined the template rather than improved it. So I am in two minds...

talk) 16:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Indeed this is not an easy topic to cover. I want this article to contain all major events in the region of Palestine which are significant to ALL parties. This is a task which I would not be able to achieve by myself - I need the assistance of many contributers from many different backgrounds to work together to achieve this goal. Since I know you have a lot of information in this field, I was hoping you would be able to cooperate with me to achieve this goal. All the events which are currently covered in the article (as well as the phrasing of the sentences) are open for further discussion among the contributers of the article, especially in any future cases of disagreement among contributors, in order for us to achieve an accurate, well written, comprehensive article which would be phrased in an unbiased way. I myself am also still unhappy with the recent difference of opinions and related edit war over what content should be included in the namespace "Template:Palestine topics". Either way, I would completely understand if at this point you would choose to decline my offer. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't throw around accusations like vandalism. All the material I removed was POV and unsupported/based on poor sources.

All the things I added was good, encyclopedic info.

Am I mistaken? Can you show me what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.54.164 (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The move request at

Hy Oncenawhile Yes I made two corrections.Fist I corrected the name of the chapter as all sources given indicate eighter relative or absolute Jewish majority.I don't see any conflicting results given.Second the reference Harrel and Stendel, 1974 was quoted twice,once correctly which I left and second time incorrectly,(showing two different results).I removed it. Third I didn't remove the only source indicating Muslim plurality in section 1830-69: Conflicting estimates regarding Muslim or Jewish plurality ref Yigal Shiloh, 1980 [11]although the page given is nonfunctional. There was one additional quote given which didn't match the source which was given.I would like to see that quote on the page,but given correctly without misleading interpretations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 18:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no reason to revert the page... It was only a few sentences and before that there was only three or four words mentioning the Achemenid Empire or on Persian influence over the area while mentioning a lot of the Roman and Arab influence. Please do not revert a page simply based on your own opinions as you did on the article Palestine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xythianos (talk • contribs) 19:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Who is a Palestinian? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who is a Palestinian? until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your article,

An article that you have been involved in editing, Al-Sinnabra , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sreifa (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please express your opinion over the relisted suggestion to merge the article

==History of the name Palestine==

I do not see any reason for removing my section to this article. All sources are well documented and are strictly related to this subject.You can edit, expand this section and merge it with my text. The etymology section, is the first chapter in every Wikipedia article, relating to other nations as well. I strongly believe that there is need for this chapter, as this is the only place were details regarding the etymology of the name Palestine can be explained. The fact that parts of this section may relate to the Philistines doesn't exclude the need for the existence of this chapter here. Therefore, please do not delete my contribution but expand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 09:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Oncenawhile. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit summary you accused me of not participating at all at the talk page. Your accusation is false. Please refactor your accusation and your edit once you're at it. Thanks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi Oncenawhile, thank you for taking the time to add to the article, but I do feel that much of the detail is rather irrelevant to the subject matter. It turns the background the into the heart of the article. For instance, I don't see how the carving of Judea into 5 districts has anything to do with the siege. I'm therefore removing certain setences, but I'll be sure to leave informative edit summeries if you with to contest my edits. Poliocretes (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "History of pottery in the Southern Levant, History of pottery in Palestine". Thank you.

... LOL ... talknic (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Jerusalem: Abode of Peace". Thank you.

Hi. In Demographic history of Jerusalem, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Plurality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palestinian_Citizenship_Order_1925.jpg at the top of the document Palestinian Citizenship 1925 Does it really matter if the remainder of the document is in Hebrew? A translation will not change the document's English ... talknic (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've put up a proposal re: Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Naming_Conventions_for_Locations_in_Jerusalem) and would very much appreciate any comments you have on this issue. BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article

Merge into History of Palestine; not notable enough for standalone article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zzarch (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truman trusteeship proposal until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Zzarch (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the admin who fully protected

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for including the sources. I had been meaning to include them somewhere, but hadn't quite worked out how. Dlv999 (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail... Zero^talk 09:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The name Palestinian applies in contemporary times to Muslim and Christian Arabs who inhabited Palestine."[2] An Arab is, "a member of an Arabic-speaking people."[3] Kauffner (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Timeline of the name Palestine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berosus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oncenawhile, my current edit back to the Palestinian Infobox including St. George has met reverting, I have removed Saint George from that collage for now and re-uploaded it under that same file name, I was wondering if you would care to edit it on the article back to the infobox, revert Shrike, and state that we removed Saint George pending consensus. Because currently Shrike has reverted the infobox back to a version from 2 years ago that only contains 8 palestinians. Lazyfoxx (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is semi-protected.

There are numerous counter-exemples of People who have a national identity much older than 250 years.

• English
• Spanish
• Slavic Peoples
• Mongols
• French
• Japenese
• ...

There should be two articles. One about the Modern Palestinian People and one about Unhabitants of Palestine. 81.247.85.132 (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you are wrong. Please research the articles on nationalism I pointed to before discussing this further.

talk) 15:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

"Dear Jayjg, I am so sorry - i must have hurt your feelings. Please respond to the following questions which go directly to article content: Do you agree with the statement that "no ethnicity in the world can claim a national conciousness more than 250 years old"? If so, how come most other wiki-articles about national people are able to include figures from before the age of nationalism? Oncenawhile (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)"

Of course. It is not because it is written in wikipedia that [deep] national [feeling] started with French revolution that there was no national identity before.

For what concerns another of your comment about the priest of 1300. Since that time an even before, there was a Kingdom of England that was a very precise geographic and political entity with a King of England to whom all citizens refer.

I add that according to this "argument", Jesus is no Palestinian either.

81.247.76.22 (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment to Anonmoos in the chain further above starting "But reread your post above and you'll see the issue - who are you or I to be deciding what factors make a historical person a Palestinian. We are just wikipedians. We have to let RS decide. My explanations about nationalism are just to help you understand why RS call Jesus and St. George Palestinian - because "nationalism" is more an artform than a science. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)"

talk) 19:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

There is no wp:rs who call Jesus a Palestinian in the sense of a member of the Palestinian People.

They call him a Palestinian in the sense of an unhabitant of the area of Palestine.

81.247.219.50 (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what you mean in reference to other Wikipedia articles about a national people? A few examples would help.

talk) 20:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Here is an exemple of a very young nation : Flemish people

Here is one of a very old nation : Han Chinese

91.180.122.229 (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Flemish people article does not have a list of people. So let's look instead at

talk) 15:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

How do you figure Confucius wouldn't call himself Chinese? He knew he was writting the Chinese language. He worked for one of the many states of China that existed at the time. After leaving his job, he toured around an area that he most likely thought of as "China" teaching his philosophy to his "people," the Han. Do people need political unity to be a people? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what to say, as your post contains so many misunderstandings about chinese history, identity and language. Every statement you made was incorrect! Let me start with the basics. Confucius was from the state of Lu - his allegience was there. There was simply no concept of "China" at the time. The "Han" dynasty hadn't come into existence yet, nor had the "Qin" dynasty (from which we take the name China) unified the country. We have no idea what language Confucius spoke (the Chinese script is ideographic) and most scholars do not believe Confucius wrote the books attributed to him (chinese script was not uniform at that point). Now what? Either you take my word for it, or you go and read a bit about chinese historiography.

talk) 22:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I think your confusion about Chinese history stems from your lack of understanding of the difference between the Chinese words "zhong" and "han." You say that Qin is the basis of the English word China. You do know that the Chinese had a written character for "zhong" and "han" at the time of Confucius, right? The language wasn't uniform, but was close enough to be called the Han script (that's what its still called today). The ethnic group "Han" isn't uniform today or back then either, but the Han people realized that they were a group, different from the people around them. The Han dynasty was named after the Han people, not the other way around. They had a name for themselves, their language, and their land. Hanpeople, Hantalk, Hanland.

The modern country of China is different from Hanland. China is what a bunch of greedy commies were able to grab, it includes other people's land and culture. But the Zhou dynasty (that Confusius lived in) was more or less Hanland, the ancestral homeland of Han people. The Chinese word "zhong" translates into English as "Chinese." It, unlike Han, can mean anything related to the modern PRC or it's ancestors. But the word Han means ethnic Han people, their language, land, and identity. Although the White Man's idea of what is "China" has been in flux, Chinese people know what is the Han nation. They know it's history is over three thousand years old, and it includes Confusius. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do some proper research before you question this again. Again you have thrown out a bunch of statements which are simply incorrect. I do not have the inclination to continue teaching you about Chinese history.

Perhaps the most absurd was your statement "The Han dynasty was named after the Han people"! I have never heard anything like it! The term Han comes from Hanzhong, the city where Emperor Gaozu of Han stayed before the Chu–Han Contention began. During and following the Han Dynasty, it became a term to differentiate between "civilized people" and "barbarians" - much like the terms tangren and huaxia were used. And Zhong means "middle" (the full word you were referrring to is zhongguo or "middle kingdom") - again, it was used historically to refer simply to what was seen as the civilized world.

But back to the point - Confucius lived 300 years before all this, during the heavily fragmented

Spring and Autumn Period

. He could not possibly have considered himself Chinese or Han.

If you want to continue this debate, please do some research first. A source showing scholarly debate around the existence of "Chineseness" during the

talk) 10:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Allow me to wrap up this semantics argument, because it is apparent that you aren't familiar with Chinese writing. The Chinese character "zhong (中)" is a pictogram for middle. It is also a rebus for the word that means "Chinese." This is why zhongguo means China-kingdom. America is called meiguo, which means "beautiful kingdom," or America-kingdom. France is faguo, which means "law-kingdom". A rebus is put before the word for kingdom or country.

Sometimes China (Zhongguo) is a political term. What about the main language/writing/food/ethnicity/art of the people of China? Can that be described with zhong? Yes, but it's better to use "Han (汉)", especially for the writing and ethnicity. 3000 years ago, the genetics for both Han people and Han writing (Chinese characters) was mostly formed. During the Spring and Autumn Period, the people recognized that their society had been going to tatters. This is why Confucius travelled and spread his word. He loved his people and wanted it whole again. He read the history books of his time that spoke of the earlier dynasties and their order and law. He was a reviver of earlier morality (like Jesus or Buddha).

Like you point out, zhongguo means "middle kingdom." You say everyone else was a barbarian. Han also differenciates from the others. Exactly. Now you understand what I said. Han and zhong mean Chinese. They knew they were different from the people around them. In Confucius's day, he knew the People, the middle people, the Han were the only ones consistantly making use of rice cultivation and written records. This is civilization. The Chinese had it 3000 years ago, no matter their political Peking Operas. They had it and they knew it and they made a name for it. Han

The Han dynasty was established when Gaozu became the top regional power. But he, unlike past rulers, didn't name his dynasty after his hometown. He gave the dynasty one of the general words for "China" that existed at the time. "zhong" and "han" are two of those words. They predate the city of Hanzhong, which basically means "China heartland." So yes, the Han dynasty is named after the Han people, not the other way around. In Confucius's day and before, what you see written all over the top of the take-out menu is called 汉字, Han characters. Han dynasty didn't invent Han characters, you can't even get a real Chinese dynasty off the ground without a palace full of literate civil servants, who've passed a civil service test you'd obviously fail.

So the Han have a history, written language, and identity that extends for thousands of years. It doesn't matter that Nationalismdidn't come but a few centuries ago. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To coin a metaphor, it appears you are shooting a machine gun blindfolded. I can see you're trying though, so I will try to continue to humor you until you get bored. To explain, once again, all of your misunderstandings:

• Meiguo and Faguo are words from Transcription into Chinese characters, not rebus's put before the word Kingdom. As with many transcriptions, they were chosen to have additional relevance in their meaning. But your statement misunderstands the order in which these words were created. Anyway, this is not relevant other than to show that you have no idea what you are talking about!
• The character you showed for Han is the
  Han River (Yangtze River tributary). If you want to double check, look at the Shuowen Jiezi. My copy explains the etymology
  as follows: 漾也。東爲滄浪水。從水，難省聲。㵄，古文。呼旰切〖註〗臣鉉等曰：難從省，當作堇。而前作相承去土從大，疑兼從古文省。 Unfortunately this is classical chinese so my ability to read it is limited, but there are enough readable words to know that this refers to a province near water.
• You say that Gaozu "gave the dynasty one of the general words for "China" that existed at the time". These sources disagreeHanzhong governmentEncyclopedia Britannica

If you want to keep on pushing this, please bring sources which support your statements.

I appreciate you doing all this wikiresearch to try to pretend to read Chinese characters just to have an argument with me. You see, the radical of Han in its simplified and traditional forms is water. This doesn't disqualify it from being the word for "China" or "Us non-barbarian people." The rebus technique was used extensively during the classical Chinese period you've been furiously googling. Althouth it is reasonable to believe that the character "han" uses the water radical to refer to Han people, since Chinese are the People of the Yellow River.

You're reference to the Shuowen Jiezi is almost self-defeating. The Han dynasty didn't suddenly emerge from nothing, it embodied the Han people and culture that had been there. This is proven by the rich body of literature produced before the Han dynasty. You've already admitted I'm right. You already said that people in Confucius's time called outsiders "barbarians." You are exactly right. Remember, "zhong" means middle. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you have not commented on the sources I provided. Your comment suggests that you disagree with them with your key statement " The Han dynasty didn't suddenly emerge from nothing, it embodied the Han people and culture that had been there." Since your statement is utter nonsense, I would be interested to see the source which backs it up. Or do you not have a source for it?

talk) 17:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Your copy/paste quotation of "classical chinese" is very telling about the continuity of Han culture through its script. A good number of those characters, hanzi(Han characters), are identical to the 1950's simplified script. There are many Chinese scripts, but they all decend from the same set of pictograms and rebus's used by Confucius.

We were arguing about Confucius. I still argue he, and the literati before him, concidered themselves Han, if not the rice farms too. But forget that fortune cookie writer, you got in such a tizzy about this that you proved the original point of this section. To quote your Hanzhong government source...

Since then all the other ethnic nationalities around China revered the Han Dynasty’s power and prosperity, they addressed the Chinese the “Han People”, their characters the “Han Characters”, their language the “Han Language”, etc. No wonder even Encyclopaedia Britannica recorded that “The Han Nationality emerged in the Han Dynasty.”

So as long as we understand that "Chinese" is an English

endonym for the same thing. So, can the Chinese (Han people) claim a national consciousness older than 250 years old? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The question of the formalisation of the "Han" identity at the end of the 19th century in order to undermine the Qing ruling class is interesting. If we get in to that, you will understand where you, once again, are missing the key information.

For now though, let's please finish on Confucius. You reiterated your belief that Confucius considered himself "Han" 300 years before the Han dynasty came in to being. Please either provide a source for this ridiculous claim, or retract it.

talk) 18:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

So now that I've gotten you to prove the IP's original argument, with sources, there isn't much need to continue. Before you were saying very clearly that the Han nation began in the Han dynasty, but when it fits your needs the Chinese people weren't Chinese until after the Qing? What were they during the Qing?

As for Pappa C, he lived during a period of political instability. Just cause they was fighting, doesn't mean they didn't acknowledge their shared history and culture. Are West Bankers and Gazans different from each other. In your logic, the Palestinian nation aint born yet.Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to make remove the semi-protection on the talk page. That is discrimination versus IP ! ;-) 81.247.214.96 (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for http://molcat1.bl.uk/IllImages/Ekta/big/E025/E025825.jpg link... AnonMoos (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it's far from ideal that Jayg is letting cut-and-pasted-in "I'm offended" templates partly take the place of discussion by him... AnonMoos (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I handled this one for you. By the way, jiang is Chinese for river, so Hanjiang River means Han river river. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a userbox for you. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but, whilst it was funny, I am not stubborn.

talk) 08:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

In looking at the discussion, there is support for the move as proposed and for the alternative proposed late in the discussion. Given the history of the article, I would rather way and make sure that we have consensus for the proposed name. What is clear is that there is a consensus to move it from the current name to one of the proposed names. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory was only raised today so allowing more time to consider if that is the best option sounds reasonable in my mind. Waiting a week at this point should not present any problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not willing to budge. If you can find an administrator who thinks I'm being overly cautious here and wants to close with a move, I'm not going to object. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me try it this way. I see a clear consensus to rename. However I do not see a consensus as to what the target should be. At first it was 'mandate' but discussions on the last day raised 'mandatory' which knocked mandate out as the consensus choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, at the time of the close, there was no consensus for either of the two options. I don't know how I can make that clearer. I know that you are willing to have a bad close so that it can be moved a second time if that is where consensus winds up. But we really only want to do moves to correct targets and if allowing additional discussion gets us to the best solution that is what we should do. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

1929 Palestine riots (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Staves

Antiquities of the Jews (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Greek

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's

Hi. Any idea where I can get a copy of this report? I have been searching everywhere for some work on the 1929 Palestine riots article but have had no luck. Any ideas appreciated. Dlv999 (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, much appreciated. Dlv999 (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that Sela needs attribution since this observation is widely accepted.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 19:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me.

talk) 19:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Cool. Common ground at last!
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 20:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oncenawhile, there is a discussion at

WP:RSN that you might be interested in. Dlv999 (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This AE relates to you.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help Oncenawhile. I'm hopeful you will add your own statement to this AE complaint. Technically you do appear to have broken the

WP:1RR. The ARBPIA 1RR tends to be taken very seriously. If you will give suitable assurances about your future behavior, it is possible that admins might close this with no action. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

If you will accept a voluntary restriction from the topic of the I/P conflict for one month the case might be closed with no block. EdJohnston (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In letting you escape this without a block, the community has, in effect, given you a vote of confidence conditioned with a very strong note of concern, and has apparently done so largely on the strength of my faith in you. And I do have a great deal of faith in you because I believe you are trying to do the right thing in the right way but, at the risk of being overly dramatic, I also have to remind you that I have not done you a favor, but have instead placed an obligation of honor on you. As with Bishop Myriel telling the police that he has given the thief Jean Valjean his silver plates and giving Valjean the silver candlesticks in the police's presence, "It is your soul that I am buying for you." Feel free to interpret that in a secular way, of course, to mean that I have put my reputation on the line for you and that you now have an obligation of honor to pay me back for my faith in you by becoming and remaining an upright Wikipedian. In Les Misérables the musical, Bishop Myriel sings:

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TransporterMan, thanks for your message. I understand and acknowledge it. To put it in my own words, I believe the best way that I can repay your support is to continue to learn about and ensure full compliance with all of wikipedia's rules and principles. You have my word that I fully intend to honour this.

I have been thinking about all this over the last couple of days, in particular regarding two statements you made in the AE discussion: "lack of a lot of warning templates on his talk page even though he works in a highly disputatious area" and "In my experience working in dispute resolution, figuring out how to best approach a situation like this is sometimes beyond the ken of editors with far more experience than Oncenawhile." These really hit home for me, because it seems impossible to avoid these difficult situations in an area where editors often have extremely strong views on what NPOV looks like. I have been focused on taking things slowly and keeping and disagreements to talk. What I haven't worked out is how to deal appropriately with those editors who are more aggressive than me but know the rules inside out, if you know what I mean. Until I fully understand the rules myself I will be more cautious than ever.

talk) 21:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Onceinawhile. You have new messages at AnkhMorpork's talk page.
Message added 22:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Onceinawhile. You have new messages at TransporterMan's talk page.
Message added 13:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Please read my response there and, if appropriate, respond at the article talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make another

Please read my edit comment. Someone else started that section with that title, and another editor amended it. I simply reverted back to the original. I then explained why I think

talk) 11:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, i'd be interested to hear your thoughts on a comparison of relative "pointyness" versus this edit.

talk) 18:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I think you inadvertently removed a section of Ankh's comment in the process of quoting the comment. [4]

Whoops - thanks - looks like i cut and pasted rather than copied and pasted....

talk) 21:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

from black to yellow. I could tell when you said, "...by trying to demonise a whole race you exposed innate racism." So now you will be laying off the Jews/Israelis? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You made a very serious implied accusation. Please substantiate it or remove it. You have two years of edit history at your disposal.

talk) 07:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Please AGF and love each other. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the lie written in your second sentence above. I have never made any edits which bear resemblance to what you described. As I said above, you have two years of edit history at your disposal to confirm. If you knew anything personal about me you would know there is a good reason why you won't find any such edits.

talk) 19:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not a lie, it's a value-judgement. It can be neither right nor wrong. I don't care about anyhthing personal about you. Nothing personal, but nothing personal about you could make you immune to racism, nor to hypocracy. You tried to pull the R card on the BP spill. Re-read my first comment, then your first response. Then tell me what the liturgical language of Hindu Hippos is.

Give up?

Hippokrit Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very specific statement, and it is wrong. You are unable to substantiate it. It is unacceptable to be making such statements when no evidence exists.

Ankh make edits which were judged by me and others to have been racist, even though I suspect Ankh didn't realise it at the time he made the edits. Your attempt to suggest hypocrisy is not based on any of my edits, or any evidence at all for that matter. It is an unfounded and unacceptable slur.

talk) 19:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Racism is a slur. Ankh didn't realise that you had judged his edits racist? Who made you race-master? Think about edits like [this]and [this]. They aren't racist in and of themselves. Also, having a two year history in the I-P area is not, in and of itself, proof of bad motive. But it suggests that you live in a glass house when it comes to linking criticisms of groups and the motive for why. You shouldn't play that game.

Calling you a hippokrit isn't a slur. It's fair. Take the criticism and move on, with a little more sympathy for Ankh and Shrike, how are just trying to bake the same love cake with you using different ingrediants. I know that too many cooks spoils the cake, but that's because the cooks start cursing at each other when the Italian chef won't let the Chinese touch the side dish. The Chinese is just trying to save 面. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for

WP:wikilove

. So I agree with your underlying point.

I also take your failure to find any edits in my history anywhere close to your previous accusation as an unsaid retraction of your accusation, and perhaps even an implicit apology.

By the way, if you spoke Chinese you would know that that 臉 is the common character for face. Unless you meant that the Chinese is just trying to save noodles.

talk) 22:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It is a pun. 面 is a fine way to say face, and noodles (which the Chinese and Italian chef might fight over). I never made an accusation. I said, "Yet you use a signifigant period of edit time either adding hurtful or removing flattering info about Jews or Israelis." I stand by this statement. I'm not calling you a racist, just saying you have a pattern that might open you up to attack if you start throwing around a race accusation. I spent about 3 minutes looking for diffs that would support my point and got bored by how inconsquential so many of your edits are.

Why are you accusing me of not speaking Chinese, we both know it's you who

can't read Hanzi. But that is in the past, and love is in our future.Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

So you looked for diffs that would support your point, didn't find any, but still stand by your statement?

I know you think you were defending someone else, but

talk) 07:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

"Throwing around baseless accusations is unacceptable" Too true. Ankh.Morpork 16:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Oncenawhile thank you for your encouragement. Padres Hana (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"If there is any resumption of anonymous edits from a Rogers customer in the Toronto area with a keen interest in I/P controversies, someone might consider reopening this report. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)"

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Breein1007/Archive

Sean.hoyland - talk 17:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to talk about suspicious, you can start with this SPA [5] Or perhaps with this IP [6] whose first ever edit was to IPCOLL. Or maybe this user would be of interest [7] Just getting started. Any hints and tips for a newbie would be very welcome. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. To cast dispersion over people only because they don’t agree with your worldwide view, while ignoring the shenanigans of those who agree with you undermines your sincerity.--

The assumption of bad faith in editors who you disagree with seems to be a defining characteristic of your edits from what I have seen JJG. Dlv999 (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your ongoing fine contributions to a topic area that is not easy to be productive in. From the creation of well-researched articles like Timeline of the name Palestine to your latest formatting and organizational fixes and expansion of List of Palestinians, your hard work is appreciated, even by those of us who have opted out for the time being. Thank you and happy editing. Tiamuttalk 18:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

You're welcome. Happy to help provide access to sources. GabrielF (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Once. I want to acknowledge you for your reply at ANI. It's never easy to hear criticism without responding defensively, as if one's worth or value as a person is under attack, especially when one is already feeling chafed.

So thank you for that, and for the humility of your reply. Modern culture doesn't understand that humility is a sign of strength, of internal integrity; it confuses the exercise of the trait with diffidence, which is another animal entirely, of course. I'll write an essay about that one day, mostly just to remind myself of it, but for now just know that I honour you for the character of your reply, as you honoured the intention of my own comment, by exercising the patience to understand it.

I'm kind of wiki-bonked at the moment, and short of time, but let's meet up at

Quick update: Thanks for your kind words at my talk. Just wanted to touch bases to let you know that I haven't forgotten WT:SPI, and to say that I intend to post there within 24 hours ( although you're welcome to go ahead, of course, if you'd prefer to do so yourself ). Apologies for the delay; RL responsibilities have been more time-consuming than I'd expected. In any case, there are at least two or three other people I've talked with in the past that I know are also vitally interested in the problem. I'll notify them of the discussion, once we initiate it there, and hope they'll want to contribute, as well. In haste, --OhioStandard (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2: I allocated time for this, but thought I'd do well to start by looking more closely at the edit history of the 1929 riots article. That was two hours ago; I can't think of an article in recent memory that's been more rife with socks. You should receive a medal for putting up with that as patiently as you did. The IPs going are especially interesting, I see, but I suppose you already knew that. I did find, among many other interesting results, that

scrutiny-avoiding editor, Breein1007 ( see his SPI page ) that I see Sean Hoyland also mentioned to you above; one editor whose judgement I respect believes he resides in Israel, incidently. I'm afraid any post by me to WT:SPI is going to have to wait until tomorrow, however, since I've now spent so much time looking at accounts and IPs, especially, starting from that article. --OhioStandard (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Ohio, it is very interesting isn't it! Whoever is behind all the socks on that article hasn't made a huge effort to hide things, so surely must have left a trail somewhere. Perhaps they have exposed a new way of IP hopping that the clerks aren't aware of. I really think that it warrants a proper investigation, as it seems like a perfect case study of multiple sock abuse which might help expose new loopholes.

I started the discussion at WP:STI - hopefully I have set it out appropriately and hopefully it will generate some interest.

talk) 13:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I have waited a week to see if anyone has any objections to adding content based on two sources that were recently confirmed at RSN to be reliable. In light of no response, I sought to implement this. You have reverted me and I await an explanation on the talk page. Ankh.Morpork 11:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ankh, are you refering to this comment? Nowhere in that comment did you make a proposal for what your edit would look like, despite the two months of discussion over this single sentence. You made a point which was very broad and ignored most of the rest of the discussion to date. In addition, you did not suggest that you intended to unilaterally implement the amendments again if you didn't get an answer. The key issue is that there are so many other open questions on the page which you have not responded to.

I believe we can find common ground here, but in order to bring the discussion to consensus you will need to make very specific drafting proposals on talk, and listen carefully to the counterarguments being made.

talk) 11:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes that is the comment I was referring to. I specially consulted the RS/N to address your "weak tertiary sources" claim and therefore have have been careful to be only include satisfactory sources. Since then no policy objection has been made to using these two sources and yet you persist in "your await consensus" reverts. I request that you respond to this comment on the talk page and explain why there might not be a consensus in light of me efforts to improve the sourcing. Ankh.Morpork 11:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have done as you requested. We have debating this single sentence for two months - to reach consensus without annoying other editors you must first propose the drafting on the talk page itself.

talk) 11:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Appreciated. Ankh.Morpork 11:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have continued to remove content and still have not suggested a counter-proposal on how to use this information. If you think it should be totally omitted, say so. If you have a way in which it can be presented in a non-misleading manner, say so. But if you continue to revert and entirely remove reliably sourced material without even suggesting s suitable way to include it, I will take administrative action. Ankh.Morpork 20:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be reacting to my reversion of an SPA / sock. It had nothing to do with you, unless you wish to confirm otherwise.

talk) 21:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Doug, I agree with your underlying point, although i'm not sure it's fairly applied here. I called it "vandalistic", by which I meant although it wasn't technically vandalism, it had the effect of the same.

In other words, if the editor in question had just blanked the section in a single edit, it would have been a clear case of vandalism. Because the editor did the same via a large number of good faith edits, it wasn't vandalism but had the same effect - hence vandalistic.

You probably think that is a tenuous explanation, but that is how i thought about it at the time.

talk) 14:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

But none of that qualifies under

talk) 15:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't have an exact count at the moment, but it appears that you removed the same materiel from 1929 Palestine riots over a dozen times and have reverted between 5-10 different editors. Is this the truth or close to it?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the talk page at the article. Big of you to admit that there is an edit war at the article. You have been supporting an absurd edit war to force in some POV text without consensus, and you have contributed nothing to the actual debate.

talk) 22:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey, Onceinawhile, I wanted to ask you about this article. Is the phrase used at all outside the Bible? It doesn't strike me as particularly notable as a phrase unless it's become idiomatic as a result of its being in the Bible. I mean, there are a lot of phrases used multiple times in the Bible, so I don't know why this one is any different. Do you have any more insight to this? (Just FYI, I'm thinking of sending it to

(reply to this on my talk page) Ah, okay. I'll leave you to it, then. Thanks, and sorry for the interruption! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Timeline of the name Palestine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Palestina and Dalmatian

Blowback (intelligence) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Counterpunch

Coele-Syria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pliny

Ras Kouroun (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mount Casius

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which "Western literature" are you talking about? Even if he is referred as being mad in western books, don't they mention his name alongside? Besides, he's not known as "the mad caliph", he might be said to have been mad by his dissident rivals and subsiquent patron historians. Our aim is to be accurate while being neutral.

Encyclopedia Britannica's page concerning "Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah" is not accurate and is highly misleading. Please don't use that as a source.

How do you know of al_hakim being "extremely well known by this name"? Britanica? That book about crusades? Both are thoroughly unreliable.

My edit is not vandalism, it is a correction. PukaChAo 03:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DistributorScientiae (talk • contribs) 03:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this discussion to

talk) 09:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1033 Fez massacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berber (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) 16:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

list

Do not re-add that material. It never had a consensus and it still doesnt. The scope of the article is defined by

Palestinian people, not the multiple definitions of Palestinian. nableezy - 13:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You're edits allow others to redefine the scope of the page so as to deny a Palestinian identity to the Palestinians. Because you have opened the scope so far others feel entitled to say that the people listed are not Palestinians but rather people associated with Palestine. My problem is the denial of that identity, and your edits enable that denial. nableezy - 14:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi Oncenawhile. Regarding the concerns you raised at ANI, you may be interested in this discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Rachel_Corrie where another editor was facing issues of tag team edit warring of content leading to the skeweing of an article away from NPOV. I don't really know anything about what goes on at ANI, but I certainly think if you have this kind of concern, raising it with the wider community is a sensible and legitimate course of action. It seems to have been a positive move in the discussion that I linked in any case. Dlv999 (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Both me and No more nice guy objected to the map because it shows West bank and Golan Heights, as was pointed out at the talkpage.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Palestinians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ascalon (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) 15:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

I've responded on my talk page (short version: done as requested). --Jethro B 23:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Authority issue

Dear user, since you participated on a geopolitical context discussion on Palestine [8], 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) 21:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Tiberias/Safed

I have reopened a discussion at Talk:1660_destruction_of_Safed#Merge that you were involved in before. Zero^talk 06:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Talmudic Academies in the Land of Israel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver

)

added links pointing to Romans and Byzantines

Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver

)

added a link pointing to Peter Lang

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your input

As former participant of discussion regarding "Palestinian National Authority and Palestinian people" template at

Template_talk:Palestinian_National_Authority_and_the_Palestinian_people#Requested move.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You've got mail!

Hello, Onceinawhile. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 11:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

Definitions of Pogrom, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Henry Morgenthau, Minority and David Engel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject

.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at

Talk:Limerick Pogrom

Hello, there is an RFC at

Talk:Limerick Pogrom about a proposed change to reduce the amount of detail given to discussion of the term pogrom. Everyone who's been involved in this discussion is receiving this notice. Your input is appreciated, thanks. Zad68 04:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Nomination of

Definitions of Pogrom

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Definitions of Pogrom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of Pogrom until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. IZAK (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Part of the problem seems to me to be that notability basically requires more than a subject meaning mentioned in, for instance, several books, even if the material in those books is of some length, but that the topic in and of itself be discussed as a separate idea at enough length and in enough sources for notability to be established. This does get a bit complicated, unfortunately, and it seems to me that maybe, giving my own occasional ineptitude at speaking, that maybe the best way to illustrate the point is by an example.

We previously had, for instance, discussion on one of the noticeboards regarding the

Raelians

, and the number of articles we have and have had related to that group. Now, I want it understood that I am in no way prejudiced against that group. But, unfortunately, we found that there has been, to date, only one book from independent reliable sources which really deals with the group in a substantive way, and a very small collection of generally short articles in newspapers, magazines, and the like. I and a few others basically realized that, in effect, the assertion of notability for several of the articles we had at the time was, basically, that those topics were discussed at the length of a rather few pages in that single book, and that they were also mentioned, generally in what might best be called a passing way, in a few articles. That isn't enough to establish notability of a topic, unfortunately. Lots of things are discussed at some length in books, but we haven't yet come to the point that even a whole chapter on a given subject relating to a topic in one or more books dealing with the broader topic is enough to establish notability of the given more focused subject. So, for instance, even if multiple biographies of Martin Luther have separate chapters on his pre-adolescence (and they almost certainly do, given the number of biographies of him that exist), that isn't enough in and of itself for us to have a separate article on the pre-adolescence of Martin Luther. Now, if there were enough independent RS's dealing primarily or exclusively with the subject of his pre-adolescence, like in academic journals, that would establish notability, but even extended discussion on a specific subtopic within a longer work devoted to a broader subject isn't.

So, for example, the case I mentioned of how to define

new religious movements

points out what seems to me to be a different case. There have been, that I have seen, several articles in journals and elsewhere discussing primarily if not exclusively how the term is defined and used, and how the authors or those works and others think it should be defined and used. Those articles, given their limited focus on the specific matter of the definition of the term, rather than discussing the broader subject and within that broader context discussing the definition, would be enough to establish notability for that topic, because it is the primary subject of multiple independent RS's. I hope that makes sense.

By the way, I am myself of the opinion, FWIW, that there is a possibility, given the broad number of articles out there, that in time the subject might be proven to be sufficiently notable and to have sufficient encyclopedic content related to it (which is another valid concern), that maybe, eventually, its independent notability could be established. There is a lot of material out there on virtually any subject, after all, including this one, and I don't think anyone can even guess just how many articles on such specific topics exist. I am myself trying, right now, to go through various encyclopedia related to religion, and for all I know it may well be true that I can find sufficient content, and possibly sources, in one or more of them to verify the independent notability of God knows how many subjects. It is taking a while to go through them, but I am trying to do them all as quickly as possible. That being the case, I do think that you would be more than justified to maybe, if you want, request the userification of the page, or, maybe, depending on the age of some of them and whether or not they might be public domain, to perhaps post quotes from them, or maybe even the whole length of the works involved, at WikiQuote or WikiSource or wherever, where the information would still be available to be consulted by anyone interested and also be available in the event the subject's independent notability is established. Just an idea, anyway. John Carter (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vali (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) 01:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I happened to be in the library today and looked up the Cambridge History of Judaism (vol 3) reference to support the statement "The Judean (Jewish, see

I added the quote supporting it. I accept it's not word-for-word. Are you questioning whether the concept is true? I think it's a very helpful clarification for a reader, as there's lots of confusion out there as to when and why the word Judea (and its cognates) were first applied to the wider region. I can find an even clearer source if you like? I would like to understand whether you are questioning the fact or just the sourcing though.

talk) 19:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Both. I don't know that the whole area discussed in the quote ever came to be known as Judea. When was the Galilee ever known as Judea? The ref simply does not say what you think it does. It talks about identity, it says absolutely nothing about geography. Poliocretes (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josephus referred to the whole area as Judea when talking about the Hasmoneans. See for example AJ 14.5.3:

So Gabinius left part of his army there, in order to take the place, and he himself went into other parts of Judea, and gave order to rebuild all the cities that he met with that had been demolished; at which time were rebuilt Samaria, Ashdod, Scythopolis, Anthedon, Raphia, and Dora; Marissa also, and Gaza, and not a few others besides.

None of those cities are in Judaea-proper, and Scythopolis was in southern Galilee.

talk) 07:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I've found and added a much clearer source. A History of the Jewish People, edited by Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson, page 226.

talk) 07:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, that second one is good. I would put that in the article. Neither the Cambridge nor Josephus ones support the statement. Scythopolis, btw, is most certainly not in the Galilee. It stands in one of the valleys that separate Samaria from the Galilee, and is in fact closer to the former than the latter. Poliocretes (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syria (region), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French (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) 12:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Surfer43. Oncenawhile, thanks for creating List of Late Roman provinces!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Consider adding references to List of Late Roman provinces.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

List of Late Roman provinces (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Baleares and Hispania Nova

Muqawqis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver

)

added a link pointing to Sham

Persian Gulf naming dispute (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Khaleej

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you want the file deleted, which doesn't have much to do with cache-clearing purging in the technical Wikimedia sense. It's been discussed before, and the result of those discussions is that there's some evidence that the flag was used for a few months in 1920. And FOTW isn't always correct, but it's not a "random flag website"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your post at Talk:State of Palestine. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your second post. I wasn't sure if you were expediting me to leave a note on your talk page when I responded, I gave you the last one because I had responded 6 days after your post. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bubastite Portal may have broken the syntax by modifying 10 "[]"s and 6 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks,

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kurkh Monoliths may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• first translation of the Shalmaneser Monolith was provided by James Alexander Craig in 1887.<ref>[http://archive.org/details/jstor-527096 The Monolith Inscription of Salmaneser II, (July 1, 1887),

Thanks,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted this in the Talk page of the 'History of Limerick' page but I thought I would engage with yourself about it as well to see what you think.

Without wanting to diminish the significance of a dark chapter in Irish History it must be noted that there appears to be some facts excluded from the 'Limerick Pogrom' article which would certainly warrant a revision of the description "pogrom". Creagh indeed sought a Pogrom but what ensued was actually a boycott that did not drastically reduce the numbers of the Jews living in Limerick.

According to RIC reports only 8 of the city’s 32 Jewish families had left by March 1905 & just 5 of these ‘directly owing to the agitation’. The 1911 census records that, not only were 13 of the remaining 26 families still resident in Limerick six years later but that 9 new Jewish families had joined them. The Jewish population numbered 122 persons in 1911 as opposed to 171 in 1901. This had declined to just 30 by 1926.

It's also interesting to note that one of the Jewish lenders who was operating in the city (P. Toohey) in 1904 is still doing so 8 years after the Fr. John Creagh boycott. If you look at the front page of nearly every Limerick Leader in 1912/1913 etc. you will see his advert.

P.S.: for those arguing otherwise on that page , Creagh's language towards the Jews was rabidly Anti-Semitic. He attacked them on religious grounds, denouncing them as Christ-killers, ritual murderers & ‘the greatest haters of everything Christian’.

P.S.S: I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if I'm going about this i the correct manner, any and all advice is appreciated.

Hi Huxley, thanks for your post. I had left an open question about this in April, and after your prompt I have now changed the name.

You appear to be knowledgable about the subject - do you have sources which satisfy

talk) 21:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Huxley, looking at the article I agree there is no source for that figure. Most of the article seems to have come from Keogh, so if you can't find it in there I suggest you follow the advice in

talk) 12:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Will do, thanks for all your advice. Wikipedia is quite intimidating to grasp at this early stage!

talk 13:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Could you review my edits to the various pages if you get the chance. I added links to the census re: Montefiore which I know is a

talk) 11:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Huxley, I have read them - I think that is great work and some interesting additions. The area I suggest you look at again is whether anything breaches

WP:OR

. The two pieces of information that jumped out to me as potential breaches are (1) the census reference - i don't see where it confirms that those named were Simon S-M's ancestors / g-g-grandparents, and (2) your reference to "most notable supporter" is a judgement made by yourself, unless you have a source to support it.

Whether WP:OR or not, your point that parts of Simon S-M's family history may be more legend than fact is interesting. If you can find a source supporting this more directly you should add to the articles, else I think the reference will need to come out.

talk) 12:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the feedback, it's appreciated. The source for the g-g-grandfather (Benjamin Jaffé)claim is Montefiore's own article on this subject published in the Spectator in 1997. I'll dig it out and add it to the references. Point taken re: Griffith I will now edit that.

talk) 13:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

What should we do about the

talk • contribs) 14:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi again, I think you can edit in following BEBOLD, as you have on the other articles. And well done for rectifying the points above.

I noticed your IP address on one of your edits on the page, which leads to Limerick County Council - could i suggest you consider

WP:COI#Declaring_an_interest

?

talk) 16:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Will do. My declaration of interest is that I live in Limerick City, and use the Wi-Fi in the public library system. Is that what you mean?

talk) 16:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok that's fine! If you had worked for the council PR department, then it would be something to discuss. But living in the city is not really a conflict, other than i'm sure you take pride in the city's history! The good news is you must have access to all their archives!

talk) 16:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

It's reassuring to know that this is the kind of thing picked up on by Wiki editors. I'm so impressed with how this all works.

talk) 12:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

G'day Oncenawhile. I took on board your suggestions re brevity in the main article and added a much-reduced piece, then transferred the (original) longer bit to 'History of Palestine' as per your suggestion. Many thanks for your advice and assistance to this noob. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eric, thanks for doing that - I think it now works very well.

talk) 12:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sebek-khu Stele may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• outside Khu-sobek's tomb at [[Abydos, Egypt]], and now housed in the [[Manchester Museum]].<ref>[http://emu.man.ac.uk/mmcustom/Display.php?irn=107040&QueryPage=/mmcustom/narratives/index.php
• in Asia). The text reads "Then Sekmem fell, together with the wretched [[Retenu]]", where Sekmem {s-k-m-m) is thought to be [[Shechem]].

Thanks,

Hi, it has been some time since i dealt with the issue, but now i issued merger proposal at Anti-Zionism. Since we once had a discussion on this, i think i should inform you. Cheers.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Padiiset's Statue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Middle Kingdom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Egyptian–Hittite peace treaty may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | location = [[Istanbul Archaeology Museums]]) and [[Precinct of Amun-Re]] in [[Karnak]]

Thanks,

where did you see i mention shlomo sand ? i was referenning to the "palestinian nation" and other propaganda-like theories by the plo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorpwnz (talk • contribs) 20:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now tell me , what i dont know? you said i dont know anything as a response to my comment without being very informative. so respond to my comment. will you ? i am willing to change wikipedia in the positive way . a fiction nation based on murder is something very recent . have you heard about the bus stab attack recently?

this is why i am willing to improve the information.--Dorpwnz (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

1945 Anti-Jewish Riots in Egypt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver

)

added a link pointing to Coptic

1948 Cairo bombings (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Karaite

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2013 (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 Pogrom 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

The

Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision

" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures

, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Hi Callanec, thanks for your response to the WP:AE request re the Jewish exodus... article.

Please could you give me your blunt advice as to whether my behaviour on the article has been reasonable to date? I am particularly keen to understand how to move forward in the right way on the article. At the moment, Greyshark's most recent revert remains, and i am awaiting expectantly for him/her to explain the rationale for each of the c.15 edits reverted. If he doesn't explain, or perhaps only explains a couple of small points, we can't reach a consensus version, so how should i move forward?

talk) 12:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

RfC or requesting input from one or more of the WikiProjects. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I tried DRN already but they told me to come to AN. RfC, 3O or similar won't work because most of the edits are boring fixes rather than something which will pique other editors' interest. There are already other editors around the page but noone is interested in getting involved in this mess.

Surely if someone repeatedly reverts without explaining, and particularly when they revert numerous edits in bulk, they are contravening normal editing practice. This has been going for two months. Please help me!

talk) 13:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree, but I find it very hard to believe that no one who is a regular on the page has an interest in which what the text says. Yes it would be a violation of normal editing practices to constantly revert without engaging in discussion, which is why I warned all of the involved users. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. So assuming i can't get anyone else to get involved, at what point can I move forward with the article again? At the moment i am stuck because I am waiting for greyshark to explain the revert. What if Greyshark never comes back? What I tried to do previously was wait 1-2 weeks, and in the absence of response I would revert the revert (or partially revert) and continue working on the article. What do you think?

talk) 13:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Sounds good to me, ask the other two people (GreyShark included) to expressly comment in a section on the talk page about the edit in question. If neither of them does (or do and agree with you) you can take that as tacit consent to your edit. Then if either of them reverts without starting or commenting on the talk page discussion, let me know and I'll deal with it. Also, I'm watching your talk page so don't worry about the talkback template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, many thanks - i'll do exactly that. What do you think is a reasonable time to leave it before taking tacit consent? A week?

talk) 13:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd say about a week, but you should probably leave a note on the other two user's talk pages to let them know that you've proposed a change. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Oncenawhile, trying to delete maps of Palestine from a Palestinian article? DigDeep4Truth (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC) ~ I was in Error. He was posting to let people know there was a vote being held in secret. PLEASE DELETE, I apologize. DigDeep4Truth (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your hard work on the "Etymology of Palestine", currently (2014 02 01) labeled. Timeline_of_the_name_"Palestine", may you be made an Admin on Palestine articles. DigDeep4Truth (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply ]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Definitions of pogrom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions_of_pogrom_(2nd_nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of events named pogrom until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Definitions of pogrom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Morgenthau (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) 09:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Onceinawhile. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of pogrom (2nd nomination).
Message added 19:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wieno (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wieno (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had more time to be involved. I do miss it so. If I do find the time, I'll try to pop in with something useful. I did want to say thank you for all the hard work you put into to key Palestine related pages. You have made a very valuable contribution and it is much appreciated, by me at least. Cheers, Tiamut^talk 19:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the ANI discussion - regarding this part,

We're never going to get any better consensus view because you always get less editors at an article talk than at an afd, so there is no hope of those tags ever coming off. Another grey area in wp which noone knows how to deal with.

Here's just a little tip, take it or leave it;

If you have trouble getting consensus to make a change (such as remove a tag), it can be helpful to make a very clear section on the talk page with a precisely 'Proposed change', and then ask people to "support" or "oppose" below, much like an AfD discussion; and then ask for input on appropriate wikiproject talk pages, to get more people to comment. For that specific article, I suggest asking for input on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history because they're one of the most prolific projects.

I'm not suggesting you need to do that right now - I wouldn't worry too much about the tags being around for a while. I just wanted to suggest it as a solution to the more general problem.

I thought I'd write it here on your talk rather than the ANI thread, because it looks like the ANI is completed and can be closed.

Best, 88.104.19.233 (talk) 07:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 88, thank you for your good advice - I will try that in future.

talk) 08:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The AfD templates for Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism both point to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions discussion. I presume that this wasn't your intention. I suggest you rectify it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Never mind - I understand that you are nominating the lot for deletion simultaneously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw this Afd nomination before someone else does take you to ANI. -- PBS (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I withdrew it already (4 minutes before you posted this), on the advice of Andy.

I am disappointed with your post because you appear to have decided that I was trying to prove a point, and appear to not trust my explanation that I simply was trying to find a way to get a proper consensus on the questions of dicdef and copyright for these type of articles. I may have been around for some time but i only edit once in a while, so i really am not knowledgable about how to deal with issues that affect many articles. I read multiafd and it seemed to make sense to me, but now i am getting my head bitten off.

To your first point, it's not that simple in my mind. When I drafted Definitions of pogrom, I used Genocide definitions as the template. So I was surprised when certain editors started quoting dicdef and copyright re the pogrom article, because as you say the genocide article had been stable for a long time and had not previously seen that.

Is there any chance i can help you understand / trust my motives, or should i not bother?

talk) 17:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Philistines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aegean (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) 09:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been through a number of the citations and filled them out more fully. I will not do any more, but you should consider filling out the others in a similar way. If anything in the {{citation}} template is confusing or you can not work out how to do it from the examples now in the article then drop me a line on my talk page and I will help you complete the rest. -- PBS (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Definitions of pogrom may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Philistines may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• id=pNj6b3wNtiwC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111 Who Were the Phoenicians?, Nissim Raphael Ganor, 2009], (also [http://www.whowerethephoenicians.com/wp-content/uploads/book/09-THE%20PHILISTINES%20AND%20THE%20SEA%
• uploads/book/09-THE%20PHILISTINES%20AND%20THE%20SEA%20PEOPLES%20NOT%20THE%20SAME%20ENTITY.pdf}), page 111, Quote: "Today it is generally accepted (in accordance with the theory of Maspero) that

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

By the way, my reply to your remarks on ancient meanings of the word Παλαιστινη/Palaestina on Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine‎ got moved to User talk:DigDeep4Truth and then chopped to pieces in edit wars there, in case you never saw it... AnonMoos (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That URL displays the comments I had in mind, though it's not a diff on any of my edits...

Not sure what you're trying to say about "southern coastal plain" -- that's more a geographical term than a scriptural one. The Holy Land area (i.e. Gaza-Israel-West Bank without consideration of borders) is often divided into natural geographical regions such as the coastal plains, the main north-south hill-chain, the "shephelah" (the boundary between the coastal plains and the main north-south hill-chain), the Galilee, the Judean desert (i.e. western Dead Sea coasts and areas immediately inland), the Negev, the Jordan valley, etc. The southern coastal plain is a shorthand geographic description of the area where the ancient Philistines lived. Not sure that there's any Biblical word for southern coastal plain other than "Philistia" (i.e. peleshet פלשת). AnonMoos (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe -- without the Bible, there would only be PRST as the name of one of the invading Sea Peoples whose migrations and attacks brought on the Late Bronze Age collapse, and then after a lapse of many centuries, Παλαιστινη would appear as a geographical term (at first of rather vague and indeterminate geographical reference), and there might not be too much apparent reason to specifically connect the two. But while archaeological discoveries in the southern coastal plain area have not turned up inscriptions with the specific word פלשת or similar (as far as I know), they have turned up traces of a people living there which originally had a somewhat Aegean-influenced culture which then was largely assimilated to the surrounding Canaanite culture. I really don't know what reason there is to question the basic Biblical account of when and where the Philistines lived, and I've never heard of any scholarly skepticism on that point... AnonMoos (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice -- you're not an archaeologist (just as you are not an expert on the ancient Greek language), and I'm not too impressed with your efforts to operate independently in those fields (not to mention that they're also

original research). If you throw out the Bible, then "Timeline of the name Palestine" should begin after 500 BC... AnonMoos (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Could you please argue the reasons of the move and try to find a compromise with GreyShark ? Many thanks. :-) Pluto2012 (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canaan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dagan (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) 08:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oncenawhile. I was checking out this move discussion to see if it is ready to close. I also looked at the opinions on the same question at

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canaan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Qadesh and Amurru (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) 08:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From researching some of your edits and reading notes on your talk page as well as articles’ talk pages, it has become evident that you have an anti-Israel bias, by which I mean that you are pro-Palestinian which is certainly your right. However, with rights come responsibilities and for that very reason you might consider recusing yourself from editing or contributing articles touching upon the conflict as should ardently pro-Israel editors. Wikipedia is supposed to be an objective reference source and not a propaganda vehicle.

For example, I created an article on some English child actor I hadn’t heard of previously. I did what research I could, laid out the facts of his to-date brief career in a totally objective fashion, refraining from acting as either a volunteer PR man on his behalf or a critic. That was easy as I personally couldn’t care less about his career which is precisely why I was such a good choice to write the article. Can you say the same when editing articles regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? If not, should you be editing them?

Some of the best and most objective coverage I have seen on this conflict (and other topics as well) comes from a group of young people from Uzbekistan doing videos under the byline The Caspian Report. They do journalism proud, and I would love to have them as Wiki editors and suggest you try listening to their reports sometime as guidance on objectivity. There are many forums where you can voice your political views labeled as such.

For the record, although I'm neither (ethnically or religiously) Jewish nor a Christian Fundamentalist, I'm ardently pro-Israel which is why in good conscience I refrain from contributing or editing articles related to the conflict. Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HistoryBuff, I just watched the CaspianReport video on the conflict. They have a few factual details wrong, but in general the angle they take is very good and is clearly intended to be NPOV.

Anyway, thank you for your suggestion. I think the difference between us is that while you self-identify as "ardently pro-Israel", I define myself as simply pro-NPOV. I am certainly not anti-Israel, and take offence at the suggestion - you will not find a single anti-Israel edit in my entire contribution history, and for good reason.

To your broader point, if all "ardently pro-Israel" editors stopped editing Israel-Palestine articles, then pro-NPOV editors like myself would shift focus. But at the moment there is still an extraordinary amount of

Media_coverage_of_the_Arab–Israeli_conflict#Wikipedia

for some context here.

talk) 13:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for listening to my suggested source and for recommending the Wiki article that you did, which I have read and found most interesting and with which I largely agree. I acknowledge that there are indeed many editors with a bias in favor of Israel (whether affiliated with any organization or not) as there are pro-Palestinian ones. Thus, the edit wars will unfortunately doubtlessly continue which is perhaps preferable to compromising the collaborative intent of Wikipedia. If I misinterpreted your intentions, then I apologize. Take care and happy editing.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Oncenawhile, you have recently performed an edit on Farhud article, tagging it as "clarifying, matching rest of article, removing non-RS source and oversimplification of catalyst". However, i must note your removed two sources, one of which is clearly a WP:RS (US Dept of State research division). Please self-revert as WP:GF.GreyShark (dibra) 16:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move this to the article talk page.

talk) 20:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Check your email! Zero^talk 09:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Onceinawhile. You have new messages at Talk:History of the Jews in Lebanon.
Message added 19:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile: You removed sourced content claiming it does not pertain to article subject [9], but on talk page I proved that you are mistaken. Please self revert or explain. Thanks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finally self-reverting. I notice your editing pattern with great concern. All your edits on this subject matter minimize the damage destruction and death that were inflicted on the Jews. I have yet to see one edit to the contrary. Please be aware of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be misreading them. Not a single edit I am aware of is minimising the violence, but are instead contextualising them. Some of these articles are very poorly written and do not provide crucial context. Readers benefit from balancing of overly simplistic "neo-lachrymose" descriptions.

talk) 15:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

 I bet Onceinawhile is an Arab.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.140.31 (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] 

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to One Million Plan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• to Palestine to 10,000 Jews per year, and in October 1946 this was increased to 18,000.<ref>(or 1,500 per month. See Hilberg, Raul ''The Destruction of the European Jews'', (1971) New

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

At Later cuneiform sources (1500-1000 BC) under "Amarna letters", item "EA 131", surely that would be "archers"? Shenme (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, thank you! I will fix.

talk) 09:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Dear Oncenawhile, thank your for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent creation of Mutamassirun. You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 08:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Jewish refugees (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver

)

added a link pointing to Palestinian exodus

Refugee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Palestinian exodus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phoenicianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coptic (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) 08:55, 28 June 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 Cuneiform page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Irhuleni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assyrian. 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) 08:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Canaan may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• but regularly as a land that had become something else, and as a people who had been annihilated)."}}</ref> and following the emigration of Canaanite speakers to [[Carthage]], was also used as a self-
• threatening in that of his successor, displacing the Amorites and prompting a resumption of Semitic] migration. [[Abd-Ashirta]] and his son [[Aziru]], at first afraid of the Hittites, afterwards made

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Book of Gates may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• them up into four categories that are now conventionally labelled "Reth" (Egyptians), "Aamu" ([[Levant|Asiatics]], "Themehu" ([[Ancient Libya|Libyans]]), and "Nehesu" ([[Nubians]]). These are

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Your AE complaint has been closed with warnings to you and Plot Spoiler. Further unilateral reverts may lead to a topic ban from ARBPIA. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before renaming any files, perhaps you should discuss it first. See Talk:Canaan#Image_of_Canaanite. Y-barton (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply