Saepe Fidelis

Welcome!

Hello, Saepe Fidelis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Creating new articles

Hello, Michael. I'm new to wikipedia and I noticed you've been here for a long time. Could you help me out by telling me how to create an article?

If you enter the title you want to the article to have in the search box, and you're told there's no article with that title, you should see a thing to click on that will take you to the editing page and you can start entering the new article.

Generally at the very beginning you should give sufficient context that the reader can tell right away what general subject area the article is to be about. My favorite example remains the article titled schismatic temperament. The usual meanings of the words schismatic and temperament made me think the article would possibly be about a psychiatric disorder, and nothing at all in the first sentence suggested otherwise, nor told me what it was about. Reading further, I realized it was about musical tuning. So I edited the article to begin with the words "In music, schismatic temperament is..." etc. That's often all it takes.

The title phrase should be set in bold at its first appearance as in the sentence in quotation marks above, usually in the first sentence. Note that Wikipedia conventions call for rather sparing use of capital letters in article titles and section headings. Thus it would be incorrect to have titled that article Schismatic Temperament with a capital T. However, it is a good idea to create redirect pages from such incorrect titles, redirecting the user to the correct title. The same applies to plausible alternative titles and commonplace misspellings or misnomers: make them redirect pages. Also, after creating the article, you should figure out which other articles should link to it, including, but not limited to, lists (e.g., see list of circle topics, list of inequalities, etc.). The first letter of a title generally appears as capital but is case-insensitive in links; the later letters are case-sensitive in links.

To create section headings just follow the format you see in articles you edit. Type == for a main heading, === for a second-tier heading, etc.

Generally External links should be the last section the reader sees, and category tags and links to counterpart articles in other languages should come below everything the reader sees.

And you should follow the norms of Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Jews of Byzantium

I haven't read the entire article, but it seems like you did a great job. Although I mainly contribute about modern history and politics, I have done some contributions to our articles on Byzantine emperors, and am very interested in that period of history, so let me know if you need any help with anything. The one change I made was to add categories. In order for your article to get read a lot, it is important for it to have categories, as well as to be linked in other articles. The categories I added were "Religion in the Byzantine Empire" and "Judaism." Finding other places to fit this subject in other articles will be more challenging. Academic Challenger (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, and for the compliment. I do have a question for you: how can I redirect other names to this article? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to explain. If you tell me what titles you want redirects for, I can make the redirects, and hopefully you can see from that how it's done. It took me a long time to get too, but basically you type in the word #Redirect, and the link it to the article you want to redirect to. Academic Challenger (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you redirect "Byzantine Jewry" to the article? I'll try to imitate that for other titles next time I'm on wikipedia (although right now I gtg). Saepe Fidelis (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. I also added a link to the article on the Byzantine Empire page, in the religion section. I hadn't looked at it before, but it seemed to say previously that Christianity was the only religion in the empire, which is a distortion in my opinion. Academic Challenger (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued help.

To get the word out on the article, do you think it would be a good idea to try to get it on the "Did you know?" on the main page? How do we do that? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Go to WP:DYK. I've not been active in this area, but it seems fairly simple. Go to section 1.2, and it should explain. Academic Challenger (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. Thanks. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Great article on the Jews in Byzantium! However, if I might make a suggestion, since this article does not deal with the overall history of the Jews in the Byzantine period, but rather with their legal status, I would propose renaming the article to reflect this, perhaps Legal status of the Jews during the Byzantine Empire or Jews under the Byzantine Empire. "Byz. Empire" instead of "Byzantium" is IMO to be preferred BTW, because there is the latter is less specific, since it can also refer to the ancient Greek colony preceding the Empire. If ypu want help with anything, I'll be happy to help. Best regards, Cplakidas (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Cplakidas, for your compliment and suggestions. You are correct in saying that the article only deals with the legal status of the Jews of Byzantium. Maybe the solution is to expand the article, rather than move it. I think that "Legal Status of the Jews during the Byzantine Empire" would be somewhat cumbersome, especially given that there would not be a more general article for the Jews of the Byzantine Empire. Your point on "Byzantium" vs. "Byzantine Empire" is well taken. How can I change that? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

First, you don't need to paste the entire conversation on a talk page, only add your replies. :) As for the title, if you intend to add more on their general history, then by all means let's change it to History of the Jews in the Byzantine Empire, or the more general Jews under the Byzantine Empire. You can easily change the title of an article, you go to the "move" tab in top, and just follow the instructions. I can do it if you want. BTW, if you do expand the scope of this article, as soon as my university exams are over, sometime next month, I'll try to find some information about the Jews in the Byzantine Empire. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 09:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get working on it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

I have raised concerns about several of your edits on Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict (see "removal of man killed" and "unrelated events"). Please respond before continuing.VR _talk 18:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, please respond to my comment on Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Reactions so that we can implement the discussed solution ASAP.VR _talk 00:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with your real-life. Sometimes it can, esp. when not tended to, get more complicated than wikipedia. :-P VR _talk 01:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure anything gets more complicated than Wikipedia. lol Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I was reading the Discussion section of the "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" article and I saw your numerous attempts at thoughtful discussion ( ... and I also saw some of the extremely unthoughtful responses). I have no idea who you are or why you do what you do. But please allow me to thank you for taking the time and for making the effort. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Hello, Darwish.

I saw your discussion of a recent mistake of mine. I am sorry that I cost you a day's work. I was working out of an older version, and I forgot to cancel the open window. I didn't mean any harm. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Undo

With all due respect I'd like to undo this edit of yours.[1] I can understand your concerns, but I fear some idiot will come, call the source "wrong" and remove the claim. Using 6 sources, instead of one re-enforces the claim. Also the way I've used it, it doesn't at all, clutter up the space.VR _talk 22:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Gary Grant

You struck it out on your suggestion list, after I'd removed it. It's back. I removed it again. It's back. That was forseeable. That is why I commented Done:for the moment, originally. Agadaurbganit, a legend in our own lunchtime, refuses to discuss it, but insists on plunking it back in. I'll be interested to see if it's still there tomorrow. He's on the 3RR limit now.Nishidani (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Graph

Hi,

it's important to follow the timeline and also some countries will call for the end of violence but only condemning one side which means they are actually asking that one side they condemned to stop.

Norway initially was 'green' but then the ground offensive happened and they changed to 'orange' - On January 4, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg criticised the Israeli ground offensive into Gaza, calling it "a dramatic escalation". He also urged the UN Security Council to pass a resolution requesting the immediate halt in the fighting. Foreign Minister Støre also criticised the Israeli ground offensive in Gaza, saying that it "constitutes a dramatic escalation of the conflict. Norway strongly condemns any form of warfare that causes severe civilian suffering, and calls on Israel to withdraw its forces immediately."

Denmark - their latest reaction was summoning the Israeli ambassador which was a measure that shows their condemnation of Israel.

Sweden - Faced by the sensitive question if Israel had breached international law in the current campaign Carl Bildt anwsered "... A massive breach of international law, massive breaches of human rights, a massive humanitarian crisis".

Ireland - you are correct on this one.

Mexico - it cannot be blue by any means as they said this Mexico called on Sunday for an "immediate" halt to Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip, where massive air raids have killed over 300 people so far.

Brazil - previously it said "The Brazilian Government deplores the continued disproportionate actions by the Israeli Government in the Gaza Strip..." but now someone changed it to a different statement. I will look into it.

Chile - The Chilean Government formulates a call to an immediate cease of hostilities and provocations, "and deeply regrets the disproportionate use of force by Israel in the Palestinian territories."

Regards, --Avala (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I checked Brazil. You are right. The first time, when their reaction was added not the whole quote was put in the article, the part on condemning Hamas was omitted.--Avala (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Avala, thank you for your quick response. It's important to observe that a condemnation is a very specific legal term. If a country does not "deplore," "reject," "condemn," etc., then its position cannot be extrapolated as being for/against a given side because of one or a few acts. Let's look country-by-country:

• Norway: Calling the Israeli action a "dramatic escalation" is not a formal condemnation. If they had said "we condemn the dramatic escalation," that would have been another thing altogether.
• Sweden: As far as I can tell right now, you're right about this one.
• Denmark: Again, this isn't a formal condemnation. Nobody likes their ambassador summoned, but lodging a complaint with Israel really isn't tantamount to a condemnation. Can you find an actual condemnation of Israel by Denmark?
• Mexico: Surely, we can agree that when Mexico says it "rejects" Hamas' operations, that's sufficient to turn it at least light green. True, Mexico called on Israel to end its operations, but it never condemned them (as far as I have been able to find). The two are very distinct.
• "Deeply regretting" is not the same as condemning. Governments deliberately use words such as "deeply regretting" to avoid placing blame. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's add to the list Guatemala (which I just added to the article). It officially condemned Hamas rocket attacks. It said some bad things about Israel, but didn't actually condemn it. I have a feeling this will be another one of those situations where I think it should be dark blue, and you think it should be light green. :-) Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: is Mauritania in orange just because it withdrew its ambassador to Israel, or have you found a Mauritanian condemnation of Israel? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I said "one more thing," and here's yet another: Congo turns out to have a position: it's green. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that… that's actually D.R. of Congo. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That's actually Republic of the Congo. DR Congo didn't speak out. As for Mauritania, yes but in the source reference it says that Mauritania has withdrawn its ambassador in Israel in protest over the Gaza offensive. It usually goes with condemnation sent in a form of a protest letter. The most recent example is the one of Serbia which withdrawn it's ambassadors from countries that recognised the rebellious province of Kosovo as independent. Such withdrawal was always followed with a letter in which the Government of Serbia strongly condemned Governments of countries that did so. The same case seems to be here as it says that they did it in protest to Israel and while we don't know what was the wording and did it include the word condemnation, it looks like the action is altogether matching the strongest form of protest which has only a complete cut of relations above. Also it is important to note that different MFA's use different language. For an example for China "gravely concerned" is basically the strongest thing and they use it to describe their feelings around Tibet etc. They never use strong language and here they have "serious concern" about Gaza. So sometimes their positions are considered neutral despite the fact that they are not really neutral and that we have to differentiate between various levels of concern they have. It's completely different with a cowboy diplomacy that has painted the US diplomacy for, well a long time. So every country uses different language and often very consistently so it is required to make a deeper analysis and look into their past statements for all countries that make statements that might seem ambiguous at first. Another issue we have are France and Egypt. They initially condemned Israel but then altered their positions and then made a peace plan so they became green.--Avala (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And as for Guatemala it does seem to be blue. Even though if we had more shades of blue it would certainly be a lighter blue.--Avala (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Avala, thank you for your quick and pleasant response. Please copy and paste the entire discussion onto my talk page, so I don't have to jump across talk pages. I can understand your argument regarding the difference in approach between countries. Still, without explicit condemnation of one side or another, it would be WP:OR to say that a country favors one side or another. Countries intentionally refrain from condemnation (or condemn both sides) in order to remain neutral.

• Congo: You're right. That was my mistake.
• Mauritania: Point well taken.
• Norway: Again, there isn't condemnation of Israel.
• Denmark: If there were a Hamas ambassador to Denmark (heaven forbid), Denmark might have summoned him, too. But the fact remains that there have been no Danish condemnations of either side.
• Mexico: You still have not responded to the fact that Mexico said it "rejects" Hamas' actions.
• Chile: First, recall there's no explicit condemnation. Second, even if we search for an implicit condemnation, Chile should be light green. "Our biggest call is to stop all actions from both sides." If the crux of their position is even-handedness, how can they be orange? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

We are rapidly approaching a deadlock on this matter, so I've posted a discussion on the talk page, so we can get some fresh opinions on the matter. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I will look into it. Btw I have added Serbia ("We are joining the voice of the whole world, which condemns the violence in Gaza, and we call for the stopping of missile attacks on Israel and Israeli attacks against the Gaza strip".) and painted it green.--Avala (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all the hard work you've put into this map. We haven't heard back any new opinions on Denmark, but I posted a talk on turning Ukraine blue. It condemned Hamas' attacks, and "expressed doubts" about the Israeli attacks. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you too for going through all the statements and double checking for incomplete quotes in the article. I responded on Ukraine in the talk page. We should try to find the original statement on the Ukrainian MFA page because I have a feeling that we are lost in a media spin. As for Denmark I am not sure so I didn't write. I still think that maybe we should wait for a few more days for some additional statement. Btw one user is really keen on removing the map of the article. Beware of that. He gives edit summary that he is removing it because it's not coherent with statement of the following countries and then doesn't list them. He also painted the whole map into green previously. Another sad thing is that he seems to be an administrator, elected back at the beginning of Wikipedia when standards were lower, though the arbitration committee has vowed to remove administrating powers of any admin that would take any wrong actions in articles on Middle East. Anyway I think the map is now down to mathematical error of 1 or 2% so it's good. Keep up the good work.--Avala (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to put a whole lot on your shoulders, but I've noticed that the article had some holes in covering international positions. So I've corrected them. Accordingly, see the new discussion for Austria, Estonia, Iceland and Italy. I've also responded on the question of the Ukraine (though I fear I'm falling into my nasty habit of sounding like a broken record. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And just to make things interesting, I added Poland. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Avala, thank you for all of the work that you continue to put into this graphic. I have seen neither comment nor change with regard to Poland. Where do you stand on that? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A few more things: new developments in Denmark have prompted me to request that this country be colored blue. While discussion is ongoing, it must at least be green, given how pro-Israeli the Danish position has proven to be. New developments in Norway mean that it should be green. There's new discussion on Iceland and Ukraine, though this discussion is on already existing proposals for color change.

Cheers, Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that many countries will give green statements now regarding the ceasefire. That's obvious. But we need to distinguish those from the main reaction first. And I am still unsure about Poland. I thought maybe some established wikipedian from Poland could post an opinion on how should we interpret the position of their Govt.--Avala (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that reactions before and after the ceasefire are different. But all the reactions I've cited date to before the ceasefire. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I found this news article [http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7BF93D3F62-8E5E-4862-BD73-5C02E8C7477B%7D)&language=EN France Explicit, Openly Condemns Israel: France issued an explicit condemnation of Israel and called "inhumane, useless and bloody tragedy" Tel Aviv's military offensive and called it to "take risks for peace".]. France initially condemned Israel then if I recall right they condemned both followed with the peace proposal. But now we get this. Is it time to paint France orange? --Avala (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't find another source that quotes France to that effect. This source parses France's words a lot, and that makes me think there may be some parts of France's statement that aren't included. France has been very even-handed in condemning both sides so far, and I think the burden of proof would need to be heavy to shift it into the orange column. I haven't seen the actual statement by France. Have you?

You'll notice I divided the discussion into countries for which we have reached consensus, countries for which we haven't and countries that have had no discussion.

I can see that consensus on Denmark is a ways away. In the meantime, I think we both agree that orange is inappropriate. Do you suppose that you could paint it green? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

PS - I forgot to mention that I added Spain to the discussion. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Avala. I hope you're doing well.

What limited discussion has occurred for Poland has unanimously favored that this country be painted blue. The same for Spain being painted green. Also, given the recently-found statement from the UK FM, I would say it is time to paint the UK blue. If you dispute, please feel more than free to discuss. I also don't think there's controversy anymore that Norway is green, and there hasn't been discussion against turning Iceland green in a week.

Could you please edit these countries to reflect this? I would make the edit myself, but I don't know how. I realize you're very busy, so I'd like to help you out. If you tell me how to edit this map, I'd be more than happy to help you keep up with it. How is editing the map possible? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing Maps

I've replied to you on Wikicommons. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict

14:43, 5 January 2009 Saepe Fidelis (Talk | contribs) (137,766 bytes) (Removed information that is not relevant to Operation Cast Lead, as per talk.) (undo) You decided to remove EVERY SINGLE ongoing news coverage link. Judging by your self-description, apparently you believe your own views are superior to EVERY SINGLE international news media source in the world. Rubbish. At the height of when people were turning to Wikipedia to find out what was happening, you played games fort your own personal agenda. You should be ashamed for sabotaging Wikipedia, but I'm sure you're very proud of yourself. Flatterworld (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Flatterworld,

Thank you for working to improve Wikipedia. This encyclopedia is always in need of people who will be dutifully on guard of it. I must confess that I am sometimes not as vigilant as I should be. That is precisely what happened in the edit to which refer (that is to say, I made a mistake).

If you'll take a look at the archives for the discussion on that article, you'll notice I posted the following:

My most sincere apologies. I was referring to the source of an older draft, and accidentally hit "Save page" instead of "Cancel." I guess I didn't realize until just now that I did that. Again, I am sorry. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

So, you see, I was not at all proud of myself. I was quite embarrassed, actually. All the best, Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet once you realized what you had done, you still didn't fix the damage. There's no excuse for that, not when Wikipedia provides a compare utility within History. You make a mess, you clean it up. Saying "Oops" is not an equivalent. Flatterworld (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

By the time I saw my mistake, Darwish had already fixed it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

He noticed it, and discussed in on the Talk page, but he didn't fix it. I think you better check that comparison and see what else may have been lost. Flatterworld (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, various editors reverted my mistake piece by piece. I had thought that it was Darwish who did that, but I guess I was wrong. At any rate, I do sincerely regret the amount of work it took to undo the damage I did. But within an hour of my edit, it had been all but entirely reverted. I didn't notice it until five hours after I'd made the mistake, so all I could do was apologize, which I did.

This was an honest mistake, and it should be left in the past. So I will give you the last word if you so desire, but after that, I do not think it will be productive to further discuss this.

Warmly, Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hi Saepe Fidelis. An article I wrote pertaining to the Israel-Gaza conflict has been put up for deletion. I think the level of discourse on the deletion page is very low. You're an editor I hold in high regard, and I was wondering if you could give your input. I don't know what you'll think. I can't hide the fact that I hope you'll support keeping it, but if you oppose, at least I'll know that there were good reasons for deleting it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, I am glad to hear that you hold me in high regard. I certainly hold you in high regard as well.

Myself, I don't see the need for this article. It is so specific that a reader would be quite unlikely to come across it. But I don't feel very strongly about it one way or the other.

Best of luck, Saepe Fidelis (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

cutting

Please do not cut statements per WP:NOTPAPER and please do not take into your own hands to decide which country deserves how much space and which country is big enough to have the whole statement. It's very much hurting the neutrality. This is very important. Thank you.--Avala (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And if you are concerned about the kb length exceeding the recommendation then I think we should divide it into domestic reaction, international reaction, humanitarian aid and public protests. But please do not cut it.--Avala (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

One concern I have is the kb size. But I'm also concerned about the readability of the article. No one can reasonably be expected to read an article this long. I've tried to cut only statements that repeat or are irrelevant to the section at hand. As for the idea that I am taking this decision into my own hands, that is the essence of being bold. If you disagree with an edit, go ahead and revert it, and we can discuss.

Cheers, Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah but I think you did cut some essentially important things like the statement of the Czech PM (the EU chief atm) which was quite an event in the EU. You also did cut some of the things which made the statements to sound much less harsh then they were to Israel. I have no problem with you being pro Israeli, I myself am quite neutral on this one anyway. But if the certain state decides to compare Israel to the nazis, it's their right to make a ridiculous statement of that kind and we just publish it here. It's not our job to make some silly Govts look better than they are. And it's certainly not good to cut for the reasons of NPOV because some other user would probably cut other parts etc. so it's better to keep the statements intact. But we should though try to simplify the table by removing redundant statements. If the PM and FM said the same thing, then keep only the PM. I am not a fan of cutting btw and I am a strong supporter of the policy that Wiki is not a paper and that articles should be expanded with as much information as possible. I hardly expect anyone to read the whole article at once but rather look at specific countries of interest for their positions and as many links soon turn dead we should keep a lot of it in here rather then direct people to outside sources. For anyone who wants a quick overview there is always the main article.--Avala (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Maps

Please see my response on the article to have multiple maps. It is a lot more neutral approach as it doesn't give the country an overall position, that should be left up to the reader. It just tells the facts by what the country has done. Ijanderson (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva

Information based on content from Arutz Sheva, which is an agenda-driven news outlet, should be attributed to the source. We would probably also attribute information sourced to Wafa or similar sources. Alternatively, a more neutral source may be found that supports the content. The latter would probably be the better option.  Cs32en Talk to me  13:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with you that Arutz Sheva is not a top-caliber source, I really think wording to the effect of "Israel questions ... alleging that much of the equipment and supplies the ships carried were found to be worthless" is a good solution. The problem is that I want to avoid synthesis by saying that Israel makes these allegations, while citing a source that doesn't make that allegation. Any suggestions for alternative sources? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Arutz Sheva article cannot be used to support the statement that Israel makes these allegations. It could only be used to state that an "IDF source" made the allegations. Also, in this case, the wording with regard to the description of the medicine would need to be changed slightly.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's take another shot at it. If this doesn't work, we'll need to move this discussion to the article talk page, which I would rather not do, because it's so jam-packed. How would you feel about citing this source as well, and saying the following:

Israel questions the motives of flotilla organizers, saying, "Israel has invited the organizers of the flotilla to use the land crossings, in the same manner as all the reputable international organizations. However, they are less interested in bringing in aid than in promoting their radical agenda, playing into the hands of Hamas provocations. While they have wrapped themselves in a humanitarian cloak, they are engaging in political propaganda and not in pro-Palestinian aid." An IDF source alleged that much of the equipment and supplies the ships carried were found to be worthless, and argued that this further proved an alterior motive on the part of flotilla organizers. (etc.)

What do you propose as wording change for the medicine bit? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and clarification

Thanks for taking the time to examine the issue (regarding my proposed edit) so thoroughly. I wish to clarify a number of errors and misunderstandings, however. You removed the comments from the "approve" section to the "disapprove" on a number of bases. I've responded there, but wish to reiterate and make a few additional observations with you directly, so as not to clutter that up more than necessary:

(1) If I understand you, you are saying the phraseology of the U.S. draft and U.K. draft "hardly changes". But that is not correct. The drafts are significantly different. The statements by the Syrian and Soviet delegates on their positions on the U.S. draft cannot be construed to constitute their views with regard to the U.K. draft. Notice, for example, the Soviets disapproved of the U.S. draft, but accepted the U.K. draft with the understanding that it called for a full withdrawal.

(2) You suggested the statement from the Indian delegate quoted was made following the vote. Look again. It was made prior to the vote. I don't see what difference that makes anyways, but it's a moot point as it is not correct.

(3) You suggested there was an issue with mentioning conditionality of withdrawal. But the only place where this issue is included in my proposal is where I say "The Israelis had argued that resolution did not call for unconditional withdrawal." It seems to me you had already found that to be factually accurate, when you originally expressed approval and that there was no WP:OR here, so I'm not sure why you've changed your mind on this point. Could you please explain? I seems to me you're confusing the issue of the extent of withdrawal with the issue of conditionality of withdrawal. These are separate issues. To illustrate, logicially, a full withdrawal could still be conditional. Correct me if I'm mistaken about your view in this regard.

(4) See my comment on the page.

Thanks again. JRHammond (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

JR, thank you for your message. I have responded in the talk page. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I struck the sentence you see as problematic. I hope you'll find the new wording satisfactorily addresses your concern. Also, you mentioned something about Accredited quoting from Caradon, and said this "refutes the Indian speech". First of all, Accredited quoted from Eban, not Caradon, and secondly, what do you mean by saying Eban's statement "refutes" the Indian delegate's statement? Certainly, he was rejecting India's understanding of the resolution. But that's precisely the point I'm making in the proposed edit. JRHammond (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

JR, let's keep discussion on the discussion page, so that other editors can weigh in. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Just trying to clear up issues solely between you and I so as not to clutter the talk page any more than it already is. But okay. JRHammond (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary at Gaza flotilla raid

Your edit summary, stating "Revert per talk," is misleading. Please do not use such statements in edit summaries while a discussion on the talk page is ongoing.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll pardon me for not understanding, but how is that misleading? I wrote in the talk, "I will now use my one revert for the 24 hours to remove this quotation once again. I hope that my edit will stand, so that we can continue to move forward on making this article better." Then I reverted, and referred to the talk. How would you have preferred for the edit summary to have read? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

I don't think it's due to any partisan intent on your part, but it's my impression that you're involved in edit warring and repeated violation of 1RR restrictions on at least one I/P article. I don't normally edit these articles, but I look in on them from time to time, and this seems very clear to me. The problem actually seems to me to be of long duration and to occur very frequently. I really don't want to document this if I can reasonably avoid doing so – it's a very time-consuming process to do that. But you might like to carefully review the relevant policies, WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR as modified for 1RR articles. If you wish to reply, you can do so right here, below this message, as I've put your talk page temporarily on my "watchlist" to make sure I won't miss any response you might like to make. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OhioStandard, thank you for your work to improve Wikipedia. I have gone back and thoroughly reviewed my edits. I believe the only article where your concerns might apply must certainly be the Gaza flotilla raid. Is this correct? Let me say in advance that I believe I do understand the 3RR policy (here 1RR), although I admit my understanding might be lacking. Anyways, I don't think I've gone over 1R per 24h. With the exception of one recent edit, where I removed the Iara Lee quotation, all of my edits that affect recently-added text are intended to find common ground, so you will find that I hardly ever outright remove other editors' text, but rather make minor verbiage changes that are (presumably) more agreeable to all, so that we can have a working draft during discussion.

I'll give an extreme example (by that I mean extremely unfavorable to me), to illustrate my point, and you may express your view on whether this falls within our outside of policy. There was a sequence of three edits between me and ValenShephard: [2], [3] and [4]. There was nearly identical testimony cited to: (1) Knesset-Member Zoubi, and (2) three other passangers. I removed the second citation as redundant. ValenShephard restored it. I consolidated into one account, in which Zoubi and the three passangers were all cited, but in the same sentence. In my view at the time, this seemed an elegant solution that we could both agree on, not a revert. And in fact, that edit helped accelerate our discussion and reach consensus. At any rate, it was certainly done in good faith. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

From the 3RR policy page:

• "A 'revert' in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part."

Please note that this does not say "any edit that reverses the recent actions of other editors". There is no time limit, and no requirement that the passage(s) you delete or restore must be under dispute to "count". Actions that were made by another editor a year ago are just as protected under this policy as actions that were made an hour ago. ( Confirmation at 3RRNB, here.Scroll down in the diff, to the admin's comments beginning with "According to the language of wp:revert ..." ) If you make more than one edit to a 1RR article in a 24-hour period, something you should really avoid anyway, you need to be very sure you're not reversing another editor's actions, e.g. by deleting text any other editor added before you.

• "The four or more reverts that constitute a violation of the rule may involve the same or different material each time."
• "It [a revert] can involve as little as one word."

These rules are considerably more restrictive than many editors are aware. They are very seldom applied in regard to non-controversial articles (where even if the rules are violated, no one cares or reports the violation), so people tend to become complacent about them. But it's necessary to adhere to the rules much more carefully when editing in controversial subject-areas.

I'm not doubting your good faith in any way, but I do think you've been unintentionally over 1RR nearly every day on the Gaza flotilla article, at least, which is the only one I've looked at very closely. If an article is on 1RR restriction, it's really the best policy to restrict yourself to one edit per 24-hour interval, keeping in mind, of course, that multiple "saves" where no other editor's "save" to the article intervenes, count as a single edit. Even that's not perfectly safe to prevent a charge of edit warring from being upheld, btw. According to WP:EDITWAR, 1RR or 3RR do not constitute an entitlement to make one or three reverts per day, without consequences. I won't quote policy further on this, however; it's there for anyone to read, and I don't mean to beat you over the head with it. ;-) Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, any text in the article would necessarily have been added there by a another editor. So therefore any edit to the article is a revert? I am quite surprised to hear this interpretation of the 3RR policy, and if it's indeed a true interpretation, then it would seem to me to parylize editing on wikipedia. If what you say is true, I would think the policy would be a three-edit policy, not a three-revert policy. While your interpretation fits with the letter of the law, I just can't buy that that's the spirit of it.

More important that outright deletion, if I change around the verbiage that another editor placed in the article to produce verbiage that is (presumably) agreeable to us both, or if I change the order of things added months ago, I have a hard time seeing that as violating the 3RR. It's always possible that I'm misreading the policy... but that just seems harsh.

Your point on not taking 3RR or 1RR as a license is well taken, however. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, 1RR at least, is intended to be harsh, if you like to call it that, or at least severe. It's the last resort admins have short of fully protecting an article, short of "paralyzing" editing completely, to use your word. But if you think about it, it's also quite harsh to demand that editors should have to effectively "camp out" on an article - as so many do here - to avoid having their work undone by someone with a contrary point of view.

You've put up talk-page posts for two days, for example, saying you want to remove something, and then when no one objects you've gone ahead, with the seeming notion that doing so exempts you from the normal 1RR/day restriction. I'm glad you use the talk page but it's not my impression that doing so means you can go over 1RR because the editor who wrote what you want to remove doesn't happen to be around during the interval to argue for his contribution. An editor who wants to participate, but who can't spend all the time here that other people do would be basically shut out of the process without the existing revert rules. But let's not get off track on this; I don't want to make this discussion into a specific criticism of your behavior, which you would then feel compelled to explain and defend. That's definitely not my intention in bringing this up with you.

The basic problem is that Wikipedia is not well-equipped to deal with highly-active partisan editing especially when it occurs re recent events, or to prevent or adjudicate partisan diputes between sides. So of course the simple rules that we have in place are going to result in simple, even primitive solutions. Think about the elaborate system of rules humanity has had to develop to make fair progress possible in real-life partisan contexts: we have Robert's Rules of Order, Parlimentary Procedure, and such, as well as the whole civil law system. We try to establish a similarly civil, orderly context here, using very simple rules like 3RR. It doesn't work well, of course, and there will always be test-cases one can think up that seem objectionable. But these simple rules are all we have, and we can't work together at all if we don't observe them exactly. They're not great, but they're designed to allow us to present a single, unified work to the world. Without them Wikipedia would necessarily fracture into ten-thousand POV web sites or blogs, and the world has more than enough of those already, in my opinion.

I don't intend any offence to editors on either side of the discussion in using the word "partisan", btw. Perhaps "advocacy" would be a better term. And I certainly understand that interpretations of policy can differ significantly between editors without there being the least bad faith involved on either side: we may have to agree to disagree on this. Too, I really would very strongly prefer not to have to drag any editor here, yourself included, to 3RRNB or AE to see which of our respective interpretations whatever admin we happen to draw will uphold. But please understand that if I do consider that I have a responsibility to do so at some point, that I'll be motivated not by any personal animosity at all, but by my wish to protect the orderly development of the encyclopedia. I'll add, in closing, that while I'm by no means able to catch every policy violation that takes place here or anywhere else, if I do notice editors on the side that opposes yours cross over 1RR as I understand it, that I'll be just as ready to present the facts I see before the appropriate venue. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You write a lot about "my side" and "the opposite side." My side is the side that seeks to make Wikipedia better. It is also the side of all of the other editors working with me on the article. I have found no members of the opposing side.

What you write regarding people's work being undone seems to stand in contradiction to ownership of articles policy. The purpose is to make Wikipedia better, not to preserve people's work if it drags down the article. I usually try to give the talk page more than two days to work, but sometimes we're talking about information that, for example, is outdated or repetititve, so that the editor's work may have been originally necessary, but no longer is. If the article was better before my edit, someone other than the author can revert and discuss, as suggested in BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Plus, my waiting time for edits is shorter if I think consensus will be instant, or if there is no objection during a time period when the talk page is highly trafficked.

In the end, I disagree with your statement that Wikipedia policies don't work well. I think they work great. But maybe that's because of our differing interpretations of policy.

I think basically our dispute boils down to this: if I undrstand your position, you believe that all edits, except for the addition of new text, constitute reverts. I guess the addition of new text could also count as a revert if someone had previously removed it. Am I correct in saying this? I, on the other hand, believe the a revert is an edit that reverses some other recent edit. That is to say, I find that moving, removing or rewording long-standing text in the article is not a revert.

I am interested in both making Wikipedia better and in following its policies. I have no desire to continue the style of editing that I have pursued if I find out that it contradicts Wikipedia policies. So I would like to consult an admin or some larger group of editors on this question. What's the proper venue for that? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't the least doubt that you're interested in making Wikipedia better and in following its policies, and hope I haven't given you cause to think I've ever believed otherwise. This is getting to be a long discussion, though, and I was disappointed to discover yesterday that you don't have your e-mail function enabled. We can continue the discussion here, but I wonder if you'd also mind e-mailing a quick "ping" to my all-lowercase, all-one-word Wikipedia user name at gmail dawt youknowwhat. ( I'm trying to keep the the evil spam bots away, of course. ) If you have only a personally-identifying e-mail account, feel free to create a generic "throwaway" account at gmail or yahoo, or wherever; probably wisest not to disclose one's name or other personally-identifying information to a stranger online, even in e-mail. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD of article you worked on

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justus Weiner (2nd nomination). Jaque Hammer (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Artsi Winery

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Artsi Winery, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Artsi Winery, 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) 20:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ya'ar Matey

You're not my mate, ay? I'm just kidding, you're not. Ain't. A-i-n'-t. Ai-NOT. Just ta be clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.134.112 (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)