New editors and unregistered ("IPs") cannot edit this page.
It is semi-protected due to frequent abuse. You can get my attention by writing a note on your own talk page and flagging it with ((ping|Huldra)).

• To the rest: Please leave any new messages on the bottom of this page. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.
• If you start a new section here, I will reply here.

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine/Tasks
• User talk:Huldra/Archive 2

I never knew about the lynching of Zarhum until the AfD. After reviewing sources, I see this is treated as a separate event, highlighting the issue of racism. I will create an article on the incident in due time. Thanks for bringing it up at the discussion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:TheGracefulSlick: well, as I said: There were some extremely ugly pictures surfacing (I think it was the Electronic Intifada that made a detailed analysis as to how many people beat him as he was lying on the floor, unmoving, bleeding to death.) I don't think we should have 2 articles about the event, but Beersheva bus station shooting should definitely be moved to Lynching of Haftom Zarhum (or something similar) (and then expanded). It is the deliberate lynching of an innocent man which is notable about the event, IMO, Huldra (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In an encyclopedia where decisions were based on policies, not POV, that would be the move with the most popularity. The discussion, however, is not making me optimistic since Zarhum’s beating is being described as a “trivial” part of the shooting. We may just have to make due with another article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are possibly correct. At least 9 passersby abused Zarhum (according to Haaretz) while he was dying, only 4 got (ridiculously lenient) "sentences". It is like the Deep South of the US, a hundred years ago, Huldra (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Terribly disturbing to watch; I even read the actual perpetrator resumed shooting at one point, and they still continued to beat him. Anyways, I will let you know when it is complete in case you want to add anything to it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Talk:Kfar Ahim#RfC: Arab vs. Palestinian?
• Talk:Jabel Mukaber#External links

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=&title=Special%3ALinkSearch
• https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ Gott nytt år!

User:K.e.coffman thanks, and same to you! Huldra (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Hunin you included material moved from Margaliot. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you moved the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying within Wikipedia in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I noted it in the Margaliot article that I would move it to Hunin (link), then inadvertedly did not mention where it had been moved from in the Hunin article (link), Huldra (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please revert your latest edit to Lifta, which is a violation of WP:ARBPIA3. Debresser (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As to your argument: the article is clear enough that the population was evacuated. Of course the decision to evacuate was because of the military situation. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Debresser AFAIK, there is no violation on my part. My latest edits to Lifta was more than 24 hours apart,

Also, discussion about Lifta should go on the talk page of that article, (for the benefit of other interested) Huldra (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might have informed me simply that WP:ARBPIA3 has been annulled here. Debresser (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, don't expect me to do your homework for you, (and I don't keep a list of where to link to) Huldra (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year!

Huldra,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 22:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

Thanks! A Happy New Year to you, too! Huldra (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I’m interested in your comment here. Could you explain which of the edits offered as evidence are not problematic, and why? In the alternative, would you be willing to mentor this user and help them avoid further trouble. You seem to be a competent editor with long experience. I appreciate your efforts to improve articles in a hotly contested area. Jehochman ^Talk 03:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Jehochman, I do not know the truth about the White Helmets; perhaps they are heroes, perhaps they are villains, perhaps they are a mix of both. But I do believe that “truth” is the first casualty of virtually any war, especially in the Middle East. Therefor we should proceed with great caution, and never bombastically conclude that one side is right...before we have all the evidence.

I remember vividly listening to Nayirah testimony back in 1990 (yeah, I’m that old!!) ......not believing a single word of it, even when President Bush repeated it (ordinary nurses in the Middle East simply did not speak English that fluently back then, as anyone with any knowledge of the area knew: there had to be more to the story than what was published. Which indeed it was.)

And the Nayirah story was peanuts compared to the lies we were told during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. If you only read/listen to US news, then you will miss much. I recall after Colin Powell's presentation to the UN, some local papers in Europe said straight out that what he was saying wasn't true, while every single US paper (which I saw) were gushing over about how convincing he had been. And remember the Niger uranium forgeries? Where they used the name of a Niger minister ...who hadn't been in office for 10 years? Lol, still president Bush used it...

These last 30 years have showed us that our Western Government lie, lie, and lie again about the Middle East (link) (and before you accuse me of being Kremlin stooge, or "married to an Arab", or a "Palestinian Muslim", as other editors here have......I'm born and raised, and still live in a NATO country, coming from pure WASP background. It was because I was totally misinformed about the Middle East when I grew up (virtually nothing of what I was taught turned out to be true) ...that I now add to the history of the Middle East.)

To return to the White Helmets: we have virtually no independent coverage of areas where they operated. To quote Peter Hitchens:

"The FO is in a mess over this. It has for years been backing the Islamist rebels against the Syrian government, a policy which involves supporting exactly the sort of people we would arrest if we found them in Birmingham.

Perhaps that is why it claims the ‘White Helmets’ are ‘volunteers’ (they are often paid) and that they have ‘saved over 115,000 lives during the Syrian conflict’ and done ‘brave and selfless work’ to ‘save Syrians on all sides of the conflict.’

When I asked them to provide independent, checkable evidence for these assertions, they came up empty after three days of searching.

This is not surprising, as the ‘White Helmets’ generally operate only in areas controlled by unlovely bodies such as the Al-Nusra Front, until recently an affiliate of Al Qaeda, and the equally charming Jaish al-Islam (Army of Islam), famous for putting captured Syrian Army soldiers in cages and using them as human shields.

Independent Western observers, whether they are diplomats or journalists, can’t really go to these zones, because they are quite likely to end up very dead and probably headless." (in Are we saving Syrian 'heroes'... or just importing more fanatics?, 29 July 2018),

So frankly, I don't find Kiwicherryblossom inserting "alleged" into, say Douma chemical attack inappropriate...when the OPCW has not yet finally concluded that there ever was a chemical attack (all the other sources used are of the same quality that "proved" to the world that Saddam Hussein had WMD in 2003...).

Frankly, I think the Syrian War articles are the worst shit-hole on Wikipedia (to use Trumph's language). Articles like Eva Bartlett, White Helmets, all the "chemical attacks" articles (where there is no independent confirmation that it ever even was a chemical attacks) are all totally one sided....anyone who has tried to better the situation over the last year or two have gotten topic banned. There is a varied group of people (I recognise some from the old Eastern European Mailing List affair...no love lost for the Russians there) who have had iron control over these articles for years. IOW: I think the wrong person got topic banned (yet again). I try not to get involved (Would you like to dive into a shit-hole? Nah, me neither), Huldra (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My earliest political memories are Watergate and Vietnam. I’ve been around long enough to witness all kinds of official lying. They say news is the rough draft of history. We’re always going to have difficulty covering contentious current events. One strategy is to push for good or featured article status. That can bring in some neutral, quality conscious editors. Jehochman ^Talk 00:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, my first demo (when I was about 18, or 19) was against the Vietnam war ("USA out of Vietnam!"); I first got interested in the Middle East politics in the 1980s.

The problem with the Syrian articles, as I said, are an assorted group who "owns" them. They have been very, very good at getting topic banned any editor who doesn't agree with them. I tried to get Robert Fisk into an article (see Talk:Douma_chemical_attack/Archive_4)...but since editors who close RfC do look at numbers, Fisk was excluded(!). (My RL friends lost the last bit of respect for WP over that one, when I told them.) Pushing for good or featured article status under such circumstances is totally futile, IMO. (If you want to "survive" in hotly contested areas on wp, you need to know which "edit wars" to walk away from.)

I don't know why it is like this, if it is plain stupidity ("Our government is right!"), or other more nefarious reasons. (But we do know that, say, the British have spend a lot of money on so-called info wars)

Kiwicherryblossom (KCB) is a case in point, they makes a robust defence for using "alleged" here...if anything, those who reverted KCB should have been topic banned. Until that happens, these article will remain the "shit-hole of Wikipedia", Huldra (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Numerous articles in RS talk about the douma chemical attack [1]. The introduction says there is an interim report, and one waits. There are other reports, such as the look at the 'incident' in the New York Times, so it isn't like nothing can be written until the OPCW speak again. The introduction is not , censored, misleads not at all. You see a shit hole but perhaps thats in the eye of the beholder. Dan the Plumber (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "Numerous articles in RS" typically come from the very same sources who produced "Numerous articles in RS" "proving" that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, tried to buy uranium from Niger, etc, etc.

Been there, seen that. Huldra (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you've been there , seen that, you must be wary of propaganda, in the widest sense then. Great. WMD , yes, and Katyn Massacre, yes , that too. Propagandists everywhere. Dan the Plumber (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know a thing about the Katyn Massacre (never said I did), (or much about Eastern Europe, in general). (But yeah, I have been to Syria,) Huldra (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OPCW have been to Syria too. They found sarin with regime signature. To just scream 'But IRAQ Iraq WMD WMd' every time the Assad-Putin regime are caught using CW seems pretty hopeless. You are really on a fringe that wants to implicate the OPCW, and the vast mass of evidence against the Assad regime as all part of a huge conspiracy or something. Its hopeless arguing with true believers though. You support your side whatever. I get itDan the Plumber (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huh???? It is precisely because I am not a "true believer" about just about anything, that I would want articles to keeps possibilities open. You don't. I get it.

There is also evidence supporting Assads claims, but all such evidence (say, Robert Fisk) has conveniently been found not WP:RS.

And OPCW never found sarin, at least not at the Douma chemical attack. They found various chlorinate chemicals, (which they would also have found beneath my kitchen sink). Huldra (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The regime however has been found to have used sarin. Which you wouldn't find beneath your kitchen sink. So what you find at your house , and what the Assad regime uses against civilians, are not the same thing whatever your sarcastic rhetoric is meant to convey. I know they found sarin was not used at Douma. The article says that. If Fisk has hard evidence that supports Assad regime narrative at Douma , well you should certainly fight for the inclusion of that information at the article. I really doubt Fisk had any such thing, but fight for that in the article. If he has hard evidence that supports Assad regime denials of their doing anything nefarious at Douma that should be in the article. After the regime is in control of Douma Fisk says 'my earnest questions about gas were met with what seemed genuine perplexity.' Huh????( I think he is a fucking cretin. He doesn't think maybe they are afraid to talk? If his story about the doctor saying they all died of hypoxia isn't anywhere in the article thats maybe an omission. His story is part of the story of the way the attack was reported at least. I think his reflex is always to absolve the regime , I believe he knee jerk decided they didn't use sarin at Ghouta etc? He's obviously got his admirers, including your anonymous journalistic mate one gathers. Well, there we are. (Says he talked to a doctor with a story about how they died who by 'his own admission wasn't an eyewitness'. Seems legit. Fight for this essential information to be included. (You'd mock an article that presented this level of 'evidence' if it were presented by a journalist to push a story that implicate the regime. Be fair, you'd take a story like to the fucking cleaners if the wrong side presented such a story. Instead you call it massively important. Huh??? I'll leave your talk page alone now. We just very different sorts of editors and humans. ) Dan the Plumber (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Please link to where it has been proven that the Syrian regime has used Sarin. (That might be true, I frankly do not know). However, what remains is that OPCW did not find any traces of Sarin at the Douma chemical attack site. What also remains is that US officials used the use of "chemical attack" as an excuse for the 2018 missile strikes against Syria....even though (so far) no proof of any such chemical attack exist.
• As for censorship: an unemployed ex–finance guy named Eliot Higgins is found to be a WP:RS everywhere on wp...while Robert Fisk is not. LOL! And I did fight to include Fisk's visit to Douma (See Talk:Douma_chemical_attack/Archive_4) ..and lost. Fisk talked to about 20 people (including 1 doctor), without "minders', while Seth Doane spoke to far fewer (AFAIK), still Seth Doane (and Eliot Higgins) are considered RS for the Douma chemical attack article, while Fisk is not. This is censorship, pure and simple, and one reason why this article (and virtually all the rest of the Syrian war articles) really, truly are the "shit-hole of Wikipedia." Huldra (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i don't know but , if you're right about this, how it regards Higgins work as against Fisk, it makes me feel like maybe wikipedia isn't so bad. Dan the Plumber (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sigh, "You can lead a horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink", Huldra (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OPCW on evidence found at Khan Sheikhoun, you know material evidence, (not some vile hack talking to 20 people in a regime controlled area where saying the wrong thing can lead to torture and death [2] etc like Fisk does)

OPCW FFM : “The samples from Khan Shaykhun contain the three types of marker chemicals described above: PF6 [HFP], isopropyl phosphates and isopropyl phosphorofluoridates. Their presence is a strong indicator that the sarin disseminated in Khan Shaykhun was produced from DF from the Syrian Arab Republic stockpile.” Sigh , you're a true believer and you'll just keep denigrating people like Higgins, who look at evidence, and whose work has proven itself over time to be consistent with OPCW findings, and you'll venerate Fisk who conducts interviews with citizens in regime hands having been escorted into the area by his masters. Same at Ghouta, OPCW found the sarin came from the Syrian regime stockpile. You are a conspiracist. The shithole is in your eyes. Dan the Plumber (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't editing the Khan Shaykhun article, but LOL: do you honestly think people had freedom under Jaysh al-Islam???? (They were the ones who were in control over Douma, at the time of the Douma chemical attack). If I had lived in one of their controlled areas, I would probably have ended up one head shorter. Literally. (Being female, and a feminist.)

As to your assertion that Fisk only talked to people under government control.....well, so did Seth Doane, so why is one considered RS, while the other not? It is this double standard which makes the article a shit−hole. (And I would be grateful if you stopped personalising the discussion all the time), Huldra (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i thought the point at issue was whether the OPCW had implicated the regime in chemical weapons attacks , and then you write 'do you think people had freedom under Jaysh al islam'. What the fuck has that to do with whether the regime carried out sarin attacks and the OPCW found evidence, you know hard , chemistry, physics, type evidence, that the regime carried out the attacks. Typical 'divert, dismay, distract' response. Pointless discussing anything with true believers. If you're a feminist the fate of the woman here should concern you.[3] 'Rehab Allawi... The girl from the city Mouhassan in the Deir ez-Zor countryside, was arrested on January 16, 2013. She was a civil activist working in relief, and was a third year civil engineering student at the University of Damascus. "They charged her a fabricated charge of kidnapping an officer, in addition to the financing of terrorist groups. She was transferred to a court martial. On her last day in the cell, Rehab dreamt of wearing a white bridal dress; which increased her hope of obtaining freedom. However, she was called at midnight; which is strange for a woman to be called for interrogation at such a time inside [Security] Branch 215."

Rehab Mohammed Alawi... Killed by the Syrian regime under torture in its prisons.'

It isn't only Jaish al islam who murder women and children. You know the regime and Russia and Iran have killed far , far, far more civilians than Nusra , IS, etc. Two wrongs don't make a right, but if killing women is your measure, Assadists win by a fucking country mile. Dan the Plumber (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two things:

• first, the OPCW has found no evidence of a chemical attack at Douma..and wp uses a double standard evaluating sources, accepting those sources which support the "official" Western perspective (like Seth Doane), while dismissing those who dont (like Robert Fisk), even when the information was collected under the same circumstances.
• secondly, I have no illusions about the Assad regime (read, say, Aref Dalila), but there is a HUGE difference between the Assad regime and Jaysh al-Islam: the Assad regime would target you for what you have done (or what they think you have done), Jaysh al-Islam would target you for who you are.

...And I have lived under Assad! Lol, just for a month, and as a tourist some 15−20 years ago, but I felt perfectly safe...visiting Palmyra, Krak des Chevaliers, Apamea, etc, etc. ....But I would not survive a single day under Jaysh al-Islam (A secular, non−Muslim female, who refuse to cover her hair? No way.) ...I have followed various blogs, and twitter users for this last 15−20 years in the Middle East, and what amazes me is the strong support Assad (and Hizbollah!) have gotten these last 5−10 years from the Christians in the area. Read what Nassim Nicholas Taleb (a Christian from Lebanon) writes here: "The Syrian War Condensed: A more Rigorous Way to Look at the Conflict" Or read this: Meeting Middle East Christians is where Western stereotypes go to die...where local Christians claim that 100percent of the Syrian Christians would vote for Assad, if there were free and fair elections in Syria.

That Christian in the Middle East support Assad is one thing which simply isn't reported in the West at all. ('Support' is perhaps a bit strong, but like Taleb: they much prefer Assad to the alternative). Doesn't that make you think? Huldra (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is all travelling a long way out from the fact that you refuse to accept evidence that Assad regime used sarin against civilians as they slept at Ghouta, and have been found to have used it at Khan Sheikhoun and CW multiple times. Douma , there is an interim report, and anyone reading the wp article will not be made to think there was a sarin attack there. It just fucking does not say that. meanwhile multiple RS talk of a chemical attack. You might think your cuddly secular ever so tolerant to bourgeois tourist would never use CW, but RS and much evidence, says otherwise. Taleb is a notorious propagandist for Assad and from what Ive seen of him on twitter an out and out crank. Whether Christians ( and their putative founder was into loving ones enemy, turning the other cheek etc , so you know, how 'Christian ' are the Christians), feel happy to turn blind eyes about CW is for them to decide. You are demonising a whole section of Syrian citizenry as 'head choppers' and exonerating amass murderer , whose regimes rule has been enforced by the ever so tolerant Iranian IRGC, ( you think as a woman you'd have an easy time in Iran), and the Putin regime. Millions are in exile. Millions. They are all head choppers and have had the wrong thoughts? At this moment 'Syria’s football team is currently playing Australia’s in the #AsianCup2019. Missing from the pitch are 15 footballers the Assad regime has murdered for defying it and seven players it is holding in detention.' You and I will have to agree to differ. If you and your 'ideas' and your pov take control of all Syria related articles then indeed, imho, it would be a shithole of all shitholes. Dan the Plumber (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fact remains that the US bombed Syria, after claiming that Douma chemical attack was a chemical attack, something for which they had exactly 0 proof.

As for Nassim Nicholas Taleb not being representative: I am not so sure. I have followed Middle East sources (blogs, twitter) for 15−20 years now, and what absolutely amazes me, is the increase in support these last 5−10 years for Assad and Hizbollah among Christians. (Take a look at youtube for some of the live performances of Julia Boutros: some have English subtitles for her praise of Hizbollah). Especially after they retook Maaloula (FYI: Maaloula has a very special place in Christianity in the Middle East, with monasteries dating back 1500 years. They were NOT well treated, when they were under rebel command.) But the Christian support for Assad/Hizbollah is something which simply isn't reported in the West. (Did you read this article, at all?)

Personally, I don't think we are dealing with one white, and one black side in this war. More like various degrees of blackness. But I refuse to support a side which would gladly cut of my head. And I suspect yours, too. I suspect that if we two would live under, say Jaysh al-Islam, we would end up as Raed Fares, Samira Khalil, Razan Zaitouneh, and many, many others: all dead or missing (presumes dead), from Western backed rebel territory, Huldra (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there overwhelming evidence that the Assad regime has repeatedly used CW? Is there overwhelming evidence OPCW verified, that the regime sarin gassed children as they slept. Yes, or no? Zaitouneh and Fares, who represent[ed] every kind of intellectual honesty and courage were enemies of the kind of moral and intellectual abdication that Assadism and its supporters represent I would think. Dan the Plumber (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To your first question: frankly, I have no idea, I have not studied all the attacks, I have only looked into the Douma chemical attack. As for Fares and Zaitouneh representing the opposition to Assad: most definitely. That was why they were in "rebel" territory. Alas, they were still killed.

Btw, you are, so, so wrong when you think only "out and out cranks" among the Christians in the area support Hizbollah/Assad. Here is Julia Boutros in 2016, singing 'Ahibaii' to an extatic audience in Dbayeh (in the Christian heartland of Lebanon) ('Ahibaii' is the letter Hassan Nasrallah sent his Hizbollah fighters in 2006; put into music by Boutros. Still popular. Here is a 2013 performance, with English subtitles (Starts at 3:40)) Not many hijabs among the audience, still they all seem to know the text by heart. Perhaps, because they have learned that the alternative is ending up like Fares and Zaitouneh. (Btw, AFAIK, there were no Christian services while Maaloula was under rebel command, And this: girls and boys dancing dabke together at the feast of Saint Thecla, autumn 2018; would most surely have cost you your life when Maaloula was under rebel command.) Huldra (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop removing Category:Community settlements (Israel) from Israeli settlement articles. It is not an "in Israel" category, it simply has "Israel" in the title as it matches Community settlement (Israel), a specific type of village like a kibbutz or a moshav. The category was moved from its original title of Category:Community settlements in Israel as a result of this discussion specifically to avoid the "in Israel" claim. The category text also explicitly says that it contains villages in both Israel and the West Bank. Thanks, Number 57 10:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, but that title is misleading, as is Community settlement (Israel). It should be moved, either to Community settlement, or to Community settlement (Israel and the occupied territories). What do you suggest? Huldra (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I completely disagree that it's misleading; a community settlement is an Israeli concept and that's what the "(Israel)" represents. Adding "and the occupied territories" would just be a point-scoring exercise.

Nevertheless, I have always favoured the article being at "Community settlement" as it's the primary topic and the redirect goes to the Israel article. Start an WP:RM with that suggestion and I will support it. If the RM closes in favour, the category can be moved as well via the speedy process. Number 57 20:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obviously it is misleading, as I was mislead! However, I agree with you about the name, not because your argument, but because Community settlement is a heck of lot easier name to remember than Community settlement (Israel and the occupied territories). I will start a WP:RM, Huldra (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been working more on the Tel Yokneam article (which was created out of the Qamun article, that other part of Qira and Qamun). Since my understanding of this place changed several times after finding new and better sources, I may have removed a few sources from the 19th century. Could you run a small check in your sources to see if there are more sources about this site? Currently there are two sources, one by Robinson and one by Van de Velde. On another note, let me know if you are working on something interesting you might need some Hebrew sources for.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sigh, this is when I really miss Tiamut: she is much, much better than me on this "seriously old stuff". I'll add the bits and pieces I can find, Huldra (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bolter21: There is also Guerin, Samarie II, 241–244 (pardon my French). And Le Strange, p473 (Kaimun). That article is looking very nice, a definite FA prospect. Zero^talk 03:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you link?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 07:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User talk:Bolter21 There are some sources at jstor [4] and google scholar[5] did you check them all? --Shrike (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have something about Tel Qashish? Probably Tell Qasis in your sources.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Bolter21: Not much. It looks as if it is "Tell el Kussis" on SWP map 5, that is SWP I, p. 352, Palmer, 1881, p. 117: "the mound of the (Christian) priest", Huldra (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also:

• Zuckerman, S. 1996. The Pottery of Tel Kasis and Jezreel Valley in the Early Bronze Age. (M.A. Thesis, Hebrew University). Jerusalem. (Hebrew with English Summary).
• Wilson, Charles Williams, ed. (c. 1881). Picturesque Palestine, Sinai and Egypt. Vol. 3. New York: D. Appleton. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |editorlink= ignored (|editor-link= suggested) (help) (pp. 93 107)

HHmm, that's unfortunate. Thanks anyways.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To editor Bolter21: I have the final excavation report: Amnon Ben-Tor, Ruhama Bonfil, Sharon Zuckerman. Qedem Reports, Vol. 5, TEL QASHISH: A VILLAGE IN THE JEZREEL VALLEY—Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1978–1987) (2003), pp. I-XLIV, 1-451. It will overlap with what you have but if you want it and can't easily get it, send me mail. Zero^[[User_talk

Zero0000|talk]] 01:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I also have it through JSTOR. Thanks anyways.Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note that on Talk:Bassel al-Araj there is a template warning editors to apply a maximum of one revert per 24 hour period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiallesaktion (talk • contribs) 03:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, User:Antiallesaktion, but 1RR doesn't count when we revert those who shouldn't have edited the article at all. Such as yourself, Huldra (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• NB: all need the Arab script for their names:
• User:Huldra/Mamluk Jerusalem, with
• 5 User:Huldra/Ribat al-Mansuri

الرباط المنصوري

• 8 User:Huldra/Madrasa al-Dawadariyya

المدرسة الدوادارية

• 18 User:Huldra/Al-Tankiziyya (has article in he.wp and ar.wp)

التنكزية

• 25 User:Huldra/Al-Sallamiyya

السلامية

• 28 User:Huldra/Turkan Khatun

تركان خاتون

• 29 User:Huldra/Al-Kilaniyya

الكيلانية

• 31 User:Huldra/Al-Khatuniyya

الخاتونية

• 32 User:Huldra/Al-Arghuniyya

الأرغونية

• 48 User:Huldra/Tunshuk Palace

دار الست طنشق

• 61 User:Huldra/Ribat al−Zamani

unclear

• 62 User:Huldra/Al-Muzhiriyya

المزهيرية

• 63 User:Huldra/Madrasah al-Ashrafiyya

المدرسة الأشرفية

User:Makeandtoss shukran! Huldra (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, Huldra, but I will make no such undertaking, on principle. Because to do so would be to subscribe to a mistaken interpretation of the terms contested. There are deeper reasons. The 'eff' word was first used in my upbringing by my mother, and it had absolutely nothing to do with sexual intercourse or defamation of her sex. To the contrary she was extremely careful to use proper language, and on the occasion she first used it, it fitted the circumstances to a tee:'Oh fuck!' when missing the slops bucket with some greasy dinner residue. Realizing we were present and had laughed out loud in surprise, she turned and threw us a broad beaming smile. A religious person once asked me not to use the remonstrative 'For Chrissake!', esp. since one could relieve one's exasperation with a term lacking any blasphemous connotation, i.e. 'for eff's sake'. Any suggestion that one legislate on language use, or internalize monitors to act as semantic sentinels for any infraction of 'politically correct' or 'proper usage' gets my hackles to rise. For 'eff's sake' has no more sexual innuendo than does 'Uh, cazzo!' (Oh, cock(up)! damn it) occasionally used by my otherwise linguistically purist wife, or putain (prostitute) you'll hear any French person of either sex utter when we might say 'oh,crap'. You'll hear women say 'je m'en fous' (I don't give a fuck) without any awareness that sexual sensitivities are at stake.

I know the netscape's chockablock with foul-mouthed morons with a limited vocabulary, mostly expletive. I also know Wikipedia's prim code, though intended to combat personal invective, actually functions as a tripwire to get rid of editors, on the flimsiest grounds, whom one dislikes. In childhood, if an oversensitive kid weeps or whinges at being hurt by some attitude, pedagogically a teacher's best practice is to feign taking his or her complaint seriously, and then slowly talk them through it, so the child can slowly be reasoned out of what might otherwise strike a teacher as a wimpish tendency leading to a sense of victimhood if flatteringly endorsed. The funny thing about Wikipedia is that it is an adult world which imitates this praxis: one must show sympathy for the apparently aggrieved person's outrage at being the ostensible object of an attack, rather than reason, as adults should, by saying, if the grievance appears to be pretextual, that the claim is ungrounded, and ungrounded claims about other people are frowned on, that Wikipedia is not a place for gaming the odds by continually pettifogging whining in the hope someone you dislike will be 'disappeared'. Everyone knows this, but one can't call a spade a spade. Fine, that's how bureaucracies work. Sometimes, a stern 'pull your finger out' or 'stop wasting time on trivial pursuits', however, would save us massive quires/choirs of endless nagging disputatiousness at forums, esp. when the overarching evidence is that the disputants don't spend much time actually reading encyclopedic matter, editing it in, and building articles. They tweak, revert, and waste swathes of time using talk pages as a social forum to get people onside POV-wise or kill time because they don't have a serious life off-line.

Lastly, for a short period, I tried to imitate the favoured neutered style which is one of the primrose paths to a distinguished wiki life, with disastrous effects on my natural turn of mind. To save my feel for language, I had to chuck the mimicry ('fuck it' in short). I've used that expression perhaps a half a dozen times over 13 years, at times as a personal safety valve to express exasperation, not to 'bully', and will continue, I expect, if I stay in here, to allow myself the liberty to use it. If that is not acceptable, well, 'stiff shit', sorry 'stiff cheddar', or as a Swiss lad once whispered to me, when I asked him to teach me some solid German expletives, Das ist Käse! the strongest term in his vocabulary for expressing the idea of being 'pissed off'. I felt sorry for him. Now, back to Aristophanes. His delightfully inventive foulmouthedness targeted Socrates, who wasn't offended. Plato paints a wonderful picture of their friendship in the Symposium. I need literature to remind me of how grown-ups were once before the gamesmanship of grievance trumpeting took over the world. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nishidani: I am not particularly offended by foul language and there are certain contexts where I will use it; nonetheless, situations where I will use it on Wikipedia are extremely rare [1] because we are supposed to work collegialy and I really struggle to think of a situation where swearing at someone will help to make the atmosphere more collegial and not less. If you are getting to the point where you need to express your frustration in that way, then either that person is editing tendentiously or you have too low a trigger for frustration with people you disagree with. In the latter case, you have some maturing to do. In the former, it will be much easier for you to get admin action against tendentious editing if you're not seen to be inflaming the situation with your language.

[1] I realise that one of these was only a few days ago, though I was quoting another editor. GoldenRing (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps the worst example of the mechanism/bureaucracy that our old friend expounds above is the fake and contrived attempt to paint Corbyn as anti-Semitic. I know from personal experience how peace activists operate, so I can be 100% certain that there isn't an anti-Semitic bone in Corbyn's body; that knowledge is strengthened by Corbyn's exemplary record over decades of activism against racism, including anti-Semitism. He's about as far as you can possibly get from real, horrifying anti-Semitism. which is a hatred of Jews merely because they are Jews, a hatred so intense that it can lead, in the extreme case, to genocide. --NSH001 (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't let this comment stand without responding. It's apparent you have a bias. Your page makes it clear that you think Fisk and Finkelstein are worthy of opinions to share, but this is going too far. When 85% of British Jews and when the British Chief Rabbi makes a speech in the House of Lords, perhaps it's time to stop ignoring the situation. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 12:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

and not even a week later and this is leaked: [6] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GoldenRing. I would question whether the exclamative 'for fuck's sake' is 'foul language.' I'm known, even by those who militate to get me off Wikipedia, to be extremely particular about fine language distinctions. I never swore at the editor in question. Please note:-

• (a) Come on, for fuck's sake. Logic please. By no stretch can that be taken as swearing at a person. The exclamative or remonstrative idiom is reflexive, expressing the state of mind or frustration by the person who uses it.'Google books clearly shows that. Expressing frustration is not forbidden by the rules, attacking people is. I'm not telling Debresser to get 'fucked' or 'fuck off'. I am telling him the lack of logic in his edit is frustrating and to try and edit logically.

What Debresser was pleading for is a ban on my use of fuck in any form. Admins can't be expected to have a memory for all the detailed history of interactions and edits. But those who work in this area do. He asked that I be 'outcasted' from Wikipedia for this usage.

What's his own practice? To say 'fuck' when it suits him as with his recent dispute with Huldra, and, after it was pointed out that what he finds unacceptable in myself is something he himself arrogates as a right he replies that in his unique case he was being humorous.

I.e. in this peculiar logic, I should be permabanned for using a word the plaintiff allows himself to use remonstratively with another editor. The Talmud covers everything, even this. At Kiddushin 70, we have the phrase: kol haposel bemumo hu posel), usually translated as a case of the pot calling the kettle black, (alternatively see Reuven Agushevits, Principles of Philosophy,' KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 2008 p.52

As to your point about collegiality, I’d be the first to underwrite it as both principle and practice. In this area a large number of editors hold it in contempt but watch their p’s and q’s. They challenge far too many edits by seeing who did them, revert without carefully sieving the source to check it has been correctly reported, use false edit summaries that fail all verification for what is done, and spend undue time trying to get AE opportunities to ban people whose editing they dislike, taking as disruptive any picayune expression of protest. That Debresser's edits were not only tendentious, but were done while he failed to even take a cursory glance at the source I introduced and used to document my text, can be proven objectively. But sloppy, insouciant editing is not a problem administratively. You can't be punished for that. But if someone is frustrated by it, perhaps he needs a permaban. Go figure.Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In general, if you can't get your point across without a wall of text, or using the "f" word, then you need to re-read Strunk and White. And the issue with you, is that you use the word far too often, I don't think I've seen Debresser use it more than once or twice. That's the point. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read 100-200 pages a day, and the strength of my content additions comes from that, and close source control for everything I add to this encyclopedia. I.e. if someone copies and pastes from one wikipage to another pseudo-information like this, to cite one example, I spend a half an hour at least to verify whether my suspicion it is questionable is correct or not, and if found to be misleading, I alert editors like you and Debresser, who don't want me to edit there, that it needs fixing. Rather than follow people around to make pointy comments, why not consider fixing the problem? I'll give you a clue: the majority of historic Yemeni Jews were not obliged to dress in blue or dark garb and generally dressed as their Arab neighbours did. If you haven't time to fix it, don't waste time niggling around talk pages. We are here to build articles, not niggle, nag, make cheap cracks or rush to defend friends. As it stands, the failure to correct that error means either (a) no one looked into the topic, even while reverting people who have or (b) editors are too lazy to trouble themselves, except on talk pages. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

since you brought up following people around, how did you get to that article in the first place? That seems like a weird place for you to pop in. As for me, I didn't follow anyone, I have this page on my watchlist, please don't make aspersions.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I'll close this by documenting scientifically why collegial editing is what does not exist here. The practice is one of reverting without even looking at the consequences of one's revert. This has happened to me scores of times in this company. How did I get there you ask?

Esther (bookmarked) discussion led to Debresser's page. I didn't comment, though I thanked StevenJ for a compromise he offered. Keeping track I noticed that article mentioned below. I read it and noted several problems.

My edit

2.sniping response over trivia

3. Remove superfluous sentence

(a) Debresser broke my paragraph up into sentences. Acceptable. But this meant that the first sentence was detached from its source. Rather than check the source, (obligatory in my view if you meddle with a sourced text) he added a ^{[citation needed]} request. Absurd. The source is there, on the page.

(b) The superfluous sentence removed was

The first of the other Abrahamic religions to impose a distinctive mode of dress on Jews was Islam, beginning with decrees set forth by the Abbasid caliph Al-Mutawakkil obliging non-Muslims (dhimmis) to wear distinctive marks, -buttons on their caps, patches on their sleeves, and generally honey-coloured garbs,- on their clothing in order to mark them off from members of the Muslim communities.^[1]

Content dispute of course, but the ‘superfluous sentence’ cannot be this, which establishes the historical kernal, the origin of external imposition on Jews of discriminatory clothing. What was left in could be superfluous, in that it elaborates by an instance the principle cited. When Davidbena added (by copying and pasting from the Yemenite Jews page, without checking the sources, a WP:Undue addition to the superfluous sentence, silence. The key sentence is eliminated, two superfluous illustrations, one displaying ignorance of the topic, are permitted to remain. Sheer incompetence.

4. I restored this, indicating the error Debresser made. He had called for a citation when the citation already existed on the page because, I must assume, he didn't check or read the source given.

5. Debresser ignores my point that what he wanted sourced is already sourced, and reverts me again.

WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. He won't believe what I stated, which is however obvious. Technically this would be reportable as reverting without examining the source, and repeating the revert even after one had been notified. But I don't report people on principle.

I.e. twice Debresser created a problem, demanded I fix it, which I did fix it, he reverted that as well. Content dispute? No. Provocative carelessness? No. the problem is that I must not get frustrated at shockingly careless editing, and persist in being collegial.

The page still reads that a sourced piece of information is unsourced. Neither you nor Debresser want me on that page, and neither you nor Debresser for some days, have taken note that Debresser's double revert created a problem that didn't exist. So, fix it or tell someone on that page to do so.Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe if you 1) weren't so antagonistic, and 2) didn't paste such walls of text, people might listen more. It's just the way things go here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apropos, when things were more civil,a and I wasn't endlessly accused of anti-Semitism or being antagonistic. I was raised, as every serious orthodox Jew is raised, to think nothing of daily reading dozens of pages of difficult texts. So I don't take seriously anyone who complains that a few paragraphs is a strain on one's attention span. You should feel obliged to fix it because (a) you asked me not to contribute on Jewish topics some years ago, rather outrageously (b) do not want me on this page (c) have been informed that the page has two errors, one gross, and provided with the information to fix both. If you don't fix it, or alert editors that false information is on that page required adjustment, why are you editing here?Nishidani (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

a) I don't recall me asking you not to edit Jewish topics. b) It's not my page to tell you to stay or go. c) I'm not in charge of any page or its errors and I haven't interacted with you at all on that page about that edit so don't bring me into it. d)And again, there you go again with your antagonism. I edit here because I choose to. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the two of you have something to talk about, or talk past each other about, I am sure there are better places than Huldra's user talk page. Nishidani, I myself would say if somebody does not want to read a "wall of text" then editing an encyclopedia is probably not the best use of their time. But then again, what this has to do with Huldra or her talk page is not something I fully understand. nableezy - 19:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• User:Nishidani, with all respect: there are two reasons why I dislike swearwords, especially in public discourse.
• 1. I was brought up in a pretty religious household (though not as religious as my mothers siblings, where they all prayed together before dinner); if anyone had used a swearword half the household would have dropped dead of shock.
• 2. (Most importantly): I am concerned about the signal vs. noice ratio....I try my very best to have a high "signal rate", ie. get info into WP. I try my best to avoid the "dramah" boards, and other "time thieves". And using the f word (or c word)....that is pure "noice".
• Notes A: (Off course people have double standard: a quick search found Debresser using the f word several times. Pot.Kettle.Black. Alas, you didn't really expect anything else, did you?)
• Notes B: There have been rules about clothing since at least Roman times, when only certain people could use purple. In the town where I live there were lots of rules in the Middle Ages about "loose women" not being allowed to use colourful dresses, while, as I recall, the Kings in the 1500s were desperately (and mostly fruitlessly) forbidding the nobility to wear more than 3 gold necklaces (if I recall correctly), lots of laws about that.. Fascinating subject, and certainly not only something concerning Jews.Huldra (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. We should avoid at all costs the use of offensive language. I have never forgotten that when I was a small child and had said a bad word to my older sister, I was immediately rushed by mother into the bathroom where she washed out my mouth with soap.Davidbena (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huldra, you know I like you. And when I know people dislike certain language Ill try, not without fail, to mind my own. But the world is a big place, and people dont all have the same feelings on what is or is not "offensive". You and I grew up in very different times and places, and my experiences shape me just as yours shape you. I dont personally think a casual use of the f word is not offensive. Or the s word, or hell the c word (if we are talking about the same one). Really, outside of a very limited set of words (like the n-word and maybe one or two other ethnic slurs), I dont think it is reasonable to expect people on the internet to follow somebody's personal standards in language use. I say things to my closest friends that my mother would possibly murder me over. And I dont think those things are offensive at all (well some of them are, but still). What is "civil" depends entirely on the community in question, and in this community, on the internet, I dont think the use of a swear word can rightfully be called "uncivil". nableezy - 22:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nableezy, as I said; it isn't my personal feeling that is most important, it was my second point, namely the "noice" level it creates. And Wikipedia isn't just any internet site, like reddit, or imgur etc....we are (supposedly!) here to "build an encyclopaedia" etc, etc. I prefer to look upon this place as a (mini) UN, where people of completely different view points try to work out, eh, something. Telling people they are idiots (especially if they are!), or telling them their edits stinks is never helpful. And especially in "our field", (ie the I/P area), where a dozen editors watch your every edit, and some have a very short threshold for going to the "dramah" boards in order to "take out" "one of the enemy".

Look at it as a purely practical matter: using such language here, in the I/P area, inevitably brings on a lots and lots of "noice". (Just all the text written today about it proves that!) Is it worth it? I think not. Huldra (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(a)SJ.

'I don't recall me asking you not to edit Jewish topics.'

1 March 2017 And you shouldn't get too emotional about things, if you do, perhaps try to stay away from those areas that get you worked up. Focus away from Jews and switch to Australia

(b) To sum up, an attempt, one of several, made over the last years, to catch at a warning by Sandstein to get me permabanned simply because I, like the plaintiff, dropped the eff word at tendentiously obstructive edit-warring. It failed. Our admin raised legitimately the point that it is not best practice, not conducive to the collegial atmosphere required. The fundamental point about collegiality is using commonsense. The gravamen of everything is this. I wrote:

The Torah set forth rules for dress that set Jews apart from the communities in which they lived, . . .^[1]

Twice Debresser removed the source which warranted that generalization, and twice he tagged it with a citation needed notice. Even after strenuous collegial efforts to get Sir Joseph or Debresser to fix the blunder the latter made, it remains tagged.

The Torah set forth rules for dress that set Jews apart from the communities in which they lived,^{[citation needed]}

Days trying to get Debresser or Sir Joseph to fix this have failed. What the Italians call an impuntatura, stubbornly digging one’s heels in and refusing to fix per request an obvious error. Why. There is only one explanation. Nishidani wants that done, so even if he is right, don't fix it to do him a favour even if this means the article remains tainted with an improper tag. That, Dear GoldenRing is the collegial atmosphere in which people like myself are asked to work in here. Simple problems easily resolved with intelligence and good will develop into futilely humongous threads of ridiculous attitudinizing and second –guessing suspected motives (for eff’s sake:)). Nishidani (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you're still talking... I never asked you to stay away, as your comment points out, I suggested that if you get emotional, it might be better for you to step away, I never told you to. Secondly, you keep saying that you told me to fix errors on that page. As I keep pointing out, I was not involved, so stop bringing me up. That you are involved in an edit dispute with Debresser doesn't mean you are in an edit dispute with me. I have nothing to do with this. Secondly, I don't own that page. I know that's a foreign concept to you but people don't own pages and we don't have to edit if we don't want to. Notice how I got my point across in a couple of sentence? That's how it should be. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That you are involved in an edit dispute with Debresser doesn't mean you are in an edit dispute with me. I have nothing to do with this.

The first Latin dictum I memorized wsas:Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto. Debresser, like Davidbena, is of course watching this page. You edit that page. I've notified all three editors of an error. Silence. Collegality, yeah.

I rarely get 'emotional', except when listening to, say, the last bar of songs like this, reciting a poem or delivering a funeral oration. Just things like that. I grew up in far too tough a neighbourhood where the art of sledging one-upmanship was a craft practiced wittily by real masters of hurtful chiakking, and where serious fighting a regular feature, to take this intense world of petty bickering as anything more than a sad index of frailty. To suggest I get 'emotional' about 'Jews' is a deeply offensive insinuation that I am antisemitic.

The second point was that your remark suggesting I was being 'emotional' about Jewish topics looks projective, in so far as you later added:

people get worked up over lots of areas. I stopped following many pages when I couldn't help getting worked up

I certainly am aware that my demanding manner of getting things right, sources checked, and the exercise of logical judgement translates into coming over to many as a kind of second-hand rerun of the sniffish Kingsfield. But that can't be helped. I'm not here for social distraction, but to ensure strict quality control of articles and collegial hard work by fellow editors.

I was raised in the Judeo-Christian world, and therefore regard Jewish heritage to be an ineludible part of my life, that if it can be quantified half of my sense of modernity is informed by what I have learned from thinkers, writers and poets who happen to be Jewish. Being 'Jewish' to me is synonymous with an acute sense of being an outsider, never quite at home in any world yet comfortable with its diversity, and sensitive to discrimination. something I admire and hope to have absorbed, consolidating what has been a recognized part of my character since early childhood. Of course, there are as many kinds of 'Jew' as there are Jews, a formulation true of any ethnicity. So yes, I have an abiding attachment to understanding that, as I do the several other cultures I have studied in depth.

What is remarkable about much editing on Jewish topics on Wikipedia is that the quality of the articles is (a) poverty-stricken (b)dominated by a we against them suspiciousness (c)where editor-awareness of Jewish history is remarkably thin, surprisingly uninterested in the scholarship in the field (d) blinded by some confusion over a nation-state and Jews, as if they were interchangeable (e) as, as a consequence, tending to edit towards a collectivist vision of Jews in a way mirroring the collectivist identity impetus of any young nation (f) so the narrative of the past must emphasise anything conducive to a vision of the unity of a suffering minority against the murderousness of the goy majority until the redemption of normalcy emerging in the acquisition of one's own state solved the historical tragedy of righting the wrong performed in 70/135 CE. No one owns their ethnic culture, has proprietorial rights or can get away with the idea birthright means comprehensive insight. Joseph Conrad knew more about English prose and culture than 99% of solidly ethnic Englishmen.

All those ingredients are problematical, together they are a sure recipe for banality, at least to this cultural historian. In any case, you said in the first diff your belief is that editing in this area is frustrating because it's 'a numbers game and your side has the numbers which is why most IP articles are heavily biased, those are the rules.' If I believed that, I would never work talk pages so hard to try and get fellow editors to see past our POV residues into the heart of a topic. So I can't edit there, in this perspective, and even a polite note to fix a flaw will fall on deaf ears, for the numbers, here negative in my regard, decide what can and cannot be said, and in this case, that means the errors I spot, will not be corrected. Fine. Sorry for the extended thread here, Huldra. I have abused your hospitality.Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look at Al-Muharraqa. Maybe "Village" is less important than the color? Zero^talk 11:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Zero0000, definitely! Thanks, then that could be a solution. Huldra (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speaking of colors, I wonder if it is time to tone down the color of the navbox. Please compare Template:Palestinian_Arab_villages_depopulated_during_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus side-by-side with User:Zero0000/sandbox/Template:Palestinian_Arab_villages_depopulated_during_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus. Is the new version better? Zero^talk 12:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Zero0000 the new colour looks fine, IMO, Huldra (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed the URLs in the "govmap" line of the Israel pane, which didn't work for months. Zero^talk 12:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33

Yeah, well, I last got one of them from Icewhiz on 13 November 2018, I thought once a year was enough? Huldra (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right that one DS alert is sent per year. I just now saw that.Davidbena (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For good or bad, better or worse, I am submitting an Arbitration Enforcement (AE) against you, because of your POV edits (namely here) with respect to an article that remotely involves the Arab-Israeli conflict. The AE report has been filed here. Although I am not sure that the action that I am taking on AE is the proper venue (perhaps not), but at least I am confident that some action must be taken against you.Davidbena (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I raised a clarification request earlier this year[7] concerning an American Muslim Congresswoman where the dispute was a part of her article. The decision basically was that there's a distinction between "reasonably construed" and "broadly construed" and that articles such as the one I was concern with and the one you are concerned with are "broadly" hence 1RR doeen't apply. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Doug Weller, I don't understand one bit of this, except that an editor who made an obvious violation walked off scot free on a technicality: not very reassuring. And the issue of Solomon is very central to the Israeli settler movement on the West Bank: straight in the middle of the I/P conflict. That an editor who just come off a topic ban from the I/P area are not familiar with ARBPIA 1RR is not credible, to say the least. I have now added ((ARBPIA 1RR editnotice)) to the talk page: does that mean 1 RR is now in place? Huldra (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope. A pagenotice goes on the edit page when you click edit, and only an admin can add it, and it has to be logged properly. I am not sure that the page itself is under ARBPIA though regardless. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank for telling me about ((ARBPIA 1RR editnotice)), I didn't know. I have added an ((ARBPIA)) instead. See my above note on Solomon, Huldra (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Innocent me." Huldra, my advice to you is to stop trying to Game the system.Davidbena (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can't add that either, since per the last ruling, as your AE action stated, in order for the article to be under AE, an admin has to log the page, so the template will do nothing but confuse everyone. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If that is correct, then that is a huge new change. Than would mean that say, edits like this, by Shrike also would have to go, right? User:GoldenRing, User:Sandstein, is Sir Joseph correct? Huldra (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Pinging User:BU Rob13, too, Huldra (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No idea. Why don't you look it up? ArbCom decisions are made in writing. Sandstein 08:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed it. This is it's best for only an admin to place it. Without proper logging, it's not enforceable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this is the new rule, then it is absurd. I would guess that up to now more than 90% of ((ARBPIA)) notices have been placed by non−admins. Do admins suffer from a lack of work? Huldra (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I opposed this at ARCA. I do not think you are prevented from placing ARBPIA talk page banners (they are merely informative) and you can request the 1RR thing be placed at RfPP. However, I think I see eye to eye with you on the downsides of the new edit notice required rule. The page does not need to be DS logged - it just needs the ddit notice for this to be enforceable (1rr still apploes topic wide, but editors are considered uninformed absent an edit notice).Icewhiz (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Davidbena, you are very quickly reverting back to the behavior that saw you topic-banned. I would have hoped that would not happen so quickly. nableezy - 05:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles is an "authoritative compilation" of ARBPIA rulings. I don't see anything about logging page editnotices. It does say that 1RR cannot be enforced on pages without a ((ARBPIA 1RR editnotice)) (which goes on the article, not the talk page). However, my reading is that the 300/50 restriction does not need the editnotice. I don't know if only admins have the power to add editnotices; hit the full-page (not top section) edit link and see if a link "page notice" appears at the top right. If you can't do it, you can tell me what pages you think it is needed on. Zero^talk 18:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admins and template-editors can create or edit those page editnotices. nableezy - 18:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks to me that arb.com have introduced rules which contradicts each other. Look at the wording of Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice (that is, ((ARBPIA 1RR editnotice))), it says (under "Template documentation"): "Note that a lack of this template is not an indication that the article is not subject to the restriction."

Alas, here, on 14 March 2019 they add "This remedy may only be enforced on pages with the ((ARBPIA 1RR editnotice)) edit notice."

To me, this looks absurd, Huldra (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[8]. Zero^talk 04:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huldrra, User:Zero0000, I wasn't happy when I was told that 1RR only applies to articles that are clearly "reasonably construed" and not to articles where the dispute is not the main subject. I think that's wrong and in any case we should replace "reasonably construed" with something clearer. The long and short of it is that someone for instance changes locations within an article that in itself is irrelevant to the dispute we can do nothing about it. Even those where there is a section on the dispute cannot be put under ECP. This isn't like a topic ban which would cover such instances but I think it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 07:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Icewhiz, Sir Joseph, Davidbena, and Johnuniq:- Per the committee's recent motion, all of ARBPIA (reasonably construed) is under 1RR by dint of the committee's remedy, but it is only enforceable if the ((ARBPIA 1RR editnotice)) is in place. Note that this is quite different to other topics where discretionary sanctions are authorised, where an administrator might place a 1RR restriction on a particular page as a discretionary sanction. The effect of the editnotice is not to place a page under 1RR, but to make a 1RR that is already in place enforceable. An enforcing administrator can't just rely on the presence of the editnotice to determine that 1RR is in effect; they have to actually consider whether the page falls into the ARBPIA scope, reasonably construed.
The result of this is that any editor may place the ((ARBPIA 1RR editnotice)) template; again, this is different to other topics where only administrators can place a page under 1RR as a discretionary sanction.
I hope this is reasonably clear but I realise it's complicated. It's the result of trying many different variations on this remedy and I doubt that a perfect solution is possible. I don't expect to be online much between now and Tuesday, but please do follow up with any questions you have and I'll try to look in and answer them. GoldenRing (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, but there is still an issue regarding my question at your talk which mentions that the Arbcom motion included a statement suggesting that anyone could place the template (although someone who is not an admin and not a template editor would have to put the template on article talk as they could not put it in the article's WP:Editnotice). The problem is that the ARBPIA Index omits that statement from the motion. I believe the Index should be updated. Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, thank you for your reply, User:GoldenRing. I have made some comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests. Like Johnuniq, I am concerned about the lack of clarity about who can put what on talk pages. I was reverted after placing ((ARBPIA 1RR editnotice)), and I was reverted after placing a ((ARBPIA)) on an article, both because I am not an admin,

I am also very concerned about the "upping" the level of bureaucracy, as simple violation of 1RR no longer can be handled on AE in the great majority of cases, but instead has to be taken to ARCA. More about that on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests. Huldra (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Huldra, this is for your information: The modern moshav of Kfar Hananya, built one kilometer to the south of the Old Kefar Hanania (now Kafr 'Inan) is, obviously, not the same site as the older, although it bears the same name. We find this all over the country: The new Beitar Illit, named after the old Betar (now Bittir) are two different sites.Davidbena (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David you are missing the point. The Hebrew for Kfar Hananya belongs in the article Kfar Hananya. It does not belong wherever Kfar Hananya is mentioned. nableezy - 22:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Davidbena They are both spelled the same way, no? Huldra (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two identical spellings, but two different sites. The new name takes its name from the older name.Davidbena (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So? As Nableezy said, we dont add the Arabic name for Hebron each time we link to Hebron. Huldra (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kafr 'Inan happens to be an older Jewish site. What's the problem, Huldra? You don't like ancient Jewish sites?Davidbena (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you really making an accusation of racism for following the manual of style? User:Doug Weller, David seems to trust you. Is this sort of conduct acceptable? nableezy - 22:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Davidbena: I have a dislike for information which is "out of place": if someone had added a link to "Hebron (Arabic: الْخَلِيل)", I would have removed the Arabic. Huldra (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a discussion here on WP:DR to which you have been named as an involved person. Please check it out.Davidbena (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Huldra a request to resolve an edit dispute has been filed here with the WP:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We welcome your comments.Davidbena (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huldra, I wanted you to know that while we often disagree with each other on our edits, I am hopeful that one day we will learn to see eye-to-eye. Have you seen this video One Step Closer to Peace Among Israel & Palestine. Davidbena (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two men, one Muslim and one Jew....well, not being male, not being a Muslim and not being a Jew: I am afraid I got bored after less than 30 seconds, Huldra (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I saw you've started to work on the Tunshuk palace article and found some great sources about it. Do you want to publish it any time soon? Alaexis_¿question? 20:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi User:Alaexis, I plan to start an article on all the places mentioned in User:Huldra/Mamluk Jerusalem, that is, all the places mentioned in Burgoyne (if they don't have an article already) ...but the work progress slowly, as I have concentrated on finding pictures on commons, and for that, I need to "know" all the different buildings. (Typically, people have just taken pictures of a place, and then uploaded it to commons, without knowing the name of the building.) Please feel free to add anything to any of my [[User:Huldra/something]] article stubs! Including, of course, User:Huldra/Tunshuk Palace (I would love to have some help....) Huldra (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Just wanted to say that some of them already provide a lot of value and so would benefit from being published with people seeing them and trying to fill the blanks. Alaexis_¿question? 15:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Alaexis, I had hoped some of them (or many of them?) could be DYKs, they should be uncontroversial and interesting enough. Help to sorting the many pictures at commons would be greatly appreciated (or any other help, for that matter!), cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I just spent a couple of hours trying to sort out Dafna. Khirbet Dufnah is marked on the SWP map where Al-Shawka al-Tahta was later, about 1km to the north of where the village of Dafna was later. So I need to change some of what you added. Zero^talk 04:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I off course bow to your knowledge of maps! I see that on SWP 2 map the Kh. Dafnah was a bit further north than the Sanbaruyeh place, but I though it was a SWP 2 inaccuracy, Huldra (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Everything else in that region on both PEF and British maps lines up very nicely, and Khirbet Dufnah sits right on top of Al-Shawka al-Tahta. I've ordered an archaeological report that will hopefully provide more information. Zero^talk 03:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I've added Palmer to Al-Shawka al-Tahta, I'm not quite sure if it should still be in Dafna? Huldra (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advocating violence, as you did at Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  GoldenRing (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have also started a thread at WP:AN#Huldra proposing that you be site banned. You retain talk page access and can comment here; if you ping me, I will transcribe your comments to AN, or you may choose to ask another editor to do so. GoldenRing (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Reply[reply]

This user is asking that her block be reviewed:

Huldra (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

User:GoldenRing: I was blocked for two diffs, one is this: "Being an armed American in the US is different from being an armed American in, say, Iraq, wouldn't you say? I would look upon any armed American in my country (who wasn't there by invitation of an legitimate government) as an legitimate target... " I stand fully behind this statement. When armed Germans came to my country, uninvited, in 1940, my father took up arms against them. So would I do to any foreign invader, German, Russian..or American, who came here uninvited. (Of course I would not take up arms agains anyone who are here at my government invitation, and NATO soldiers are here all the time, training: that is a totally different issue.) The whole question is wether they are here by invitation of a legitimate government, or not. By international law, I have the right to defend myself against any illegal invasion.

The other diff is unfortunately worded, I changed it within a minute to this: "And shouldn't armed settlers be legitimate targets?". Mind you, I am asking a question. So no, I am not "advocating violence", but as one who grew up with parents much affected by the Nazi occupation: I am advocating my right (and anyones elses right) to oppose any illegal occupation. And again, to repeat: according to international law, I have a right to do this, Huldra (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

((Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=:[[User:GoldenRing]]: I was blocked for two diffs, one is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=896348522 this]: '''"Being an armed American in the US is different from being an armed American in, say, Iraq, wouldn't you say? I would look upon ''any'' armed American in my country (who wasn't there by invitation of an legitimate government) as an legitimate target... "''' I stand fully behind this statement. When armed Germans came to my country, uninvited, in 1940, my father took up arms against them. So would I do to ''any'' foreign invader, German, Russian..or American, who came here uninvited. (Of course I would not take up arms agains anyone who are here at my government invitation, and NATO soldiers are here all the time, training: that is a totally different issue.) The whole question is wether they are here by invitation of a legitimate government, or not. '''By international law, I have the right to defend myself against any illegal invasion'''. :The other [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=896346245 diff] is unfortunately worded, I changed it within a minute to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions&diff=next&oldid=896346358 this]: "And shouldn't armed settlers be legitimate targets?". Mind you, I am asking a question. So no, I am not "advocating violence", but as one who grew up with parents much affected by the Nazi occupation: I am advocating my right (and anyones elses right) to oppose ''any'' illegal occupation. '''And again, to repeat: according to international law, I have a right to do this''', [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra#top|talk]]) 13:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~))

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting ((subst:Decline reason here)) with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

((unblock reviewed |1=:[[User:GoldenRing]]: I was blocked for two diffs, one is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=896348522 this]: '''"Being an armed American in the US is different from being an armed American in, say, Iraq, wouldn't you say? I would look upon ''any'' armed American in my country (who wasn't there by invitation of an legitimate government) as an legitimate target... "''' I stand fully behind this statement. When armed Germans came to my country, uninvited, in 1940, my father took up arms against them. So would I do to ''any'' foreign invader, German, Russian..or American, who came here uninvited. (Of course I would not take up arms agains anyone who are here at my government invitation, and NATO soldiers are here all the time, training: that is a totally different issue.) The whole question is wether they are here by invitation of a legitimate government, or not. '''By international law, I have the right to defend myself against any illegal invasion'''. :The other [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=896346245 diff] is unfortunately worded, I changed it within a minute to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions&diff=next&oldid=896346358 this]: "And shouldn't armed settlers be legitimate targets?". Mind you, I am asking a question. So no, I am not "advocating violence", but as one who grew up with parents much affected by the Nazi occupation: I am advocating my right (and anyones elses right) to oppose ''any'' illegal occupation. '''And again, to repeat: according to international law, I have a right to do this''', [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra#top|talk]]) 13:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC) |decline = ((subst:Decline reason here)) ~~~~))

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

((unblock reviewed |1=:[[User:GoldenRing]]: I was blocked for two diffs, one is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=896348522 this]: '''"Being an armed American in the US is different from being an armed American in, say, Iraq, wouldn't you say? I would look upon ''any'' armed American in my country (who wasn't there by invitation of an legitimate government) as an legitimate target... "''' I stand fully behind this statement. When armed Germans came to my country, uninvited, in 1940, my father took up arms against them. So would I do to ''any'' foreign invader, German, Russian..or American, who came here uninvited. (Of course I would not take up arms agains anyone who are here at my government invitation, and NATO soldiers are here all the time, training: that is a totally different issue.) The whole question is wether they are here by invitation of a legitimate government, or not. '''By international law, I have the right to defend myself against any illegal invasion'''. :The other [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=896346245 diff] is unfortunately worded, I changed it within a minute to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions&diff=next&oldid=896346358 this]: "And shouldn't armed settlers be legitimate targets?". Mind you, I am asking a question. So no, I am not "advocating violence", but as one who grew up with parents much affected by the Nazi occupation: I am advocating my right (and anyones elses right) to oppose ''any'' illegal occupation. '''And again, to repeat: according to international law, I have a right to do this''', [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra#top|talk]]) 13:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~))

You are still arguing that any American carrying a weapon outside of America is a legitimate target for violence unless a government has specifically invited them. Do you not see the problem with that? GoldenRing (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:GoldenRing I am of course not advocating violence against them if they are carrying weapons in a legitimate manner, ie according to local law. (Ie, I believe when high ranking American politicians visit my country, they often bring with them armed body guards: I would obviously not advocate violence against them.) As Zero said: I was arguing about occupation, and resisting occupation. Huldra (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Everything she has written is in direct reference to resisting an illegal occupation. Zero^talk 13:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am very strongly in favor of replacing this block by stern advice to avoid forum-like arguments in the future. I've known Huldra for a long time and, while she has her political opinions like everyone else here, advocating violence against civilians is not in her nature. Zero^talk 13:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]