Welcome!

Hello, Sceptic Ashdod, 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! Nableezy (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sceptic, I hope you are not too upset with my perhaps overly bold split of the international law section, but the split is not over. We need to make a better summary and your help in that will be instrumental. But it really is not a big deal if it is not perfect right now. The reason I did the split is that there have been many times where a proposal for a major change had all the support it needed but nobody wanted to actually make the edit. I am not that bashful, so on occasion I went ahead and made the edit, and it has worked out well a number of times, the prime example is this monster edit to the casualties section that I am almost certain would never have gotten done if I didnt do it then. I guess my point is if you are upset just chill and lets get a better summary together. Sound good? nableezy - 05:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptic, this talk page is getting pretty long, think it is about time you started archiving your talk page. You can do it manually (I do) or use a bot (there are a few out there, if you want help setting it up let me know). nableezy - 01:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know how do you do it manually. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 02:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just start a new page at User talk:Sceptic Ashdod/Archive 1 and cut and paste what you want to archive from here to there. At the top of the archive page put the following:
{{talkarchive}} {{atn}}.
On this page put this at the top:
{{archive box collapsible|auto=long}}
Thats it. nableezy - 03:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Gibberish to me, but I'll try. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astonished, but seems that it worked. Thanks a lot. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I agree that Kemp is an important personality and his views should be given considerable weight. That's why I inserted one his quotes concerning IDF efforts to minimize casualties in the Cast Lead article. Unfortunately, many of my edits are deleted or modified for no apparent reason other than bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiujitsuguy (talk • contribs) 02:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are reasons and before just reverting and declaring an intention to edit war you may want to try and hear what those reasons are. nableezy - 03:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys,

• as you might noticed, i was absent for a couple of days and probably won't return to normal activities before the end of Yom Kippur. hope you'll do the job to preserve the articles we're working on.
• i don't know what is the actual reason this discussion appeared on my talk page, but indeed much criticism is spilt nowadays on the Goldstone mission for cherrypicking some witnesses and dismissing others (as well as lack of transparency, over-reliance on not so credible Palestinian witnesses (Abd Rabbo case) and so on and so forth). Speaking of Kemp, he was mentioned in the Australian lawer's submission, bullet #55. They also mention NGOs, #42-43. I also encourage you to read the answer of Goldstone to the question why he left the colonel out.
• Also, i ask you to consider the following criticism from JCPA researcher (original publication is here. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

g'mar chatimah tovah (hope thats right) nableezy - 18:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walla (expression of amazement, etc)! You did it again - surprised me. Thank u. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your talk through editsummaries is not nice. I suggest you do not write paternalistic nor directive. -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that is because I'm the hasbara member, POV-pusher and all of my edits serve Israeli-advocacy agenda and should be reverted once and for all. Isn't it time you make an application to the Human Rights Council, I guess they too believe that criticizing Israel is not antisemitism. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 18:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wait, are you saying that criticizing Israel is by it's very nature antisemitism? 76.105.211.28 (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is "Maybe"? -DePiep (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put a question about your behaviour [here]. -DePiep (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

→"are you saying that criticizing Israel is by it's very nature antisemitism?" - no. Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction -- out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East -- is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your "But ..." is your way to get anywhere. -DePiep (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your quality of editing is questionable today. I fixed it but dont think its my work to remove it. Try to not see it as your mission to "cast doubt on the committee's proceedings". I dont agree in your following comment at all.Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to disagree with my edits, but there's nothing you can do to stop the mission to insert valuable and well-sourced and attributed info into the articles I edit. I outlasted Cryptonio and I think I can withstand your challenges too. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unintended Im sure, unless you've become convinced that the article is about the Goldstone report and would prefer to change the name. nableezy - 06:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is always in the middle. As noted before, the "Goldstone report" redirects to UNFFMGC entry - and I see it as fine compromise between the desire of some editors to meet the reality and the concern of others (including myself) to preserve the structure and the contents. Apart from that, I don't have any problem to refer to it as "Goldstone report", not in the edit summaries and not in the body of the entries. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole Goldstone thing is much ado about nothing. It will be vetoed by the U.S. at the Security Council and that will be the end of that. The most that the PA can hope for is a General Assembly resolution, which means nothing.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your concerns (which I share) concerning the WP section as well as the concerns of another editor who echoed your sentiment, I reverted the entire section. However, as expected, I was reverted. I then changed tactics and rather than deleting the entire section, I changed the WP section as follows here This version was more concise, had more sources, was more balanced and neutral. Regretfully, this version too was reverted. If you agree with my change, please act accordingly.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

אני רוצה להתחיל להשתתף במאמרים שקשורים לישראל, בעיקר במה שקשור לישראל מול הפלסטינים. אני לא יודע מאיפה להתחיל אבל אני מבין שאתה כבר בעניינים. חוץ מזה, אני מוסיף תרגום של מה שכתבתי פה בעברית, כדי שלא יאשימו אותי (שוב) בשימוש בשפה שאינה אנגלית בלי תרגום.

Translation:

I wish to take part in the writing and editing of Israel related articles (espcially Israel vs. Palestinian ones). I understand that you are already into the buisness while I've no idea where to start from. Would be thankful for any guiding.--Gilisa (talk) 09:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Richard Goldstone. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Your comment in edit summary "UNHRC's bias is a fact, 26 out of 32 resolutions against Israel" is a classic example of unpublished synthesis. Please do not insert uncomplimentary characterisations without citing a reliable source RolandR 15:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't add original research. The warning you had is not valid as he backedup his assertions with a reliable (however Zionist) source. --Gilisa (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote, his addition was "a classic example of unpublished synthesis". RolandR 22:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RolandR, You didn't support your addition with a source as well.--Gilisa (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which addition are you talking about? RolandR 10:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

→I edited the sentence once again, using words from the article's text (like this one: "he did not defend Israel against the Human Rights Council onslaught"). Roland, pls next time you have a comment about my edits, use the talk page of the entry. I'm not such a great sinner (yet) to be reprimanded after the 1st sign of trouble. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look again: Israel is the victim, not the root of all evil

Chief Rabbi Dr. Warren Goldstein Inaugural Address]. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might be interested to see this quote about Melanie Phillips from none other than Alan Dershowitz:

"I support its liberal policies... if Israel were to turn against these values— if it were to become an oppressive theocracy, like all Muslim countries today, that subjugates women, discriminates against gays and subjects science to religious censorship— I would become extremely critical of any such nation. Israel will never become such a country because, fortunately, the vast majority of Israelis reject the extremist views of Melanie Phillips."

Pexise (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was aware of the animosity between the two. I am also aware - and I guess you do to - about Dershowitz's opinions on Finkelstein. But that proves nothing. Neither of the 3 is beyond criticism, nor is Goldstone. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 03:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed it seems we're simply restating ourselves in the discussion about what is appropriate to include in the Opposition to Robinson Medal of Freedom section. I sought assistance in a third opinion on Wikipedia policy or direction to somewhere where we could get comments from User:Sean.hoyland (since he has been another editor of the article). The discussion is here and I wanted to let you know. Thanks,--149.166.35.137 (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All wars continue for a while after a ceasefire. In the case of the Gaza War, the war continues in the media. You've helped stopped this site from becoming Wikipropaganda. Great work -- you are a modern day maccabbe! Theonlyedge (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this, it gives strength to know the efforts were not in vain. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 18:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the debate about the report continues and grows, I'm troubled that the structure of the article is flawed, as it gives equal weight to in-depth analyses and off-the-cuff op-eds. I'm not sure what the best solution would be, and I was wondering if you have any suggestions. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need more time to think it over. At the very least, it can be stressed in the lead that several critical analyses were published in the course of last months - Halevi, MERIA (Landes), ECLJ, Dershovitz. I also feel obliged to put Chatham report, follow the talk page. I'll proceed whenever I can to insert excerpts of those analyses next to Goldstone proceedings and findings. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 19:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished the Maariv article you put up here "Goldstone is the criminal" Very good reading. Thanks for posting. Stellarkid (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear to be that you have used this IP address to continue in edit-warring United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. Do not do that again, or you will be blocked for edit-warring and sock puppetry. Regards, –MuZemike 18:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey can you instead of removing material "not supported by source" place a "citation needed" template? The reason why I ask is because many people edit these articles and sometimes citations are misplaced, just put the tag and and give it some time for editors to place the correct citation. Thank you. Cryptonio (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, MuZemike, it wasn't me. Not my style. But it is true we're engaged there in edit-warring. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 02:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply reading the article and the text was wrong—it said that these cities were hit for the first time (ever), and this is clearly incorrect in the case of Ashkelon. The entire sentence could be re-worded so that Ashkelon is included, but I believe it's good the way it is, as it is important to emphasize that numerous major localities were hit for the first time. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're well. nableezy - 15:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alive yes, but who said I'm well? thanks for greetings anyway. Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope you’re as well as anybody can be anyway. nableezy - 04:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You probably know most of this stuff, but bringing you up to date, awareness, blah blah... Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll do my best Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]