Welcome!

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

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  And Shalom! IZAK 08:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives
Shuki/Archive1 Shuki/Archive2 Shuki/Archive3 Shuki/Archive4

I'm pretty sure Maimonides, Avrohom Elyashiv, and Shlomo Amar practiced Judaism. You know, the whole rabbi thing. Parthian Scribe 09:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

totally redundant cat. --Shuki (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In several recent changes you made you used inappropriate sources. For instance, to show that Yediot Aharonot is "Pro-Livni" (which was probably IMHO the most reasonable statement of them) you bring something that Uzi Mahnaimi wrote in passing in the times (which was started as "Observers speculated"). This is not appropriate source for the claim. For such a claim you should bring either explicit endorsement in the editorial of the paper or evaluations by media critics. You did similar things (only with worse sources) in trying to show that Meretz is "far left" and for Moshe Feiglin to "show" that his action are civil disobedience. Please stop and debate in each talk page the merits of the claim you are trying to insert. Mashkin (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:2009 IDF T-Shirt controversy, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Cerejota (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is weird. That information was certainly not there when I made the edit. --Shuki (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that in order not to be close to violating Wikipedia:Three-revert rule (you have reverted three times) you will return the page to the version without the claim. Mashkin (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that it is you who have to be careful not to rv this time. I have a feeling that someone will do the work for you, right?

Your problem is that you don't even want to compromise. Your POV blinds you into not accepting legitimate edits on this article and others. No article is owned by any editor no matter how much they think they are an expert on the subject. If another editor adds sourced information, especially from various WP:RS, you can't merely delete it because you choose. In this case, if you insist on proving that Meretz is not a far-left party and that the sources I've brought are plainly wrong, then you must bring sourced evidence to prove otherwise. Instead of contributing, you choose to delete others. --Shuki (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit summary to Mechinat Rabin in which you removed external links to news articles in the electronic media, you used the term "linkspam". I would suppose this [derogatory, pejorative term refers to links deemed superfluous, but would you kindly explain to me how this relates to Wikipedia editing policy? I was the one who created the page and included those links as Further reading (not references), and did not know that they're invalid as your removal seems to indicate. The references I used to create the page are websites and duly cited. Since in the past I've noted editors remove page content according to their personal interpretations and judgment regardless of WP policy, I need to where this edit stands, on what grounds. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 11:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When editing WP, we have to think about the long-term future of the article. If you must link to other news articles, I suggest you add part of this information into the body of the article and reference to that. As it is, extensive weight has been given to this one subject in the article and it has virtually nothing to do with the school. Claim to fame is the actions of two students? Please read WP:ONEEVENT. On top of that, a wikinews article has been created. Your further reading should be moved to there. --Shuki (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation; these aspects of editing are new to me. Your "two students" query (based only on a later reference, appended from a single article?) fails to take into account the level and extent of those involved in this story as it developed over the course of a month,as I hoped would be clear from the initial content of the page: a graduates' meeting at which combat in Gaza was discussed, the program director (himself an IDF reserves officer) who has educated hundreds of IDF soldiers and officers during the past decade, two high-ranking officers responsible for the IDF and education, broad news coverage on a controversial aspect of the problematic Gaza conflict that involved thousands of soldiers and touched upon their families' and Israeli society's concerns. I still find the term "linkspam" objectionable and insulting, difficult to reconcile with acknowledgement on the deleting editor's part of the good faith efforts I made, as might have been but wasn'ty evinced by an explanation on the article's Talk page or my own. Hence my approach to you here.-- Deborahjay (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the term WP:LINKSPAM is derogatory at all and stand by my use of the term. I would understand that having someone edit your writing might be offensive, but I just want to clean up the article. Frankly, I don't identify with the school but it does not mean I don't care about the quality of the article. IMO, the main body should also be chopped up. Currently, it reads like an informational pamphlet with non-notable information like the part of about dormitory conditions. Frankly, most might say that the school itself is non-notable and ONEEVENT. Maybe we should take this to the Israel project page? Personally, I tend to want to see short articles on educational institutions. --Shuki (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the WP:LINKSPAM description and it seems quite clearly limited to external links that are essentially promotional material. The external links in Mechinat Rabin are to media reports about the controversy instance, and are simply many. Your "standing by [your] use of the term" doesn't indicate suitable reading comprehension on your part for someone who's going to "correct" other editors. The article needs restructuring, which I would welcome as it isn't my strong point. As in general I'm an inclusionist and have a great deal of professional experience writing about Israel for overseas audiences, that's usually the guideline along which I provide content. As for the links to news material, I think (and will note this on the Talk page) that these should be winnowed to include only those dealing with the Mechinah itself. That's about it for now; hope I've made my position clearer. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole issue seems to have been blown out of proportion entirely given that it was a non story. The NPOV in me sees this two week one event issue removed from the article entirely, the POV in me says keep it up because it shows an example of a kooky thing that happened there and how the head of the school went out of his way to blacken the image of the army and Israel. --Shuki (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is a revealing testament to your personal judgment that evidently underlies your edits as well as your understanding of what's relevant to Israeli society (an issue of interest to the English-language readership as demonstrated by the amount of media coverage devoted to it daily, not so?). You call "Nonstory" an issue with major headlines and a broad-ranging series of followup articles in both the Israeli and international press (still in progress; watch the weekend papers). The matter of Purity of Arms and the IDF code of conduct are crucial fundamentals of Israeli society directly affecting innumerable people on all sides of the conflict. This particular flareup started with the Rabin Mechinah but its influence is not restricted to that program. As for your interpretation of Danny Zamir's motives, it's just that—and I can assure you that the opposite (as he avers) is just as likely or even more true than your personal (and clearly antipathetic) opinion: why not believe and report that he acted out of intense concern for the wellbeing of IDF soldiers? I and others will do further edits to rectify the proportions of this incident on the page as it relates to the topic. The page is a work in progress. -- Deborahjay (talk) 04:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your behavior is abusive and not appropriate for Wikipedia. You are trying to insert various things to the Sasson Report and to the Meretz. Given that there is opposition to those changes, you have to discuss them in the talk page. Instead you repeatedly make the changes to the article itself. Needless to say, you can't declare unilaterally that the discussion is over. Please stop or I will have to complain about your behavior. Mashkin (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mashkin, who's being abusive? Please quote the WP policies where it states that I need to justify each edit I make that you oppose. Before you complain, I suggest that you read up on editing WP first. One of the cardinal policies of WP is that you don't own the articles. Please read up on policies. --Shuki (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply read the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and see how things should work. In all the discussion or attempted discussions you keep making claims and assertions that are wildly besides the point. Mashkin (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit in Avidgor Lieberman [1] is clearly bad faith as you say " Mashkin, like you claim, first discuss on talk page)" There was an extensive discussion on the talk page how to phrase the Kach membership and this is the agreement. You are clearly admitting that you are reverting just to get back at what you precieve as my stuboorn edits in other pages. This is a bad fath edit. Mashkin (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of bad faith is actually contrary to WP:AGF. I'm sorry that you assume that you are right all the time. You know, many good admins also started off with your aggressive attitude but learned how to settle disputes in a good way. I wish you luck. --Shuki (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Assume Good Faith" policy is precisely why your behavior is so egregious. This is the underlying assumption of the operation of Wikipedia and you are abusing it by operating in bad faith and advertising this fact by saying that your edit is just to annoy me. Mashkin (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting words in my mouth? Pathetic. --Shuki (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]