User talk:Israguy

Hello

This edit indicates a familiarity with Wiipedia syntax and procedures that is uncommon for a user whose account is two days old. May I ask if you have edited here before and if so, what the name of your other account is? Tiamut^talk 19:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited in the past, few years ago, but not on the english version. I didn't have a User at that time. Israguy (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About your comment on my talk page ... If there are specific issues you want to discuss concerning article content, please raise them at the talk page. Tiamut^talk 21:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before making any other edits to the article, would you mind addressing my comments on the talk page? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 17:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Israguy (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You restored all your edits again, without addressing my latest comments on the talk page. Would you mind always checking the talk page and responding to my comments before editing the article? It will help us to avoid an edit war and hopefully lead to us agreeing on how to proceed. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 15:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm sorry if I missed any of your comments on the talk page. I will take a look at it right now. Israguy (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im Tirtzu

Regarding "Organizations: this cite is not relevant to this artice. Link to Im Tirtzu's official web site can be found in the article about Im Tirtzu.". It is relevant and required by policy. Linking to Wikipedia articles can't be used to provide WP:V compliance. If we say something in article X the citation needs to be in article X. There is no reason to believe that the citation in the linked article will remain there. Articles are independent and each article must fully comply with policy. Please self revert and restore the inline citation. I cannot revert because the article is under an 1RR restriction. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, maybe the correct solution is to remove the word "Zionist" alltogether? Since Im Tirtzu are independent and can someday stop being zionist. The section is about their new campain, not what the Organization's mission is. What do you think? Israguy (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, being zionist is something important to them, their self identification and the nature of the organization. I think people are still allowed to be zionists nowadays :) it's not a pejorative term (although some seem to think it is). Removing it seems to reduce the information content of the passage a little bit rather than aid understanding. I don't have strong feelings about it. Maybe we should move this discussion to the article talk page and let others chip in ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, there are 13 parties in the Israeli Knesset. At least 9 out of them will say they are zionists. But, some are left-wing, and some are right-wing. My point is: "zionist" is not a specific definition for Im Tirtzu. It is too general, and in that way - makes the use of it, in this article, misleading. Israguy (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]