User talk:Jacob D

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF). About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Your edits at Balfour

I suggest you read the following:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#ARBPIA_sanctions
• McMahon–Hussein_Correspondence#List_of_British_interpretations_over_time
• Talk:Mandatory Palestine/FAQ

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You might read the third of these again - the “Jordan is Palestine” trope seems to have come up again in one of your comments.

Looking at your edit history, you have the potential to be a great editor, as your edits are often precise and well worded. However, it is very rare to see you referring to sources in your edits or talk page comments. Sources are the bedrock of everything written here, and should be used to back up every statement you make.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:The notion that "Jordan is Palestine" is not a "trope" if one is talking about the period in which Palestine was being organized into a definitive, defined territory under British mandate. There are ample sources to back it up.

1. See, for instance, Article 25 of the 1922 Palestine Mandate document (also referred to in the Trans-Jordan Memorandum):

"In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined..."

This is a clear indication that the Jordan River was not, as yet, seen as the eastern boundary of Palestine, and that Palestine was seen as including land beyond the Jordan.

2. See also the terminology used in the Interim Report on the Civil of Administration of Palestine, during the period 1st July, 1920 - 30th June, 1921.

"Included in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania."

"When Palestine west of the Jordan was occupied by the British Army...", which implies that Palestine includes territory east of the Jordan.

3. See further the Palestine Order in Counicil, August 22, which explicitly citing Trans-Jordan as a territory of Palestine, while making distinction for administrative purpose. https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/C7AAE196F41AA055052565F50054E656

"This Order In Council Shall Not Apply To Such Parts Of The Territory Comprised In Palestine To The East Of The Jordan And The Dead Sea As Shall Be Defined By Order Of The High Commissioner."

4. See further the British White Paper of June 1922, regarding the British pledge for Arab independence:

"The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir. Henry McMahon's pledge."

A clear indication that Palestine did include territory EAST of the Jordan.

5. See further pg. 28 of the 1937Britsh royal Report on Palestine:

"...Abdullah, had become Emir of the part of historic Palestine east of the Jordan which was allotted under the name of Trans-Jordan to the area of Arab independence, in accordance with the "McMahon Pledge"".

http://biblio-archive.unog.ch/Dateien/CouncilMSD/C-495-M-336-1937-VI_EN.pdf

6. The actual fixing of a boundary within the Palestine Mandate was as an ADMINISTRATIVE division, between the area to be granted for Arab indepndence and the area in which the Jewish National Home was to be established.

See, thus pg. 38 of the above report:

"The field in which the Jewish National Home was to be established was understood, at the time of the Balfour Declaration, to be the whole of historic Palestine, and the Zionists were seriously disappointed when Trans-Jordan was cut away from that field under Article 25. This was done, as has been seen, in obedience to the McMahon Pledge, which was antecedent to the Balfour Declaration."

7. See further in that regard the Report on Palestine Administration, 1922.

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/A682CABF739FEBAA052565E8006D907C

"Following a memorandum presented by His Majesty's Government in September to the League of Nations, a resolution was passed by the Council of the League to exclude Transjordan from the Articles of the Mandate which concern the Holy Places and the measures to be taken in concert with the Jewish Agency for the establishment of a Jewish National Home.

The Order in Council also contains a provision that it shall not apply to the Transjordan territory."

8. See further the explanation of Herbert Samuel for the reason behind the administrative separation between Palestine and Transjordan, i.e. in order to satisfy both the Balfour Declaration and promises made to Hussein for Arab independence.

https://www.jta.org/1936/12/20/archive/sir-herbert-samuel-explains-separation-of-palestine-transjordan

Some relevant maps:

1. A map of Palestine from 1901 showing territory in Transjordan included in the area of Palestine. http://www.britishempire.co.uk/images2/palestinemap1901.jpg

2. See also the map of Palestine in the 1911 Edition of Encyclopedia and the text of the article regarding bounndaries.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Palestine

"Eastward there is no such definite border. The River Jordan, it is true, marks a line of delimitation between Western and Eastern Palestine; but it is practically impossible to say where the latter ends and the Arabian desert begins."

3. A British Cabinet map from 1921, showing Palestine incorporating some area beyond the Jordan.

http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Middle_East_in_1921%2C_UK_Government_map%2C_Cab24-120-cp21-2607.jpg

4. A map presented by T.E. Lawrence at 1918, showing a thin sliver of Trans-Jordanian territory included in Palestine.

http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Lawrence_of_Arabia%27s_map%2C_presented_to_the_Eastern_Committee_of_the_War_Cabinet_in_November_1918.jpg

Please let me know if you require more references in support of the fact that during the period in question Palestine WAS seen as including Trans-Jordanian territory, and that the establishment of a boundary at the Jordan River was an administrative boundary within Mandatory Palestine demarcating the area of the Jewish National Home from the autonomous Arab territory in Transjordan.

Jacob D (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Jacob D

Do you have any comments on the sources I pointed you to? Wasserstein for example explicity states that this theme is propaganda nonsense.

On the ones you have brought:

• The documents you referred to can only be understood in the wider context at the time. See British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)#Key_Mandate_dates_from_assignment_to_coming_into_effect. Note in particular in April 1921, following the March 1921 Cairo Conference (1921), Transjordan was made an Arab emirate. All the documents you brought from post that date are therefore irrelevant.
• The British position in 1919 is set out clearly here: [1]
• The 1936 Herbert Samuel source was clear that Transjordan was not included in Palestine
• As to your map links, you’ll see that I uploaded two of them myself. On the first, this is one person’s cultural definition, one of hundreds on the region - and are you really saying you think Damascus is in Palestine? On the second, same issue - cultural and irrelevant. On the third and fourth, these are roughly drawn illustrative maps, and even if you took them at literal value, you’d still conclude that we’re talking about s tiny 2-3% of modern Jordanian territory.

Either way, all of this is original research. We are not allowed to do that here; this conversation is a good example of why not.

Please comment on the high quality secondary sources provided in my link above. The first six sources at the San Remo conference article are worth reading too.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Jacob, Back when "Palestine" was not a precisely defined region, maps showed lots of different things. To illustrate how shaky your case based on maps is, here is a map showing the UK War Office's concept of "Palestine" in 1918. Of course there are other maps showing other extents, but it is important to remember that carefully worded public statements like BD were not intended to be precise. They were deliberately imprecise so as to allow flexibility in implementation. The actual meaning of the word "Palestine" in BD is "whatever we will decide it to mean". Zero^talk 00:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:You ask: "Do you have any comments on the sources I pointed you to? Wasserstein for example explicity states that this theme is propaganda nonsense."

I find it curious that you would use Wasserstein's statement, made in recent times and specifically employed as a counter to an ideology ("Greater Israel") that he disagrees with, as though it somehow invalidates the statements made in the historial documentation I supplied...all of which would indicate that prior to the LoN Mandate of Palestine taking legal effect, (a) Palestine was not yet seen as a territory with fixed boundaries, and (b)was seen as including territory (of undefined scope) beyond the Jordan.

But since we are on the subject of secondary sources from the list that you mention, why not also cite the statement from Gideon Biger?

"After the decision to separate western Palestine from Trans-Jordan was reached, it took more than a year until the question of the borderline’s precise location was addressed."

Note that the distinction made here is between western Palestine and Trans-jordan, not Palestine and Trans-Jordan.

You then write: "Note in particular in April 1921, following the March 1921 Cairo Conference (1921), Transjordan was made an Arab emirate. All the documents you brought from post that date are therefore irrelevant."

However in March-April 1921, the distinction made between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was purely an administrative one, not a legal one formally creating two separate entities. As such, a British memorandum from March 1921 laying the groundwork for this adminstrative division states the following:

"Further, His Majesty's Government have been entrusted with the Mandate for "Palestine". If they wish to assert their claim to Trans-Jordan and to avoid raising with other Powers the legal status of that area, they can only do so by proceeding upon the assumption that Trans-Jordan forms part of the area covered by the Palestine Mandate."

Going back to the year prior, when the Mandate was assigned, perhaps a map pertaining to the 1920 Treaty of Sevres is relevant here. The map, indicating the period prior to the Mandates coming into effect, shows Syria including Lebanon as an undifferentiated region, and northern Palestine without a hard boundary with Trans-jordan.

https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/images/1/14/TreatyOfSevresMapOfTurkey.gif

Next you show a British memorandum by Sir Erle Richards from 1919. http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/British_Memorandum_on_Palestine_1919.jpg

However, the text of this memorandum shows that in 1919 Palestine was not yet conceived as a definitive territory with fixed boundaries separate from Transjordan. The text qualifies the description of Palestine's scope as being "for the purposes of this memorandum". Accordingly, the Biblically defined "Dan to Beersheba" description of Palestine cited in this memorandum, excluding most of the Negev from the definition of Palestine, was no longer applicable once the boundaries of Palestine were later formally defined. Likewise, the memorandum states that "the eastern boundary is more difficult to determine". The desire of the author to limit a future eastern boundary of Palestine to the Jordan River is explicitly linked to preventing Zionist claims on land east of the Jordan, while satisfying Arab claims there. And please note, the text implies the fixing of boundaries in the future, not existing in the present:

"It is assumed however, for the purposes of this memorandum, that the Jordan and the Dead Sea will form the frontier on the east."

That would indeed become relevant to the drafting of the Mandate of Palestine document and Trans-Jordan Memorandum. However, when the text of the Mandate of Palestine was drawn up (24 July 1922), it still alluded in Article 25 to Palestine beyond the Jordan and referred to the eastern boundaries of Palestine as not yet being fixed. The Trans-Jordan Memorandum was added later (23 September 1922). This document, however, did not serve to add Trans-Jordan to the Mandate; it served to "postpone or withold application" of certain provisions of the Palestine Mandate in "the territory of Trans-Jordan" (implying that Trans-Jordan was already regarded as an integral part of the Palestine Mandate), and to define its boundaries. The provisions in question relate to the Jewish National Home, which the Mandatory did not want to apply to Trans-Jordan....but with the caveat that the British Government "undertake that such provision as may be made for the administration of that territory in accordance with Article 25 of the Mandate shall be in no way inconsistent with those provisions of the Mandate which are not by this resolution declared inapplicable". Hence, the remaining articles of the Palestine Mandate would continue to apply in Transjordan, and the entire Mandate (including all provisions pertaining to the Jewish National Home) would continue to apply in Palestine WEST of the Jordan.

Finally, you claim regarding map links that "either way, all of this is original research. We are not allowed to do that here". Really? I think the bulk of the map and documentary evidence shows that during the period in which the Balfour Declaration was conceived, planned, issued, and formalized as part of the LoN Mandates policy, Palestine was NOT seen as defined territory with its eastern boundary fixed on the Jordan River, and Trans-Jordan was NOT seen as a defined territory in its own right. That is not to say that most of what would become Trans-Jordan was seen as being part of historical Palestine, however a part of it typically WAS. And as strongly suggested in the 1919 Sir Erle Richards Memorandum, the British Government did not want to commit to a Jewish National Home to ALL of Palestine, which had not yet officially been defined, because they did not want to be seen as potentially facilitating Zionist claims in Trans-Jordan, which the Arabs saw as part of their domain.

As such, since the scope of Palestine was not yet clearly defined at the time that the Balfour Declaration was being formulated, the British Government did not want to commit itself that all of "Palestine should be reconstituted as the national home of the Jewish people", as stated in the Rothschild draft antecedent to the Balfour Declaration. Neither did the Milner draft modifying the wording to "in Palestine" automatically and necessarily "reduce the geographical scope" of such a home, as the WP article alleges. The explanation provided by Moshe Arens in his article, "From Balfour to a Palestine state" (Jerusalem Post, 3 November, 2009), is more reasonable. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/From-Balfour-to-a-Palestinian-state

""In Palestine" could be interpreted as meaning that not all of Palestine should become the national home of the Jewish people. Additionally, the boundaries of Palestine not being defined at the time, left ambiguous the eventual size of the area to be allocated as a national home of the Jewish people."

Jacob D (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Jacob D

@Zero0000:I have always affirmed that the definition and boundaries of Palestine were imprecise, though typically at the time of the Balfour Declaration it was interpreted as including a part of Transjordan. I highlighted the fact that in the Mandate of Palestine document of 1922 (article 25), an undefined amount of land beyond the Jordan was still interpreted as forming a part of Palestine. I highlighted the fact that this article, and the Trans-Jordan Memorandum, served to render Jewish National Home provisions inapplicable in Trans-Jordan, to define the boundaries of Trans-Jordan, and to arrange for it to be administered separately as an autonomous territory, but under the aegis of the Palestine Mandate and not as a fully separate entity from Palestine. As the Trans-Jordan Memorandum points out, the Mandatory government "undertake that such provision as may be made for the administration of that territory in accordance with Article 25 of the Mandate shall be in no way inconsistent with those provisions of the Mandate which are not by this resolution declared inapplicable."

I agree with your point that maps only serve to show the imprecise nature of Palestine at that time....although the 1918 map you show is very uncharacteristic, excluding as it does the territory south of Hebron and part of northern Palestine.

Jacob D (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Jacob D

Discretionary sanction notification

{{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}}

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

ARBPIA Notice

You still haven't received the proper notice. So here it is.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

February 2018

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Circumcision, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Richard B. Spencer

From your edit summary: NPI speech is obviously a racist and white supremacist hateful rant, it did not at any point attack Jews as a group, and did not (with the possible exception of "Hail Victory") explicitly quote from Nazi propaganda.

From the New York Times story: But now his tone changed as he began to tell the audience of more than 200 people, mostly young men, what they had been waiting to hear. He railed against Jews and, with a smile, quoted Nazi propaganda in the original German. America, he said, belonged to white people, whom he called the “children of the sun,” a race of conquerors and creators who had been marginalized but now, in the era of President-elect Donald J. Trump, were “awakening to their own identity.”

I'm going to go with the New York Times instead of you on this one. --Calton | Talk 08:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Calton:, when in doubt, always go back to the original source, and not to some media report which might incorporate its own interpretation of events that skew the facts. I hope that you are interested in maintaining an article that is factually accurate, rather than one that repeats the claims of ostensibly NPOV sources, even if they distort the facts.

Here is the link to the Spencer's full 2016 speech at NPI.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq-LnO2DOGE

Spencer makes a snide reference to "our friends at the Anti Defamation league", and to "a Jewish celebrity". At what point in the speech does he "rail against Jews" as a group? Do tell.

Spencer makes a reference to the German term "Luegenpresse", but that term has been used since the 19th century THROUGHOUT the political spectrum.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Lying_press

There is no explicit quote from Nazi propaganda in Spencer's speech, with the possible exception of "Hail, Victory", to which some members of the crowd responded with Nazi salutes (which, note, I left IN the article in my edit).

As it happens, I myself am Jewish, and do believe that Spencer has a white supremacist agenda and some of his views are clearly similar to those of the Nazis, as are those of many of his followers. However, I also believe that misquoting him or distorting his words plays right into his hands.

Jacob D (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Jacob D

Read this WP:RELIABLE and WP:ORIGINAL. I'm going with the New York Times over you. And I'm especially doing so because policy requires I do so. Again, write to the Times if you've got a problem with their story. --Calton | Talk 10:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

See Talk:Richard B. Spencer for more. --Calton | Talk 10:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Calton:, excuse me, but I do not see anything in the rules that would automatically qualify all the claims made in a New York Times article as being "reliable". Media articles contain information that is sometimes a distortion of the truth, sometimes a half-truth, and sometimes an outright lie. Yes, even in the New York Times. In this case, the claim made in the NYT article that Spencer "railed against Jews" is a demonstrably inaccurate statement.

I did not engage in "original research". I supplied an original reference which contradicts claims made by a secondary reference.

Once again I ask, at what point in the speech does Spencer attack Jews as a group?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq-LnO2DOGE

It's a valid question, since you insist on making the claim that Spencer "railed against Jews" TWICE in the WP article.

Jacob D (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Jacob D

You know, if you're going to make stuff up about what I wrote, I'm not going to bother to engage. So no more pinging.

As for your basic misunderstanding of how Wikipedia's Reliable Sources and Original Research policies work, I suggest you post to the reliable sources noticeboard and see how far you get with that line of self-serving logic. --Calton | Talk 12:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Calton:, I will quote from the WP article itself on Richard B. Spencer.

"In the weeks following the 2016 U.S. presidential election, at a National Policy Institute conference, Spencer quoted from Nazi propaganda and denounced Jews."

"During a speech Spencer gave in mid-November 2016 at an alt-right conference attended by approximately 200 people in Washington, D.C., Spencer quoted Nazi propaganda in the original German and denounced Jews."

Both of these statements reference the same NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donald-trump.html

At what point in Spencer's speech did Spencer "denounce Jews"?

At what point did Spencer quote Nazi propaganda?

He used the term "Luegenpresse", which has been used throughout the German political spectrum, including by Nazis. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Lying_press

In the interest of accuracy, the article should rather say that Spencer employed rhetoric USED in Nazi propaganda.

Jacob D (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Jacob D

• Jacob, Talk:Richard B. Spencer is a more appropriate place for this discussion. However more importantly, Calton asked you to stop pinging them, and you ignored that request and pinged them again. That's verging on harassment. If you keep pinging them someone will end up reporting you to the administrators. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shekel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Semitic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jacob D. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

On The Jewish Question

I saw your post on the talk page. I added some quotations from the article to the content section. I think it shows the contrast between the word salad/ uncited nonsense descriptions of the content and the actual content itself in On the Jewish Question— Manboobies (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

another user has forced a edit war with me. I have to say, this is pretty bad, I’ve been improving that article for years but Wikipedia seems just to be full of people arguing over policies rather than making good articles now. It’s all in bad faith. Total write off. How sad :(--Manboobies (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize you WP:OWNed the article, and other editors weren;t allowed to disagree with you about it. Here's an idea: why don't you post a list on your user page of all the articles you WP:OWN, so that other editors will be aware of it before they get involved? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

BTW, if you look at the page statistics for the article [2], you'd find that you are only #3 editor in terms of number of edits (13.7%), #2 editor in terms of added text (12.5%), and #5 editor in terms of authorship (5.4%). In other words, you may take credit for the article having any references at all, but the facts show that your contributions to the article aren't nearly as extensive as you think they are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

are you following me around Wikipedia? That is absolutely nuts. Manboobies (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chaldea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nahor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Acre, Israel

Hi, your edit removing "but apparently not semitic" seems to constitute Original Research, so I've reverted it. The relevant line in the source is:
מקור השם עכו אינו ידוע, אך ככל הנראה אינו שֵמי
Please be prepared to provide a reliable source for all your contributions. Thank you! ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Renewed discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict

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.

Doug Weller talk 19:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Title box undercounts the number of Israeli war casualties. Should be 6,373

The title box undersestimates the number of dead (6074) by adding together 4074 soldiers with 2000 civilians, however the reference cited (Ground Warfare: An International Encyclopedia, Volume 1) writes "Civilians more than 2,000". Further down in this Wikipedia article, the number of civilians is given (more accurately) as 6,373, citing the following reference. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/military-casualties-in-arab-israeli-wars The breakdown is cited as 4000 soldiers and 2000 civilians. https://books.google.co.il/books?id=_3pZDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT2282&lpg=PT2282&dq=1948+war+2,373+jewish+civilians&source=bl&ots=ZrZAwicyHG&sig=ACfU3U33EQpW1NTHi9QxTIyweolTpx5gqQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjtsr6V68vmAhXRaFAKHW0DD54Q6AEwCXoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=1948%20war%202%2C373%20jewish%20civilians&f=false Jacob D (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Jacob D

September 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Canaan Dog, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. William Harris (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, I made no changes to the text as it appears in the article, only to the link destination (Palestine region rather than Palestinian people). The original format isn't justified by the reference supplied, which gives no indication that the term "Palestinian" in "Palestinian pariah dog" is a reference to people rather than region. To remove doubts or controversy over the matter, the link should simply be removed without changing any meaning to the text.

Jacob D (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Jacob D

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Merge Request

Hi, Jacob D. There is currently a discussion on whether or nor King's Garden (Jerusalem) should be merged with Silwan. Can you please interject your opinion there?--Davidbena (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Transcontinental country

No editor can remove a statement that is supported by its own WP link, transcontinental country, listing the U.S. as one of the countries and showing it on a world map. You must go to the link's Talk page and make an argument that this existing WP article is wrong and should be revised, if not removed. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)