User talk:Koakhtzvigad

Welcome!
Veni, Vidi, Velcro - "We came, we saw, we stuck around"

The five pillars of Wikipedia

Preface to Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics, 2nd Edition

There are certain activities in our lives that seem to be endlessly repeating themselves: we witness an apparently endless construction of houses, office buildings, roads and highways, and other infrastructures; there is the preparation and consumption of foodstuffs; there is the daily maintenance of the quarters we live in; there are the recurrent activities governing our use of the markets, small and big; and so on and so forth.
Similarly, writing articles and essays may, for some people, seem to have the same repetitive and perhaps even monotonous character. Still, there is a difference. [[Writing]] (or for that matter, all communicative action) is always directed at a person or group of persons; even the most monologic self-expressing [[poetry]] always addresses somebody (even though, in extreme cases, the audience is restricted to the poet him, or herself). In addition, the repetitive character of, say, housework may prompt our easy-going consorts to protest against the
making of beds or the cleaning of kitchens, with the motivation that 'beds have to be made again anyway, so why not just let them be', or: 'dust is going to happen, so why not just adjust ourselves to a lower than needy standard of cleanliness'. In contrast, activities having to do with communication (in particular, writing) do not only affect the author (the 'originator', or ''auctor'', with an old-fashioned term), but also, and perhaps to an even
higher degree, the 'end user': the recipient, in our case, the reader.
But, some reader might object, what has all this to do with the current (concise) encyclopedia of language and linguistics that I am looking at right now? The answer is that encyclopedias, like all works of letters, presuppose our cooperation as readers. In and through the act of reading, we align ourselves with the author whose text we are perusing and with whom we are cooperating. And even though encyclopedias may seem to embody just what the word means: an all-round ''paideia'' (which is the Greek word for 'upbringing'), to a cursory observer it
may seem that such works only pretend to satisfy an individual's desire to know a factoid or two, or to delve a little deeper into a certain [[area of knowledge]]. What is often overlooked is the interactive feature that is built into the very essence of encyclopedic work, no matter how apparently passive in character on the part of the reader.
It is no secret that many encyclopedias have been the forerunners of revolutions, as I pointed out in the Preface to the first edition of this Concise Encyclopedia. And what I wrote back in 1998 is just as true today as it was then:

The purpose of an Encyclopedia, according to the original (1750-1769) ''eticyclopédistes'', the French literates and philosophers [[Denis Diderot]] and [[Jean le Rond d'Alembert]], is to enlighten the population in order to make them choose the right way of leading their lives, free from the encumbrances of false beliefs and authoritarian doctrines. This apparent
innocent and worthy aim had much wider and more profound consequences for society than its proposers could ever have foreseen, as we now know, with the benefit of historical hindsight. Two hundred years after the American, the French, and countless other revolutions, the encyclopedia has become a standard household fixture, and it is hard to imagine, by looking at the impressive, often leather-bound volumes that adorn the bookshelves of better-off households around the planet, how the original ideals of democratizing enlightenment could have had such strong political, even revolutionary side effects. (Mey 1998:xxv)

By the double token of being iterative and revolutionary', encyclopedias, while pretending to codify the knowledge they conserve and propagate, also reflect the societal interaction that is at their base. And this is, finally, why encyclopedias have to be constantly updated and 're-cycled'.
* Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics, 2nd Edition, Jacob L. Mey, Editor, v., 2009

"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon," said Napoleon

the historian's trade - the finding and managing of data

Community of Wikipedia#Consensus and the "hive mind" and Wikipedia in culture#Wikiality

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

Help:Wiki_markup#Format

Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup

Arnhem[edit]

Thanks Koakhtzvigad, you are of course quite correct. I had a feeling when I reworked the sentence that there was more to it than that, and Ryan details the incident you mention a lot more. Do you have a full ref (title, authors year etc...) for the document you mention? I might be able to use it as well. Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember what Ryan says in his book, but I think its unlikely since it seems to me Ultra was still a secret in 1974 when he wrote his book. Maybe he cites it under some other excuse.

pdf link [1]--Koakhtzvigad (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re; Archers' Hall[edit]

I'm not sure the hall really counts as a visitor attraction in the same way as, say, Edinburgh Zoo or Dynamic Earth, though you may be right here. It is worth mentioning that tours are available, yes - I assumed it was not open to the public and so would not count as an attraction. The other category I removed was Category:Historic Scotland properties, which is intended for buildings which are in the ownership or care of Historic Scotland, not historic buildings in general. The listed building categories fill this role. I trust this makes sense. By the way, do you have a translation of the latin lines, or know the author or title of the work they are taken from? Then the big ugly translate tag can be removed! Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also made some changes to List of winners of the Edinburgh Arrow - I hope you dont think I'm stalking you! But you need to add a reference for the list of names, and it also needs a copyedit - it looks like an OCR scan? I changed "Cockbum" to "Cockburn" but there are others, and probably several names can be linked too. Thanks for adding the page though. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, yes putting in times and contacts would be advertising. But you can say, for instance: "Public access to the Archers' Hall is available by appointment". Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Company of Archers Peer Review[edit]

Hi, I noticed you started a Peer review for the Royal Company of Archers article. You actually missed the final step which creates the peer review subpage. I've done this now, so your request for peer review should show up at Wikipedia:Peer review, or you can see the subpage directly at Wikipedia:Peer review/Royal Company of Archers/archive1. Dr pda (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-tank warfare, sources[edit]

Hi, I see you are adding material to Anti-tank warfare, which is great! However, could you provide some reliable sources for your additions please? (Hohum ^@) 02:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your page[edit]

You created the page in article space, not sandbox space. If you want it to be treated as a sandbox page, then create it as one next time — because if it's in article space, then it's subject to article space rules. And I am an administrator, by the way, so you'd be well advised to watch your tone of voice if you don't want to get your edit privileges suspended. Bearcat (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody on here is obliged to assume anything — and the page was not in your "personal" space. You know, I'd be quite happy to restore the page to your user space for you, if you're prepared to drop the belligerent attitude and ask in a respectful and polite manner. But I'm not obliged to do so if you keep talking to me in the arrogant tone you've been using so far. Bearcat (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listen...I am not going to be intimidated by you while you refuse to believe you did something wrong.

What do you think this Koakhtzvigad/FIELD ENGINEERING looks like, a new article stub? I made a mistake, and you diligently eliminated my sandbox NO QUESTIONS ASKED. So who is a belligerent? Wouldn't be someone who shoots first and asks questions later, would it?

How about this. You put it back, and you won't look silly when I ask another administrator with better people skills to do it?

May I also remind you at this time that your administrative privileges were given to help editors, and not hinder them. Or maybe its been so long since 2003 that you forgot? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to clarify this one more time for the record: you created a page with virtually no content in article space. I deleted it; you'll find that almost any administrator on this site would have done the same, and almost nobody would have assumed that they needed to act otherwise. Nobody on here owes you the benefit of the doubt; people create weird and unsalvageable "articles" on here all the time, and deleting such flotsam is part of an administrator's job.

But instead of politely asking me to restore the page to your userspace for you, which I would have done quite happily, your very first post to me on the matter was a belligerent "how dare you delete my outstanding work" attack, complete with a threat to take it straight to arbitration even though you hadn't even attempted any of the standard first steps that even the arbitration committee would have told you to take before they would step in. Do you really think that any reasonable person, confronted with the tone of your original post, would have responded any differently than I did? If you think I'm trying to be "intimidating" or "unaccountable" or "hindering", then I've got news for you: I've done nothing of the sort.

You'll kindly note that the page has already been restored to your actual user space, so there's no point in continuing to accuse me of being difficult. You started this discussion already displaying the approximate people skills of an orc with a migraine, before I'd even had the opportunity to say a single word — so if you really think that you were some sort of paragon of patience and maturity in this discussion and I was being a selfish idiot, then you really need to take a good long look at your own communication style before you point any more fingers at other people. End of discussion. Bearcat (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to end a discussion (and I said - no need to reply), you would not have asked a question (which needs a reply) - Do you really think that any reasonable person, confronted with the tone of your original post, would have responded any differently than I did?

This assumes that I conform to you definition of reasonable. As it turns out, I have a definition of my own - Good Faith Collaboration.

So my question is - do you think any reasonable person, confronted with something irregular, deletes it before looking?

I never claimed it was "my outstanding work", nor was it a "weird and unsalvageable "article".

The rule in the real world is, you mess up, you clean up. Unfortunately, you as an administrator denied me this opportunity, and made my mistake, your own.

I shouldn't have to say please. If its true that administrators do not give anyone benefit of the doubt (A favorable judgement given in the absence of full evidence), or actually looks at what they are doing, but just clicks their mouse button, then I suppose thats a Wikipedian culture issue. But, this [2] is not news :)Koakhtzvigad (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think the issue is far simpler than that; we're just looking at the page from different perspectives. As the editor who created it, you're seeing it through the lens of how you planned to develop it into a full article — but as an administrator who spends at least two hours of every day sorting through new articles, and dealing on a daily basis with the endless parade of ways in which people can intentionally or unintentionally create things that don't actually resemble real articles, from my perspective the page as it stood didn't actually look like anything other than a regular, run of the mill speedy deletion candidate.

You think your page looked "irregular" enough to warrant some kind of special attention above and beyond the standard process, because you're seeing what you intend the finished product to be — whereas I see anywhere between 50 and 100 pages a day which look very much like yours did, and which usually don't deserve any special handling apart from the delete button. I think you may not fully realize how much junk the administrators on here end up dealing with each day — I suppose your page might have looked odd enough to warrant some sort of special attention if such non-articles were rare enough to raise an eyebrow, but unfortunately these days it's the quality contributions that are rare and unusual, not the "er, what the heck is this?" pages. Bearcat (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would suggest that you start looking at the speedy delete candidates more carefully. Given the number of people that edit Wikipedia, it is quite reasonable to assume that sometimes users will make same common mistakes, such as forgetting to add User: before their sandbox name. So, if you see what looks like a user name with a \, assume its that, since this qualifies for an intended use of correct syntax. From the 1037+ articles created daily, the 100 slated for speedy deletion represent less than 10%, so not bad considering some people have a problem ordering at McDonald's. Try and see if any are just honest mistakes than willful mischievousness. In any case, your two hours will get substantially shorter soon Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Question[edit]

I just went here[3] and looked through all the links.... Seems weird to me - hope someone has an answer. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic process[edit]

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Systematic process, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://cmapskm.ihmc.us/rid=1052458945600_298605774_8263/Systematic%20process.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israel and the apartheid analogy[edit]

Hello. This article, like all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, is subject to a one-revert rule. That means an editor may only make one revert in any 24-hour period. You have made two reverts today.

I recommend that you undo your last revert in order to avoid violating the one-revert rule. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ANEW#User:Koakhtzvigad reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on B'Tselem. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. RolandR (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ RolandR - why have not the editors that reverted my editing in articles not followed this advice themselves "If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors." before reverting? After all, they were perhaps more aware of the controversial nature of the articles connected to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Regards Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for breaking 1RR on Israel and the apartheid analogy and B'Tselem; no self-reverts despite multiple requests on WP:EWN and above. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Slp1 (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Please take this time to understand WP's policies and guidelines about the collaborative editing model. In particular WP:DISPUTE, WP:EW and WP:CONSENSUS. As noted above, you can also appeal the block if you wish, and I myself will be happy to unblock as soon as you indicate that you understand and accept the 3RR and 1RR rules, and that you will strive to avoid breaching either in the future. I am also adding below formal notification of the arbitration committee's decision regarding editing in the Israel-Palestine domain, including the special restrictions placed on these articles. If you have any questions about any of this then feel free to ask here, or indeed elsewhere after your block as expired. The talkpage of the policy/guideline concerned is likely a good place if you want to discuss the logic and reasoning for them, for example. Slp1 (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.Slp1 (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yeh, right Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to discuss your recent 1RR blocking of my account Koakhtzvigad (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your question[edit]

Hi Koakhtzvigad, i'm happy to but my preference is to let other editors work on it so that it becomes a true consensus article. What do you think? Oncenawhile (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that on any article someone has to take the lead and carry it until a team gathers that can take the load off. So far there hasn't been any other editors, and I go back to work tomorrow which will reduce my editing substantially. As it is I am supposed to be doing an entirely different article (hobby-based), and perhaps you have noticed that I got involved in another article (via your 'criticism') which is quite appallingly planned, written and supported. It is so funny that one can be blocked for reverting on an article in a 'controversial' area, but not blocked if the article is written based on naiveté of the subject. Ah, Wikipedia, someone warned me about this.

I do have a suggestion though in expanding the content.

What is missing are the Areas of criticism. Essentially as I can see (I looked earlier today), there are five such areas:

Security (military) related
Economy - this is mostly domestic economy though international trade in defense systems (Israel rarely exports actual stuff that kills) also
Diplomatic and Political - the former mostly for activities by its covert orgs, the later I haven't quite figured out since it seems the Israelis are bending over backwards to please, and yet get criticised
Sociological - a mixed bag that of course includes ethnicities, religions, cultural frictions, etc.
Environmental - often closely related to regional economics due to the water issue, though on first glans to me there seems to be far more beneficial knowledge and technology being exported than any damage being done

How does that sound? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Koakhtzvigad, thanks for your message - I almost didn't see it because I only get notified if someone writes on my own talk page.

I think your comments on the apartheid page are very interesting, i fully agree with where you're coming from. I have also got myself distracted by a debate ongoing in another article in this field - it seems to me that a majority of the wikipedia articles in the Israel/Palestine space are badly planned / in a bit of a mess. I guess it's early days, but wikipedia's current policies / regulations are simply not yet developed enough to stop editors driven by nationalistic tendencies from manipulating the editing process around such a charged topic - I have seen editors on both sides gaming the system on a consistent basis. The result seems to be that simple improvements to articles in this space can be simply too painful to implement - in other words the barriers are too high and so most people give up. I am optimistic though - there is a huge amount of room for improvement in the policies, and there seems to be a good iteration process for reaching those improvements.

Anyway, to answer your question, unfortunately I chose my username for a good reason - that is that I will only every be able to contribute to wikipedia once in a while. I also go back to work tomorrow, and so will have to substantially reduce my involvement over the coming weeks.

With respect to the article, you are probably right, although I am hoping that given the attention it has received to date that there should be enough interested people around to help build it out. It will be interesting to see - if it doesn't improve I would be delighted to get back involved as soon as I can.

Hope your first Monday back is not too tough - happy new year!

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Koakhtzvigad. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 23:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Personal version of articles is a very bad idea[edit]

User:Koakhtzvigad/Israel and the apartheid analogy ? We really shouldn't be using our userspace to host personalized versions of what we think articles should be like. If everyone did this, we'd have personal versions of Barack Obama full of citizenship conspiracies, private Sarah Palins with every nutty charge that the far left can think of, and so on. Please consider deleting this sub-page yourself, or it will likely have to head to WP:MFD for a deletion discussion. Tarc (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Koakhtzvigad/Wikiwriting[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Koakhtzvigad/Wikiwriting requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Koakhtzvigad/The Apartheid Analogy: Wrong for Israel[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Koakhtzvigad/The Apartheid Analogy: Wrong for Israel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment[edit]

Hi Koakhtzvigad, sorry but i'm not sure i fully understood your comment. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Koakhtzvigad. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 00:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Re-thinking edit strategy[edit]

IMO, the reasoning of two of your recent edit summaries at Border is ~~off-piste~~ not a bullseye. Your lexicography/taxonomy analysis is a counterintuitive mistake -- not obvious at first. It is interesting, but ultimately indefensible.

1st diff 15:34, 15 January 2011 Koakhtzvigad (21,285 bytes) (→Maritime boundary: boundaries -> borders; eliminate confusion)
2nd diff 18:40, 15 January 2011 Rwendland m (22,640 bytes) (rv - but changing to "maritime border" would be contrary to the cited sources, like the U.S. Dept of State one, and normal international law terminology - see talk)
3rd diff 22:46, 15 January 2011 Koakhtzvigad (22,637 bytes) (Undid revision 408059487 by Rwendland US DoS is not an international organisation that defines terminology or usage)

I wonder what, if anything, might help persuade you to revert your own edit? --Tenmei (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean. the term 'maritime boundaries' affects all such boundaries, and not only those of the United Sates. Therefore a definition of the term has to have international , and preferably geographic, consensus and not just one of the US legislature. I'm not insistent, but it seems to me that such a definition does not exist in maritime use. However, feel free to educate me to the contrary. Solely legal definition is not helpful because some boundaries do not reflect national territorial waters (but would be a start) Koakhtzvigad (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My open-ended questions were intended to be mild, circumspect. In that fuzzy logic context, your response is measured, thoughtful, good enough for now. --Tenmei (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The movement I was trying to initiate was not "wrong", nor was it irrelevant or untimely in the hortatory context established by WP:Five Pillars. However, I also recognize that the narrow issues I had in mind are less important or secondary when compared to the explicit "consensus-building" argument of the edit summary here. In other words, our shared collaborative editing goals require me to backoff or to backpedal. --Tenmei (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-naming "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy" article[edit]

You have written, on the Talk page of the article, that you "oppose" the proposal to re-name the "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy" article. Is that your actual view? The comment you give suggests not, and that you sort of reversed the question put, and meant to register a vote for "agreeing" with the proposal. I am not sure myself that any change would be for the better, but I just wanted to alert you to the possible misunderstanding of the proposal.Tempered (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note - BLPN[edit]

Hi, one of your edits has been mentioned at the BLP noticeboard here, feel free to comment or not as you feel, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to 2011 Victorian floods has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Lifting content from other copyrighted media (TV, newspapers websites ect) like you did with the ADF media release Bidgee (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Koakhtzvigad. You have new messages at Bidgee's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bidgee (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit at Paintball[edit]

Regarding this edit, I am not going to revert it, but you do need to supply a source and do some cleanup. u n☯mi 11:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understood the reason for your revert on Israeli Archaeology[edit]

But anyways, [4]. -asad (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this site?[edit]

Hi Koakhtzvigad, I found a site with a very great quote by Charles Krauthammer - The Weekly Standard, May 11, 1998

"Israel is the very embodiment of Jewish continuity: It is the only nation on earth that inhabits the same land, bears the same name, speaks the same language, and worships the same God that it did 3,000 years ago. You dig the soil and you find pottery from Davidic times, coins from Bar Kokhba, and 2,000-year-old scrolls written in a script remarkably like the one that today advertises ice cream at the corner candy store."

There are lots of other useful information on that site that could help you with the editing of the topic you are interested in.

Good luck!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mbz1, but which specific article is this useful for as a reliable source? For now I am mostly interested in ensuring correct terminology is used in the articles, regardless of the subject, and that they are properly referenced with reliable and verifiable sources Koakhtzvigad (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Koakhtzvigad[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Koakhtzvigad. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Shusha[edit]

Regarding your edit here: I have removed your "merge" -proposal, as Abu Shusha (Haifa District) was a completely different village from Abu Shusha in the District of Ramle. Many of these villages had similar-sounding names, just look at Al-Manshiyya. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement topic ban: Israeli-Arab conflict[edit]

In application and enforcement of Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, and as further explained in this AE thread, you are banned from making edits related to the Israeli-Arab conflict for two weeks, as described at WP:TBAN. Sandstein 22:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martime flag signalling[edit]

Thank you for your recent contribution to Maritime flag signalling. However, your references are not in accord with the form already established in the article (bibliographic citation in the References section, linked by Harv in the footnotes). Would you mind adjusting that? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee[edit]

You somehow managed to delete the front matter and several older threads from WT:AC [5]. I hope you don't mind that I've reverted you; I'm guessing that you didn't mean to do it. I'll leave you to re-add any comments you made since that edit, as I can't be bothered editing them all back in—and it's your fault anyway :P. Thanks, AGK [•] 14:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Davar archive[edit]

Hi Koakhtzvigad, if you tell me precisely what it is you're looking for (date, author & subject), I can look it up in the newspaper archive at Tel Aviv University. Poliocretes (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC) --Koakhtzvigad (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Koakhtzvigad, The Davar microfilm archive is missing September 26 1988. The reel skips from 25 straight to 27. Sorry. Poliocretes (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this common to be missing an issue?Koakhtzvigad (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the earlier reels perhaps, but not as late as 1988. I did notice September 21 was missing as well, though. Poliocretes (talk)

Any other alternatives? It seems to me that there were a series of articles by same author in the Davar printed one per week for a month. The first article was on the 6 September I think Koakhtzvigad (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes. It just occured to me that the Tel Aviv Public Library, home to a large newspaper archive, is a 10 minute walk from my house. Give me a few days. Poliocretes (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

21 September 1988 was Yom Kippur, and 26 September was Sukkot; so Davar would not have been published on those dates. RolandR (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the article was published on September 20 and its title was "בין ציונות דתית לדחיקת הקץ". It's quite lengthy, but here's the paragraph everyone's interested in:

"כרב נחשב הרא"יה, גם בקרב חילונים, לאיש נאור ומתקדם, אך עיון כמה מנוסחותיו היום מגלה, כי תורתו היתה מקור רב השראה לצירוף הנלהב של "לאומיות דתית", אשר הגבירה חיילים לאחר מותו. את ישראל השווה לקודש - לעומת החולין של אומות העולם. את היהודים לאיכות - לעומת הכמות, שהיא מסימנם של הגויים (הרא"יה, "אורות הקודש", כרך א', כרך ב', כרך ג'). הוא טען שנשמת ישראל היא נשמה יוצרת, לעומת נשמותייהם של הגויים המסתגלות בלבד. הוא לא נרתע מלקבוע, כי "ההבדל שבין הנשמה הישראלית... ובין נשמת הגויים כולם, לכל דרגותיהם, הוא יותר גדול ויותר עמוק מההבדל שבין נפש האדם ונפש הבהמה. שבין האחרונים רק הבדל כמותי נמצא אבל בין הראשונים שורר הבדל עצמי איכותי" (שם).

Thank you, truly encyclopedic research :) I will now try to get a good English translation and also trace which of the three volumes the quote came from. It seems the academics can be most sloppy in referencing on occasions Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed my comment on the article talk page, where I note that the quote is also in the Hebrew Wikipedia article on Kook, where it is cited as "אורות", עמ' קנ"ו, פרק ה", ie Orot p 1056, part 5. RolandR (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't miss your comment in Hebrew article because I didn't look. By the way, I had no idea that the Labour publishers observed either Yom Kippur or Sukkot.

In any case, do you know which Orot it is from, which edition?Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Hebrew-language papers are published in Israel on those dates, as they are public holidays. As far as I know, Israel does not permit trading or sales on Jewish religious holidays.

My comment is not in the Hebrew-language article, but here in Abraham Isaac Kook. I'm sorry, I don't know which volume, merely translating the Hebrew citation. But the Haaretz article cited above by Poliocretes states that it is from Orot Hakodesh, so that might be a good place to start. However, our article suggests that there is no full English translation of this title, so you may not be able to find the quote in English. RolandR (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't live in Israel, and I rarely read newspapers, so I wouldn't know.

Poliocretes didn't cite Haaretz article, but a Davar article.

Orot HaKodesh comes in three parts, but more recently has been printed in a four-book set. I don't have one. Online I only have access to the first and second parts, and having searched them for the phrase ההבדל שבין הנשמה הישראלית (start of the quote) I didn't find it. I therefore assume its in the third part p.156. I'll try to find the third part in digital version somewhere. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish cuisine[edit]

I reverted your recent change because rearranging the paragraphs had no obvious connection to the reason you gave: "halakhicly equired meals predate Talmudic era". Firstly, this seems like a content issue. Secondly, it would need a reliable source to substantiate. If you would like to discuss on the article's talk page, I'm sure we can find a way to clarify and address your issue. In general, the article does need work in terms of content and structure, so I'm sure it will be helpful. Thanks, -- Chefallen (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on talk page as suggested Koakhtzvigad (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for File:Early-Historical-Israel-Dan-Beersheba-Judea-no-modern-borders.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Early-Historical-Israel-Dan-Beersheba-Judea-no-modern-borders.png. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its a modified version of this

Koakhtzvigad (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philiistines[edit]

I'm sorry you should feel that way about my edits. I sincerely feel they were useful - I deleted (a)some books that are over a century old, and therefore not much use as references, and (b) some material that quotes directly from the Bible, which means they're using a primary source that you really have to be an expert to use properly. Do you disagree with either of those? PiCo (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how old the sources are as long as they are valid and reliable. Quoting from the Bible is just like quoting from any other source.

Give the readers of Wikipedia some credit and stop dumbing down the encyclopedia.

I disagree with your general style of deleting large chunks of articles while contributing very little in return, and usually unreferenced it seems. You don't read the content and try to understand why someone else wrote it, but just delete it with often a simplistic reasoning in edit summary Koakhtzvigad (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3 RR warning[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gog and Magog. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm you are both now at 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but just go and read the conversation I just reposted in talk there. Til seems to not have very much idea about the subject and seems to think that I need consensus to reference a quote from the Jewish Bible with a Jewish source. Its ludicrous, and this even without the statement about the verse in Book of Revelations which I originally thought was someone's honest mistake, but now realise he put there, and therefore it was WP:OR. As I see it, I'm not guilty of 3RR, but of removing OR in the process of properly referencing an article Koakhtzvigad (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an acceptable reason to breach 3RR, read WP:3RR. Dougweller (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying, that if someone insists on inserting OR, or otherwise dubious bit of content, I should just leave them to it? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Noah's Ark. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Teapotgeorge^Talk 09:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no one is cooperating. Other editors are just reverting the work I did with no discussion and no collaboration. Consensus would require talking, but no one is, just nonsensical edit summaries claiming I need the Ark mentioned in the section to include it in the article! What about the occupants of the ark and their influence on the analysis of the story which followed? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, the latest revert of the entire section was since I created a discussion section in the talk page, to which the latest reverted did not avail him/her self Koakhtzvigad (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if your contribution would be better suited to it's own article?Teapotgeorge^Talk 10:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to improve existing articles, many of which need the work. I think I will try and work it into the Sons of Noah, though I would have appreciated this suggestion to wholesale reversion of several hours of research and writing Koakhtzvigad (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Gog and Magog[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Koakhtzvigad reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 72h). EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

This block is unjustified because I was not engaged in edit-warring despite User:Til Eulenspiegel and User:Dougweller calling it that. User:Til Eulenspiegel insisted on inserting text in the lede to give undue prominence to what in his opinion and point of view is an important bit of information for the article (at the time one sentence). However, at no time did he provide evidence to support his opinion through reliable sources as per WP:SOURCES. He repeatedly called for consensus, however, despite creating three sections directed at me, and calling for consensus on the talk page (where I did engage in discussion), no comments from other users, including User:Dougweller, was in evidence. WP:Consensus states that - When reverting an edit you disagree with, it helps to state the actual disagreement rather than citing "no consensus". However, this is precisely what Til did in his revert of my first revert 14:59, 13 March 2011 Til Eulenspiegel (WP:BRD Bold. Reverted. Now discuss to achieve consensus of editors) To my request on 'Waht consensus?' since he was expressing his opinion, Til then advised me that 15:29, 13 March 2011 Til Eulenspiegel ('What consensus' - exactly. There is no policy for your changes and they were opposed; rather than edit war you must now achieve consensus if you want to see them implemented). The CP:Consensus also advises that "Consensus discussion have a particular form: editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense." The only policy Til was citing was WP:CONSENSUS (circular logic). However, until he could source his claim, the insertion constituted WP:OR, of which I informed him in the next revert. Please note that Til's initial revert of my editing was accompanied by the summary 12:37, 13 March 2011 Til Eulenspiegel (rv - Revelation is the *only* place they are mentioned as a pair; don't remove this from the lead; and don't switch to your favorite transation calling it a 'correction' (POV)). However, I have referenced all my edits since, substantially enlarging the section, and clarifying that the phrase is not "the *only* place they are mentioned as a pair" as Til asserted. Had he been busier reading, and looking for reliable sources than complaining about my alleged edit-warring, he perhaps would have saved us both time and effort. To summarise, Til, though clearly in good faith editing, was in breach of WP:UNDUE, WP:SOURCES, WP:OR, and I tried, and did correct his misconception by following the Wikipedia polices regarding article improvement

Decline reason:

No, you were edit warring. It's quite clear. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

where is it clear from? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was certainly an edit war, but if you look close his edits 4, 5, and 6 don't seem like actual reverts, and so neither of us technically trespassed 3RR. I would therefore ask that he be unblocked sooner so he can respond to my last talkpage reply.

To add elsewhere later[edit]

Encyclopaedic Historiography of the Muslim World Koakhtzvigad (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles Philistines and Israelites[edit]

You seem to have formed the opinion that I'm an enemy of yours. I assure you I'm not. Wikipedia should be an enjoyable experience for us all, and I have no wish to cause you any pain. (Pain is something I'm experiencing in a very real sense myself right now, having fallen off a bike this morning and sprained my wrist - it's not a good thing, no matter what some theologians might say). PiCo (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't consider you an enemy. But, I really do not agree with your approach to editing. Unlike some editors I see that you do not have an agenda as such, but simply edit without serious consideration of its consequences.

I don't know what theologians would say, but I have a firm belief that there are no accidents in this World Koakhtzvigad (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archive[edit]

Hi KTG- I happened to notice your request on Poliocretes' talk page for an article from Davar, and thought this site might come in handy in the future: Historical Jewish Press archive. It they archive Davar, and many other old newspapers. --Sreifa (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but as discussed earlier Years Available on Site: 1925-1969 Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article you might like to edit[edit]

I have seen that you have edited the Afghan national army page, so if you are interested here are some links with a lot of recent information and a picture of the regional commands that would really improve it. If you are interested could you add some of this information to the page and if you know anyone else who is interested in improving the pages related to the afghan army/military could you send them these links. I would do it myself but I am not experienced in editing wikis.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2011/05/afghan_national_army_4.php

http://www.longwarjournal.org/multimedia/afghanistan_ANA.JPG

http://www.longwarjournal.org/multimedia/ANSF%20OOBpage4-ANA.pdf

Prisonbreak12345 (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Religion[edit]

Hello, Koakhtzvigad. You have new messages at Adamrce's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ AdvertAdam^talk 05:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC) ~ AdvertAdam^talk 10:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Religion. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. There is more to facts than "Beliefs you happen to hold." Bobrayner did not agree to make the changes that you pretended he did. Quit trying to reshape the Religion and Abraham articles to match your POV. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In agreement with Ian.thomson, I am asking you to read Talk:Religion#Judaism and "knowledge". Your edits are amounting to a slow edit war, and your failure to adequately engage in discussion with other editors is becoming disruptive. If this pattern of editing continues, I will not hesitate to take you to dispute resolution. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notzrim[edit]

I noticed that you are quite a fierce defendant of Jewish views not being obscured by non Jewish scholarship on Jewish topics and wondered if you would like to do the same sort of thing for the Notzrim page? We have a certain user:In_ictu_oculi who is a bit hell bent on burying Jewish reflections on the matter and imposing gentile views on the Jewish population. The general theme he is going for is "Jews said bad things about Jesus the Nazarene so the Vatican was justified for censoring the Talmud et al" (even though Goldstein settled the matter once and for all that the comments were about someone earlier than Jesus). Something like that. Be warned he is the type who deletes other users talk page comments when he doesn't know how to deal with them. I'll be removing this comment soon. 149.254.60.163 (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove anything from my talk page. That is my choice.

I haven't read Jesus in Jewish tradition by Morris Goldstein.

I can't change the past.

I also can't change choices other people make. If someone chooses to believe something, they can be given facts, and yet reject them because it would change their world-view, and change is scarier than the "new world" they would have to face. Everyone has a comfort zone, and for most people it is a deep trench with a high stone wall at the top.

Note: Please read defenders of the truth first, if you plan to jump-in there. Thanks and happy editing. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 07:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about defenders of encyclopædic authority? This is where a given source is considerd authoritative by the users to be considered an encyclopædia :) I believe this is the sixth 'aspirational' pillar of Wikipedia where users can: look to an article from day to day and see that it is fully informative on the subject; based on sources; hasn't changed from one consultation to the next; and can be used in citations Koakhtzvigad (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Eastern conflicts[edit]

You are a recent contributor on discussion of List of conflicts in the Middle East / List of modern conflicts in the Middle East. Due to recent changes in the structure of those articles, i would like you to contribute to the renewed discussion on the structure of those article here Talk:List of conflicts in the Middle East#Criteria for modern conflicts inclusion.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of List of conflicts in the Middle East[edit]

Please share your opinion on renaming "List of conflicts in the Middle East" into "List of conflicts in the Near East" in the discussion. The renaming is proposed in order to cover the pre-1918 period (when the Middle East had generally been related as the Near East), and delete post-1918 conflicts while leaving wikilink to List of modern conflicts in the Middle East). This is in order to avoid doubling of information between post-1918 section in the "List of conflicts in the Middle East" and List of modern conflicts in the Middle East article. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Koakhtzvigad. You have new messages at Flinders Petrie's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Image tagging for File:Sydney Cove 1808 by John Lewin 1770-1819.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Sydney Cove 1808 by John Lewin 1770-1819.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sydney Cove 1808 by John Lewin 1770-1819.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sydney Cove 1808 by John Lewin 1770-1819.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Watercraft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pontoon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Koakhtzvigad. You have new messages at Talk:New Gate.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]