User talk:Pluto2012/archive1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1948 Arab–Israeli War, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Corpus separatum and Transjordan (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) 08:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine

I notice you removed the map [Israel After 1949 Armistice Agreements] saying it was inaccurate. What is inaccurate about it? -Lciaccio (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lciaccio,
  • the size and shape of all demilitarised zones as well as the borders of Gaza and West Bank are wrong. This was certainly made by hand with paint without checking anything. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you missed it

Benny Morris Before the Kidnappings, There Was a Massacre. How the national trauma of Kfar Etzion helped bring Israeli Yeshiva boys to the West Bank Tablet magazine June 25, 2014 It's interesting that he only mentions Deir Yassin (and dozens of women and children, not the overall figure) to explain a reported shout at the Kfar Etzion massacre, and then philosophises as to why the Dawayima massacre occurred:-

In the Middle East, as perhaps elsewhere, massacres tend to breed counter-massacres; revenge is a basic value and fact of life. On Oct. 29, 1948, IDF troops of the 8th Brigade, 89th Battalion, conquered the Arab village of Dawayima

I ask myself, why did that not preface his introduction to the Kfar Etzion massacre (Deir Yassin bred it as a counter-massacre) but employs it to 'explain' why Jews murdered the inhabitants of Dawayima. It's is little things like this that tell me how to 'read' the depths behind Morris's otherwise commendably erudite histories. Best Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nish,
Thank you for the link.
I don't think that Morris wants to "employ() [Kfar Etzion massacre] to 'explain' why Jews murdered the inhabitantsof Dawayima". The topic of his article is the events of '48 in the area of Kfar Etzion (and Hebron). I rather think that he wans to illustrate the "spiral of violence" mechanism. Others could even have claimed he wanted to minimize Kfar Etzion massacre in reporting a massacre of Arabs that preceeded it and another one that followed the Kfar Etzion one.
I think that Morris sometimes lack humanity in his reports and victims and massacres are just facts as others in his work.
Pluto2012 (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was showing more how a reader like myself takes his organization of material and priorities than proving anything about BM. It was used as background for the 2014 kidnapping of Israeli teens, which however because of the poverty of reactions to the Beitunia killings in May can't be contextualized. Deit Yassin-Kfar Etzion/Beitunia-2014 kidnapping. (Causes are never excuses, for anyside, of course. But grasping them with a cold eye attuned to the logic of events certainly is more illuminating than selective focus on one event to the detriment of the structure of events. In any case, I think this is certainly RS for the Kfar Etzion massacre, and will be a test for maintaining neutrality in reportage, since BM here certainly is far more dismissive of the other side's various POVs than he was, from memory, in his book accounts. But we can't be intimidtaed by that. RS are RS, whatever one's personal beliefs may be. Cheers friend.Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

Reference Errors on 30 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice on response to talk:Antisemitism

Hi Pluto2012,

What are your thoughts about raising the behaviour of VQuakr and Fleenier at talk:Antisemitism.

There's also User_talk:VQuakr#Category:Prejudice_and_discrimination_navigation which includes "This is a relevant question - is English your first language?"

Also: User_talk:Gregkaye#Your_level_of_involvement_at_Talk:Antisemitism giving private requests that I cut back contributions to the discussion.

any thoughts?

Gregkaye (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
I don't think much about this... I am not even sure to understand what is the issue... I suggest you just "ignore" what I would call "attempt of intimidiation" or "uncivility" (but without investing time to investigate) and I think you should go on commenting the way you like this discussion.
On the other, if I would close this discussion, my conclusion would be "no consensus" ; so I don't think either it's worth investing much time in it.
Pluto2012 (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I am just amazed and appalled at the extent to which people can be confrontational in public forums while adhering to extreme diplomacy in dialogue. Gregkaye (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something funny

Joan Peters is an awesome intellectual. You'll see what I mean. Zerotalk 09:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for Anti-Semitism:Requested move

Hi, I have asked for a move review, see Wikipedia:Move review#Anti-Semitism, pertaining to Anti-Semitism#Requested move. Because you were/are involved in the discussion/s for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page/topic, you might want to participate in the move review. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

inquiry

Cher ami I wonder if you could be so kind as to consult your copy of Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab–Israeli War, p. 13 and if possible transcribe for me the context on 'After Saturday Sunday,' regarding it as 'popular during the revolt'. I don't think it has a footnote, but if it has I'd appreciate a note on that as well. I hope things are going well with you. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the whole paragraph, pp. 12-13:
A major fault line ran between the Muslim majority and the generally more prosperous, better-educated Christians, who were concentrated in the large towns. The British authorities favored the Christians with contracts, permits, and jobs, further alienating the majority. Through the Mandate, and especially in such crisis periods as the Arab Revolt of 1936–1939 and 1947–1948, Muslims suspected Christians of collaborating with the “enemy” and secretly hoping for continued (Christian) British rule or even Zionist victory. These suspicions were expressed in slogans, popular during the revolt, such as “After Saturday, Sunday”—that is, that the Muslims would take care of the Christians after they had “sorted out” the Jews. This probably further alienated the Christians from Muslim political aspirations, though many, to be sure, kept up nationalist appearances. “The Christians [of Jaffa] had participated in the 1936–1937 disturbances under duress and out of fear of the Muslims. The Christians’ hearts now and generally are not with the rioting,” reported the Haganah Intelligence Service (HIS).17
A Haganah list from the mid-1940s of Arabs with a “tendency to cooperation with the Jews” included “many . . . Christians” but few Muslims.18
Ref.17: Talmi, “The Christians in Jaffa,” 2 May 1947, HA 105/193 bet.
Ref.18: Unsigned, “Arabs with a Tendency to Cooperation with the Jews,” undated, HA 105/54, where HA is Haganah Archive. In short: the only sources that Morris cites for this section, is the Haganah Archive. Hope this helps, Huldra (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sweetie. I can hit the fartsack without the nagging nightmare of being 'stumped' for want of an answer, thanks to you. G'nite.Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Huldra and Nishidani,
Even more widely, this "After Saterday, Sunday" is one of the arguments used by Benny Morris to argue that the 1948 war (and globally the I-P conflict) was not a nationalist conflict but was part of a "clash between civilisations". Indeed, in a nationalist conflict, the Palestinian Arabs would not have threatened other Arabs sharing the same nationality but not the same religion. In his approach, Christians and Jews were seen as representatives of the Western civilisation.
Useless to say that his thesis is not followed by his pairs. A reference article against this thesis is Yoav Gelber's review of Morris book: The Jihad that wasn't.
Pluto2012 (talk) 05:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not very familiar with this story, but it seems like Gelber should be used in the After Saturday Comes Sunday-article, then? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asselineau

Thank you for your help. No problem, I'll amend the templates in due time.

I am quite aware of the problem, which is why I mentioned I would need some time to fix the various sources (translated from the French article, with French templates). Moreover, some of the templates have no direct equivalent one between the two WPs.

Regards. --Azurfrog (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help all along on this difficult article. You may have noticed in the discussions that D0kkaebi is one of the leaders of Asselineau's UPR, as anyone can easily check, googling "UPR Lawren00" (Lawren00 is D0kkaebi's former identity here); hence some "reluctance" to amend the article, as always when WP:AUTO and WP:CoI have been violated. --Azurfrog (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might help if you keep in mind what a dokkaebi is, and where it comes from ;-)... --Azurfrog (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nakba - Misuse of primary source

Dear Sir. The text I added to clarify the term Nakba has been removed under the explanation there is a misuse of a primary source.

Please advice onTzweinstein (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC) which such primary source is, so that I may remove it without affecting the remainder of the text.[reply]

Thank you

2014-12 traduction

Je crois que fr:Fonds national juif#Critique de la politique de reboisement mériterait d'être traduit en anglais (et réciproquement des critiques présentes dans Jewish National Fund pourraient être traduites en français). bonus Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Je vais jeter un coup d'oeil. Merci :-) Pluto2012 (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uri Milstein

 THANK YOU FOR YOUR CRITICISM, AS FOR THE POINTS YOU RAISE ;

While studying Israeli wars, I came across Milsteins books. I saw that the man has a lot to say, AND, did/does his homework. His books are hard to find, though I see on Amazon that they go used for 2-3 times their original retail price. Clearly, there is some interest in him, so when I first started using WIKIPEDIA I looked up his page to see what was available on him. There was basically nothing, a little of this and a little of that, some of it having preciously little to do with him (such as his calling Yigal Amir a good student). Personally, I think many things he says are ridiculous, but that should`nt prevent those interested in accessing information about someone, especially someone who despite my opinion of some of his, is admittedly much smarter then me and practically everyone else I`ve ever come across. My first reaction was, admittedly, hasty and stupid. Immediately I began editing his page. But his total of printed book pages may total up to 5-6000, and although the book on,say,the YOM KIPPUR WAR is not essential to an elementary understanding of him per se, still severalbooks [notably THE RABIN FILE, ON THIS WE DREAMED and THE SECURITY PRINCIPLE] ARE essential, and I did not at the time have a firm grasp in them. Thus much of my edits were the more shocking things I well remembered, which do not much help the uninitiated in getting to know about him. I have since realized my mistake, and have taken the responsibility to enable anyone interested in him to get ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION ON HIM, and am currently working on this by studying his books. I am also working on the present references, though its slow going because, for instance, he sticks autobiographical information in THE RABIN FILE, which makes it quite difficult to find, but I`m getting there. As for his own lack of reliability, what shall I write when, as is usually the case, there`s no other source? How about quoting him directly on it? Thank youDale Stern (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Pluto2012. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 11:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

NorthAmerica1000 11:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More about Uri Milstein

Hi Pluto; I would like your opinion again please on my editing. Mainly I would like you to explain what you said last time that sometimes it may be asked for a direct quote, when is that sometimes? Also, as I was largely quoting only Milstein, you said it seemed a violation of impartiality. I have done significant homework, and discovered that what Milstein says is true-his books are ignored and most have no reviews to speak of, so I want to know; should it be kept as is, or would it be better to write relevant facts about the things he writes about, and thus allowing the reader to attain a more balanced view? I particularly have in mind that Milsteins practically only source for Rabin`s fleeing the battlefield is his subordinate-Yosef Tabenkin, on whom Mistein said that he had an agenda against Rabin`s being commander, and was besides-according to Milstein-a thoroughly vile creature, and should not be considered a valid source on so sensitive a matter. Thank You Dale Stern (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015-05 notification dans fr

Ça va pas être possible. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

« démoniser » est un anglicisme. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lorsque Laurent Louis était député, ses interventions au parlement belge étaient couvertes par son immunité parlementaire. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ds

I believe you are probably already aware of these, but as you have not recieved a formal notice, here you go.

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 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.

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you dear. Pluto2012 (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New alert template for ARBPIA

Hello Pluto. Your recent notice for Averysode didn't created a tagged edit in his talk history marked 'discretionary sanctions alert'. It's my impression that only {{ds/alert}} does the right thing, so I gave him a new alert. See WP:AC/DS for the post-May-2014 system. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EdJohnston,
Thank you for the information but I think I still don't know how to proceed. :(
Pluto2012 (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your issue is that you copied the notice I gave you, but the notice was a result of a substituted template, so just copying the output of that template doesn't do the right thing. You must subst it using the following code, which will get replaced by the actual notice on save.
{{subst:alert|a-i|}}
Gaijin42 (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gaijin42.
Thank you for the clarification.
Pluto2012 (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ménargues

I've looked and relooked at this. It seems clear to me (WP:OR) that Ménargues has no smoking pistol evidence but is just making an inference between Benny Haim's dogtags found inside the camp, and Sayeret Maktal. That is something that an archival historian could disprove. Just dig up the records showing what unit Haim belonged to. The Kahan Commission dismissed it (though their story of how the tags got there is not convincing either). One thing however in the Kahan Report esp. made me curious. They write that before the Phalangists were ushered into the camp, the leader was given a briefing 'Brigadier-General Yaron spoke with the Phalangists about the places where the terrorists were located in the camps.' I.e. Yaron must have had some map locating specific individuals, identified as 'terrorists', in specific areas of the camp, to convey to the Phalange group whom we know were not experts on this camp. That is exactly what Ménargues's source apparently said to him, i.e., that the Israelis had a register and map of the locations inside the camp of individuals. It may be a pure coincidence. I think we will never know, as is often the case. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 12 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Golan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romans. 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) 09:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Pluto2012. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 03:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Stop stalking and deleting everything I edit!

Settleman (talk) 07:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect RfC on Susya

You have expressed an interest on the subject before so I want to let you know it is now open. Settleman (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the information. I will go and comment there. Pluto2012 (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A thought

Hi, Pluto. I'd rather not get into politics here. However, based on your comment on the Malik case page, perhaps something you may want to think about, however, is, in your opinion, are more or fewer people engaged in hasbara, as you see it, or deligitimization (such as Ali Abunimah, Max Blumenthal, the entire BDS movement, etc.)? I'm not trying to change your mind. But please be cognizant that there may be those who view the deligitimzation movement as the same, or worse, than hasbarah, and there is reason to believe there is a significant number of active adherents to that philosophy—whether they outnumber people engaged in "hasbarah" I don't know if anyone can answer that question. I'd hope that you would consider that someone editing Wikipedia to further the deligitimizaton of Israel is a direct violation of our policies. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avi,
I have never met anybody who was editing Wikipedia to deligitimate Israel. I have met some pro-P trolls or so. They vandalized some articles.
But I met numerous pro-I editors, who are convinced there is a deligimition of Israel on wikipedia and who fight (sic) against that myth and harm our work and our aims : to build a free encyclopaedia complying with some rules.
They are the problems as those who would protect them. Pluto2012 (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've come across both types. For example, how would you describe the initial edits of ChahatKi (talk · contribs)? In general, some people respond well to education; others need to quickly be shown the door. I would say this. If the person with the Pro-I position works with you to balance the article so it is balanced between the P and I perspectives (especially as found in English language sources) then they should be encouraged. There are certainly articles which could benefit from what I call this "cordial tension" in that if the two sides work together, the articles will adhere to NPOV (which is not no point of view, but neutral point of view). If Pro-I or Pro-P ignore our rules, then we should show them the door, and the I/P area is enough of a morass that a short leash is needed (allow for an initial mistake/misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and its rules, but not to the level we go in other areas where someone can be blocked for 3rr a number of times before being hauled off to ANI). However, stating a priori that Pro-I editors are more prone to violate Wiki rules and should be treated differently than Pro-P editors, which is what I can infer from what you said on the case page, is against our core policies and is not helpful in building the encyclopedia. If you did not mean to treat anyone differently, and meant something else, then I will gladly stand corrected. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have been across both types. I have not been outed, didn't receive death threath at your home and was not the target of several WP:RCU by editors.
Hi Avi,
ChahatKi is not comparable: he is naive and can be reverted at sight without problem.
You should not guess from his editing that an editor is Pro-I or Pro-P. It is normal newcomers make mistakes but when they come for the wikipedia project, they understand fast. But those who come with strong pov's, with an a priori and above all a mission to save -I or to save -P image in the I/P conflict, they should be shown the door.
For the last time, I never wrote that pro-I should be treated differently as pro-P. That would be no sense. But it is clear that the situation is mainly caused by pro-I.
Pluto2012 (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I misunderstood, you have my apologies (and on the Arb case page as well). Although, when I was much more active in I/P (back in 2005–2007/8 or so) I found there were as many POV pushers from the P side as from the I side and had to deal with both. Perhaps things have shifted in the years I've focused more on maintenance work. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Avi,
No worry.
It doesn't matter much and even at all from what side it comes from. What is important is to prevent the problems to go on and to improve the situation. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Religious antisemitism

Hi, Pluto. Firstly, the sources define anti-semitism as prejudice against Jews for religious reasons as well. That may have two other names, but it doesn't take it out of the category of antisemitism. It is a sub-category. Our own article Religious antisemitism makes that point as "the prejudice against, or hostility toward, the Jewish people based on hostility to Judaism and to Jews as a religious group." Summary style may suggest having most of the discussion in the sub-category, but that does not mean it isn't in the major category. -- Avi (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avi,
If religious antisemitism is (of course) a source of antisemtism ; hate or hostility of Judaism is not (necessarily) antisemtism. It is Anti-Judaism and refers more to laicity.
There are huge nuances. The sources do not claim the contrary. Just some sources do the amalgame (by laziness ?) and I assume just those that make fast summaries without nuances. I doubt very much that scholarly litterature would make the mistake (even if I didn't read this on that topic).
The article antisemitism, in its own lead, should take this into account and in particular the own lead of anti-Judaism that claims the exact contrary of that lead...
Anyway, I don't mind. If I had seen that there was an edit war with newbees about this I would not have reverted you. I went too fast. I apologize for this.
There must be enough contributors checking this article to manage it.
Have a good day.
Pluto2012 (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation

You broke wp:1RR at List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015. I suggest you revert yourself before someone reports you. --Igorp_lj (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self revert or I will report you

I have provided academic sources who mention Havakook and why do you think you can declare an encyclopedia as non RS. Settleman (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think "Pluto2012 Encyclopaedia" is WP:RS ?
I am sure not.
That's nearly as worse for Ariel encyclopaedia.
Pluto2012 (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pluto2012: If you know nothing about an encyclopedia, take it to RSN and ask around. This is a final warning. Settleman (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The charge of the proof is for the one who brings information.
What is "Ariel encyclopaedia" ?
Pluto2012 (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Havakukk has a master's degree in anthropology and oriental studies. He worked as a military historian for the department of Defence in Israel, and did a piece of private research on South Hebron area which was never peer reviewed, and was published by his employer, the Ministry of Defence. These are not the sort of criteria that meet WP:RS criteria for an academic peer-reviewed study. Pluto therefore has a point. I reserve personally my judgement on this.Nishidani (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Hi: It's "notoriety". (I don't want to edit your section.) Or you might want to say something like "My Credentials". A bientôt, StevenJ81 (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StevenJ81. Thank you. I correct this. (I think I meant : "background")Pluto2012 (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

This is related to your stalking of Settleman. Regardless of your reason, sustained stalking of another user is never appropriate: following someone around like this can only be appropriate when the other user's creating significant problems that need to be reported elsewhere without waiting for such a period of time. As you didn't request administrative intervention against Settleman for significant policy violations or incompetence, you obviously didn't consider his actions this kind of problem. Given this fact, there's no good reason for stalking him like this. If you resume after the block expires, the block will be reinstated for longer periods of time, with an indefinite block likely. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ni Nyttend,
You took this decision alone, without debate with other sysops and you are a contributor of Jewish ancestry (the information is important enough at your eyes so that you mention this on you user page).
And whereas on the AN/I page you talk about "longer block" here you threatens me of "indefinite block".
Pluto2012 (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: This has already expired, and I didn't see this before, but this was a singularly ill-considered block. I saw no consensus, or even support, in the AN/I thread for a block. There is no evidence of "hounding". Settleman is a new editor who is a bit unsure about policy, and even by mistake some policies can be broken. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Settleman thread about just such a mistake. There is no evidence that Pluto's edits were motivated by anything else than policy. Pluto even agreed with Settleman's position here, for instance. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the conclusion of all this is that Hebrew-speaking Nyttend didn't care justifying his decision whereas the account of the pro-Israeli Settleman has been indefinitely blocked as a sock: [2] Pluto2012 (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1R

You might just check your edit count, interleaving others, at Temple Mount? I'll sleepy and must have a siesta, otherwise I'd do it myself. If there's an infraction, just revert. These things get fixed over time. festina lente. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DRN about Duma

Here. Settleman (talk) 06:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]