User talk:Rami R

Welcome!

Hello, Rami R, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 16:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

G'day Rami. I may re-re-edit the Israel page. While you have made it more neutral, my sentence was gives some reason for why peace is unsuccessful and shows while there is a disparity in force, neither side is a shrinking violet. Something like 'spectacularly unsuccessful', but descriptive. Also, the conflict is limited to Gaza and not the West Bank. Menswear (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your sentence gave undue weight to recent events. It is very debatable whether the current conflict in Gaza is the reason of failing peace negotiations, and not just a symptom of other problems. Regardless of this, the lead should probably not go into to much detail. If you feel that can improve the wording while addressing these issues, go ahead. Rami R 16:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

War in Lebanon

Israel won the war in Lebanon. Whatever happened after the ceasefire was signed, IDF occupied significant part of South Lebanon. Israel therefore should be in the 1st column of the table. If you take look at other articles about wars, you'll see that the winner is almoust always in the 1st column, and loser is in the 2nd. Putting Israel in 2nd column implies that Hesbolla military defeated Israeli military, which is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keverich1 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at Talk:2006 Lebanon War#Sorry, but no Israeli victory. Rami R 20:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your definition of victory is way too sophisticated. It appears that you define victory as achieving the declared political goals. I define victory in pure military terms: victory means occupying enemy's territory and inflicting losses on enemy. I believe that the vast majority of users define military victory just like me. And because it is an article about military conflict, victory should be understood in military terms, rather than political. Now, we know as a matter of fact that Israel occupied part of Lebanon, and we also know that Lebanese losses both military and civilian were much higher. This makes Israel a clear winner in military terms.Keverich1 (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at article talk page. Let's please keep the discussion over there, not here. Rami R 21:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rabin page contribution deletion

Today I added two references added to the Rabin page to balance the presentation. Kindly explain why you deleted them. Emesz 21:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the ISBNs. That constitutes vandalism. Rami R 10:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, unless I am mistaken, that constitutes a "bug" in the software. I just noticed that when I edit the list of books the ISBN numbers are dropped and all that is left is ISBN ... When I added 2 references I didn't notice this. Do you now why this happens (to avoid future problems)?

Also, "vandalism" is a purposeful act, this was accidental ... If something like this comes up again with someone it is best to send a note advising of the problem.Emesz 14:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk page.

I prefer content disputes in article Talk space. Italia^vivi 20:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rabin

Be aware that I did more changes except the external link. --TRFA 09:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware. I don't really care about the wording, just the external link. Rami R 17:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Don't feed the trolls

Aye, I shouldn't, but that one had be particularily ticked off. I am many things, but anti-semitic I am most definatly not. Hell, my dad's family are ashkanazi. Narson 18:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why did you delete my improvements to Menachem Begin article?

Rami R, Please explain why you deleted my improvements to Menachem Begin article, quoting reliable sources and including appropriate citations? Are you going to contest the undisputed historical fact that following Menachem Begin's involvement in the Deir Yassin massacre, many leading Jewish thinkers, philosophers and rabbis -- including Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, Sydney Hook -- published a letter in the New York Times calling Begin's party a fascist party, accusing him of terrorism, and warning the public to stay away from him? Moreover, are you going to contest the fact that many in the Yishuv considered Begin a terrorist? Please note that all my edits are supported by sources and citations, whereas the version of the article which I edited had absolutely no sources, and was not fit to be published in a reliable encyclopedia. Although it is hard to remain calm in the face of politically-motivated censorship, I will remain civil in my discourse and hope you can maintain civility too. Firstamend 15:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edits to Dem Primaries page

Hi!

I've made some changes to the image gallery on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008 , and thought you might want to see if it's okay with you Enlightened Bystander (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Attacks" on Obama's Talk Page

I've been contributing for three or four years, and I'll thank you not to refer me to policy pages like I am a noob. I did not attack CltFn, I called him/her out for being intellectually dishonest. In future, please direct all correspondence with me to my talk page, at Scientz. And while we're at it, don't ever delete anything I've put on a talk page again. Edits to articles are fair game, but not in talk pages.Scientz (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see an established editor commenting, I saw an Anon claiming to be a registered editor, and had no immediate reason to believe this claim.
I admit that I may have been too quick to judge your comments as attacks. However your comments about CltFn where unwarranted/unneeded, as CltFn hadn't edited the article since January 13 (2 weeks ago), hadn't edited the talk page since January 17, hadn't edited at all since January 19 (except to request unblocks on his talk page). The discussion topic itself wasn't active the past 3 days.
(generic argument not specific to this case) removing comments from talk pages is generally considered legitimate if the comments constitute vandalism, trolling, or in special cases, personal attacks. Again as I said before, I may have been overzealous in judging your edits as attacks.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. Rami R 21:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough . . . and no hard feelings, I might add. My Firefox doesn't seem to possess the ability to keep me logged in as me whenever I go to Wikipedia. There are many instances when I forget to log in before editing an article, so I can understand the confusion. As far as CltFn, I had read the first 10-15 responses and then decided to add my two cents . . . I have since been pleased to note that the user has been banned indefinitely. Scientz (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USS Liberty Incident

Why did you remove my comments on the Talk Page and mark them as vandalism. You are pushing Jew POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.34.118 (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

learned something new on Wikipedia

I learned that Obama is willing to invade Pakistan. Nobody else wants to so that's really important for an encyclopedia. Who knows? He could be right?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=203674181&oldid=203673852

I saw the talk page then saw the history where you deleted someone's comment saying it's not sourced. Well, now it's sourced. I found an interesting article. Please restore your deletion. Thanks. 116.12.165.227 (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Menahem Begin's quote

Why is that quote any worse than the other quotes? Since when does Wikipedia demand secondary and tertiary sources, if most of the material is completely unsourced?--Doom777 (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

W/O an air date "Response to Yaron Dekel, Israel Broadcast Authority" is invalid as a primary source. And thus, w/o a secondary or tertiary source to confirm the quote or the circumstances it was made, the quote is simply unsourced, and per WP:V "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed". Rami R 10:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, Rami.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new section

Rami,

Kindly contact me directly at furtiveadmirer@hotmail.com. I wrote to you on your home page in error. I do not wish to discuss your deletions of my Jonathan Pollard facts on this page. If you choose not to respond, kindly have your supervisor contact me with clarification of why you are so nasty and disrespectful??? Furtive admirer (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not contact you via email. If you wish to discuss anything, you can do so here on my talk page, on your talk page, or on the article talk page. Suggesting that I am paid to edit here (as you explicitly state here) is a gross violation of wikipedia's policies, such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Do so again and I will report you to the appropriate notice board, which will most likely result in you being blocked.

As for the article content issue: The bulk of the information you added was not attributed to reliable sources, as required by Wikipedia:Verifiability. However, even if it were, it was not neutrally phrased (for instance, writing in all caps[1] can not be considered encyclopedic, to say the very least). All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, as per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

To summarize:

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research for what can be written in articles,
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for how it can be written, and
Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, so you know what not to do when you disagree with other editors.

Rami R 17:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s You haven't explained what that last bit of vandalism was for[2]... oh well. Rami R 17:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so nasty? You deleted everything!! If the Pollard Page is your "baby", you can add info yourself. I have first-hand knowledge and thought it would be helpful. I don't consider spending a full day attempting to correct and add facts as "vandalism" (some dates are wrong; Pollard was shipped off to the Medical Center for Prisoners in Springfield Mo. stripped naked for months, and threatened with intimidation [much the same as you do] if he didn't disclose an American Jewish Conspiracy with Israel; [like the most recent AIPAC accusations]; only Lee Hamiliton was able to resolve matters humanely; there was no trial, just an in camera sentencing hearing; Joseph DiGenova is an important player--so is Alan Dershowitz' affidavit; and the Elaine Zeitz facts are fictitious).

I didn't delete anything including the charlatan, Seymour Hersh's "sources and methods", which are definitely factually incorrect - just because it is published you allow the propaganda, most of which is written to sell magazines; so is the Margolis article on the Grabbe website which now does not exist, so it should be deleted. Everyone of those writers wrote opinion, not fact, and you allow them as sources. How hypocritical.

You should go to law school and then you will be paid for your attempt to intimidate and impeach witnesses. I will not assist you, and your "uncivil" threats of blocking me only reveal your aggressive personality. Go find someone else to bully. You enjoy it a lot.

I am going to email Dr. Morris Pollard, Jonathan's father, the link and let him correct the record. Perhaps his pen will not be rejected by you....

Furtive admirer (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. the last sentence was to illustrate how omnipotent the government wants the public to continue to believe Pollard is; they tried him again and again with a negative media campaign with no factual basis for the character assassinations and continue to do so each time there is a consideration or movement towards his release....much like you!!!

I sent my revisions to Carol Pollard, Jonathan's sister last night after responding to Rami's threats. I did not log on here to have such difficult interactions and verbal abuse. I thought this was a credible source; obviously, you can't handle the truth (Jack Nicholson).

Carol's response is: "I wish you peace and thank you for such a nice job you did on the entry.

XXX Carol"

FYI: If you want verification of any of the additions I made, her email address is: <email deleted>

I have also contacted Dr. Morris Pollard, Jonathan Pollard's father, and though he is in his mid-90's, I suggested he deal with you directly, and/or have author, Mark Shaw correct (see footnotes on Pollard Page) your errors with his sources. Obviously, you have serious issues here with writers and regretfully look at the glass half-full. I didn't realize how skeptical you are; you appear to alienate anyone with a triple digit IQ; it obviously reduces the quality and the integrity of your project, which now bears no weight in my ongoing acquisition of cultural literacy. My brother did warn me in advance about your treatment of contributors.

Rami, it is obvious you did not realize i was a female. You probably would have behaved better. First impressions are lasting. My dad always said, "You can catch more flies with molasses than vinegar."

This is definitely a waste of time and energy....

Furtive admirer (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Rami, i see u r hard at work on this site. i am happy it is important 2 u , but u really have 2 do more research: Pollard was in a ward for the criminally insane first (u deleted it) "Pleaded" is a syntactical error: Standard American English is "pled", both simple past tense, and past perfect tense (had pled). elaine zeitz began writing 2 jay (jonathan) in Israel 1 summer while she was there (she was a special education teacher in toronto and went 2 Israel 4 the summer). There were 2 prisoners she wrote 2 (pen pals )and she settled with jay. it is a safe relationship 4 her: he can neither reject her nor have sex with her, and she can claim they are married, and receive voluminous media attention focused on her alone. (if anything, it is a non-consummated common law marriage.) she never knew him before. he grew up in texas and south bend indiana, where his dad was an eminent professor at University of Notre Dame. Pollard went 2 Stamford and then Fletcher School of Diplomacy (Tufts University) before he landed his first job in naval intelligence. seems like you are wagging the dog, correcting and reorganizing rather than adding new facts and creating a clean, neat chronology.

it appears as if you are fiercely protecting this site for some reason?? 2 many undos in 5 years: UNBELIEVABLE!!

Furtive admirer (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incident closed re Furtive Admirer

The discussion at the administrator incident noticeboard regarding User:Furtive admirer has now been archived. In case you did not read the full discussion before archiving took place, you can do so here. If you have any comments about anything I said at the end of the discussion, please drop me a line on my talk page. Thank you. StephenBuxton (talk) 10:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

My RfA

Yael "Yuli" Tamir

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

AIV

For your recent report to AIV, the user had only a level three warning. Only report users who are currently vandalizing after a final warning. Thank you. لenna vecia 13:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of waiting for a level4 warning. level3 already warns users that they will be blocked. So unless there's a good reason to believe that the user may have not seen the warning (7 minutes passed from issuing the warning 'till the next vandalism, I don't find it likely that the ip didn't notice), why bother with level4? Rami R 13:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hi Rami R, and thanks for supporting my successful request for adminship. It was nice to see all the kind comments I got from my supporters and I hope that I will be more useful to the community now that I have the tools again.--Berig (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity draft dodgers vs."refuseniks"

Shalom, Rami! I've added a response to your comment on the Refusal to serve in the Israeli military discussion page. I suggest that there's some serious confusion arising from the wording, so there are two issues I'd like you to address for the sake of clarity:

The heading reads Celebrity refuseniks, but what you describe is the phenomenon of "Celebrity draft ~~dodgers~~ evaders ("draft dodgers"; משתמטים). I strongly suggest rewording, perhaps as in the heading I've given my comment here.
The "removal for WP:BLP" tag seems misplaced: it precedes your signature to your initial comment, when it appears (from the Talk page Edit History) to belong to the subsequent response by User:Zig-Zac.

I'm describing these here for your consideration and (hopefully) action to revise them -- particularly the first point, which pertains to the further clarification I added. By the way, I hope I'm right that my linking to the Bar Refaeli page isn't a transgression of WP:BLP as her case is properly cited there, in contrast to the (rather contentious) wording in the deleted text initially posted by User:Zig-Zac. -- שלום וכל טוב, Deborahjay (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood the situation. I haven't commented on the discussion topic at all. The only thing I've done is censor a potentially libelous statement as per BLP: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." I also left a note explaining this.

As for Refaeli: you've linked to a properly sourced section, so it's okay. Rami R 23:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I got confused by the layout! I've gone back to that page and made some improvements of my own. I also posted a further comment with the terminology I suggest, so its header will get into the TOC box. Thanks for helping clear this up. -- Deborahjay (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reverting comments on talk page: Six day war

You reverted my comment at the talk page on the six-day war here. Rabin is listed as the commnader of the Israel army at the time of the conflict. I think my comment is relevant to the article. Please explain your revert on my user page here. Thanks—F^red ¹1⁴ 20:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ehud Barak

Tnx for your quick response w/ the fix for the Ehud Barak ref; sometimes i can't bear to look up the template docn. With a little luck, i'll be able to remember the perfectly logical url parameter. Happy editing to you.
--Jerzy•t 06:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. This is a wiki after all ;) Happy editing to you too! Rami R 07:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli legislative election, 2009: Opinion Polls

Hello. I am hoping we can come to a consensus as how to best expand and reform the Opinion Polls table on the Israeli legislative election, 2009 page. I am also hoping you can explain the comment "rv: serious WP:SYNTH issues and use of questionable sources (e.g. bhirot2009.co.il))"

I spent considerable effort finding over 80 polls for this and sourcing this as best I could. While I understand some polls have better sources than others, I definitely don't understand a WP:SYNTH argument. There are no claims made in the table, just raw data. And I did not include only some polls as opposed to others; I included every one, most with 2-4 sources. Thanks, --Allstar86 (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably better discussed on the article talk page, but whatever. I appreciate the work you've put into this, but we do not really need to include every poll in existence. We shouldn't include polls that don't have good sources, polls that give incomplete results, and polls that give impossible results (e.g. a single seat for a party).

Example of specific issues I found:

Date	Media	Pollster	Kadima	Labor	Shas	Likud	Yisrael Beiteinu	UAL-T /Hadash /Balad	Jewish Home /National Union	UTJ	Meretz	Greens	Sources
Jan 7, 2009	Channel 10	Dialog	27	16	11	31	10	10	0/3	5	7	0	Nana10, Bhirot
Jan 7, 2009	Radius Radio 100FM	Geocartography	27	12	7	33	11	10	5/3	4	6	2	Bhirot
Jan 1, 2009	Haaretz	Dialog	27	16	9	32	11	4/4/2^[1]	3/0	5	7	0	Bhirot, INN, IMRA, Reuters

^ Reuters reports that the Haaretz survey of January 1, 2009 polled 8 Arab seats, but is contradicted by other sources.

First poll: channel 10 reported UAL-Ta'al and Hadash receiving 3 seats each and nothing about Balad. Yet bhirot2009.co.il reports the Arab parties receiving 10 seats in the poll. Where exactly did they get this number?
The second poll has only bhirot2009 as a source, and we just saw how reliable they are.
In the third poll you give the results as 4/4/2 for the Arab parties, yet in a footnote state that Reuters reports them getting 8. So which is it? This is an Haaretz poll. Haaretz has online editions both in English and Hebrew, with mostly free archives. Why isn't Haaretz sourced directly?

I also have some minor formating reservations, such as having different parties lumped together (UAL-Ta'al/Hadash/Balad and NU/JH) and listing the polls in descending order, but these really are minor points. Rami R 21:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments posted on Talk:Israeli legislative election, 2009. Thanks very much! --Allstar86 (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left bloc

Please also keep in mind the official Knesset website mentions a left-wing - Arab bloc and a right-wing - religious bloc. The reason why it would be more accurate to write left-wing bloc over center-left is because the left-wing bloc (which is a more inclusive term) includes Meretz and Arab parties, which are not center-left. --Shamir1 (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle

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

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA, which was unable pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Hopefully, if/when I have another RfA I will win your support. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, -down load ׀ sign! 01:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shameless thankspam

FlyingToaster Barnstar

Hello Rami R! Thank you so much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of 126/32/5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. Flying Toaster

Jayjg a POV editor

Why are you reverting edits like this one? He's barred from editing the topic because he's a POV editor - don't you want people to know about it and challenge him next time? Perhaps we'll find out if he accuses people of being anti-semitic too,that's theusual thing. 81.156.221.178 (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the articles, not to "challenge" editors. Indeed, it is rarely appropriate to discuss the editors themselves at all. While it is true that Jayjg has been subject to editing restrictions, an article's talk page is not the appropriate place to bring it up. Even if he were to violate those restrictions, the talk page would still not be the appropriate place to bring up the issue, but rather an admin's notice board such as WP:ANI or WP:AE. Rami R 14:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:James von Brunn

Thanks for moving my admin request to the proper spot. Billbrock (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Update

Hello, Rami R. You have new messages at Template_talk:Update#Reason_Section.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Zionism

Hi Rami, I am having a little argument on the Zionism page over the issue of "the protocols" and since you seem like an objective thinker and have edited the page I would be interested to hear your opinion.

Telaviv1 (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IDF

Hi Rami, why are you edit warring me re IDF etymology? I'm not anti Israel; I just want to make a valid contribution re the name IDF.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldfinger 93 (talk • contribs)

According to policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, everything in wikipedia must be sourced to reliable 3rd-party sources. You state that since it is argued (you are appear to be arguing it), it doesn't require a source. Say I argued that a possible explanation for IDF is "International Dog Federation" - do you think this deserves mention in the article? If not, what's the difference? That it's not a reasonable explanation? But then, so is your explanation, as I explained in the edit summery. Do you understand now why we need sources?

I suggest that you self-revert, you may be blocked for a WP:3RR violation otherwise. Rami R 16:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are employing the Straw Man fallacy: you falsely state that I used the words "it is argued". Please read my text properly before commenting on it.

Your childish reference to "International Dog Federation" demonstrates a lack of intellectual rigour. Either contribute substantively to the article or stop editing it.

Re your threat of me being "blocked" - why not call it censorship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldfinger 93 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, "might arguably be construed". Semantics. My argument might also be construed. I'm sorry you view this as censorship. To me, respecting 3RR is proper encyclopedia-building collaborative conduct. This is an encyclopedia, not some place to present [[[WP:NOR|original research]]. As such everything must have a proper source. Who's construing this argument? Who's claiming that it can be? Your text doesn't give this info. and thus gives the appearance that the encyclopedia itself is construing it.

Also, please mind our policies regarding civility. Rami R 17:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that you are now retracting your original erroneous assertion that I used the words "it is argued". Also, please note that censoring anything remotely critical of the IDF does not help Israel. Instead of censoring, why don't you constructively amend my text? Try not to take my criticism of your censorhip as a personal attack. If you can't take people having a different opinion to you, then I suggest that you stop editing Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldfinger 93 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, did you even read my latest edit before censoring it? I have put a lot of thought into the wording of the edit. The edit is intended to positively contribute to the article. Goldfinger 93 (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you are all here! Goldfinger, I have also reverted your edits. I make no comment on whether it is factually correct or not, but it is the sort of thing that is controversial and as such requires adequate sourcing. The source you provided was not what wikipedia views as a reliable source. Rather than keep inserting the phrase, please discuss it on the talk page first. And don't worry, if you can show that there are grounds for it's inclusion the work you have put in isn't lost, as it is still there in the edit history. Quantpole (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quantpole, Goldfinger's source looks fine to me. How do you defend your contention that his source is "not what wikipedia views as reliable"? Perhaps you mean that you don't like his edits and are looking for an excuse to delete them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.31.58 (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be careful because it looks like you are trying to evade a block. Quantpole (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue conversation

I've responded to your comment on talk. I'd like it if you could respond to mine. I find that people tend to change the article to what they like and then abandon the talk if no one reverts their change. I'm not reverting yours because I don't want to edit war. I'd like to reach an understanding, if at all possible. So please, continue the discussion. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 17:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

Thanks hottie, for the update on my discussion contribution. I wondered what happened there. --A3RO (mailbox) 14:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3

Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could We Talk about the Deletion of My Changes?

Hi, Rami.

When I first looked at the Yitzchak Rabin Assassination page, I noticed a few places where the previous editor(s) had used some very politically-charged terms, and had played down some aspects of the events while dwelling extensively on other aspects, again with a political message being the outcome. I noted the frequent notations to one particular book by Charles D. Smith as a source, and checked up on it using Google and Amazon. I found the book to give an (in my opinion) unbalanced view of the ongoing conflict, but others' opinions probably differ, so removing it entirely would be pointless. However, it did not seem right that the article should have been based so heavily on one book, so I decided to add a few points and to change some of the wording slightly, giving a less political slant to the page without destroying the story of the events. I found, however, that my edits were summarily undone by you, and I would like to have an opportunity to defend them here.

I never deleted without substituting something in its place, and I have added quite a bit. I tried to stay out of controversial topics, except where the previous editor(s) had given one view already. Then, I simply presented the alternate view (or views) afterwards. The other views should not be taken as my own political leanings, I simply tried to present all the arguments together. In general, I tried to 'tone down' the article, rather than making it more inflammatory.

I will freely admit that I am biased, as is every human on the planet... without exception. Bias is simply a name for our particular point of view. Without bias, we have no views on anything. Bias only becomes dangerous when we allow it to affect our reporting of events. I have tried to overcome my bias and present a balanced view of the Rabin assassination and its effects. If you dislke my phrasing, please leave a talkback and let me know what you think. If this is the wrong place to talk about it, we can move to the Rabin assassination talk page.

Hoping to have a list of my changes for you shortly. Please don't ignore this (not that I'd suspect a nice Jewish boy like you of doing something like that).

66.227.183.99 (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I swear, it wasn't me

Hi rami

I've just pop up to read one of articles on wikipedia, when i get this message from you.

The problem is IT WASN'T ME. I never heard about Gaydamek dude till now.
I'm not blaming you, but maybe you could help me identified what happened. I've using wireless modem to connect to internet through one of UK based ISP providers.

Is this vandalism was really sent from my comp (zombi terminal... I mean - is my comp is used by spammers or something)? Or is it provider, which gave me IP of some cyber-vandals?

It's starting to be little scary, when I've visited wikipedia few months ago, i couldn't edit talk page because I was "banned".

Any tips how to solve this mystery?

Regards and sorry for my poor English

M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.51.28 (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Reuters reports that the Haaretz survey of January 1, 2009 polled 8 Arab seats, but is contradicted by other sources.

[1]