Talk:Ramat Shlomo

East Jerusalem

• "East Jerusalem". As is clear from the map, it is not located in East Jerusalem. Even if it is true the UN considers it E"J, that is hardly germane. It is certainly on the other side of the "Green Line", but that does not make it part of "East Jerusalem". Please ensure factual accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RonAaron (talk • contribs) 06:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It is where the majority of sources say it is. We are not here to promote the views of belligerents in a conflict eager to stress 'Jerusalem, complete and united' or 'it's on occupied land' narratives. If the majority of sources say it is in 'East Jerusalem' (and we know what that means) then it is in the place reliable sources refer to as 'East Jerusalem' and we will link to the article about East Jerusalem. Removal of material sourced to impeccably reliable sources like The Times isn't helpful. Editing here must comply with the discretionary sanctions that oblige editors to be neutral amongst other things. The sources define what is germane and factually accurate, not you. Policy compliance based on reliable sources not on what editors like or think is how it works. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And here I thought the point was to provide factual information. The information I posted was in fact neutral, as well as corroborated by geography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RonAaron (talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Saying that The Times is "impeccably reliable" is erroneous, if you mean the New York Times. That particular paper is full of political slants, and if geography contradicts these "impeccable facts," then I guess they aren't too impeccable, are they. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That is not how it works here. Sources say that this is in East Jerusalem. We go with the sources, not what a few people want the sources to say. nableezy - 18:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine then. Go with the sources. But don't call them "impeccably reliable" when they are not, and don't be defensive when other people find sources saying this is in Northern Jerusalem. I know how it works here as well, thank you. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

<- You do not know how it works here. The Times is not the New York Times. At least have the common decency to read the sources, look at what people are removing, ask yourself whether removing a source like the Times is the action of someone who wants to build an encyclopedia. The reason people use maps to say this is in Northern Jerusalem and remove impeccably reliable sources like the Times is because they don't want it to say East Jerusalem. This is the kind of nonsense that must stop. I tried to be nice. I added the Jpost source that said northeastern J. This is despite the fact that even that source uses the following terminology

• northeastern Jerusalem
• east Jerusalem (Netanyahu "the prime minister said, the policy on building Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem is not new")
• east Jerusalem ("Netanyahu’s office has said repeatedly that he did not have any intention of declaring a housing-start moratorium in east Jerusalem")
• Jerusalem (Middle East Quartet composed of the US, UN, EU and Russia)

I could have picked another Jpost source which states "to build 1,600 housing units in Ramat Shlomo in east Jerusalem" or any number of the countless RS that refer to this location as being in East Jerusalem (the consensus view) but I didn't. Why ? Because the opening statement doesn't need to have anything to do with politics. That was the agreement in the centralized discussion about settlements. You can continue being a POV warrior or you can simply follow policy. It's up to you but things will go more smoothly if you simply follow policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What about the area before Jordan illegally invaded Jerusalem in 1948?

Ramat Shlomo is in North Jerusalem, according to all modern maps. Even a map posted on the NYTimes Lede blog last week shows this! Just because the Muslims renamed it East Jerusalem 60+ years ago, that doesn't make it legit. Before Jordan invaded and illegally annexed the area, it had a majority Jewish population as the entire city of Jerusalem has, since 1844 through today!

Jews were ethnically cleansed from the area by the Jordanian Arabs in late 1948. Where is the paragraph on this?

Why does the history of the area only begin after Jordan's 19 year illegal occupation? Obviously people lived there prior to 1948, otherwise it, as well as much of the Jewish owned property in J'lem wouldn't be so sought after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.215.137.201 (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Google Earth image proves Ramat Shlomo is North Jerusalem, not East

The wikipedia article for the Russian Compound in Jerusalem clearly states that it is in "central Jerusalem". Google map also confirms this. Yet the Russian compound is slightly farther East than Ramat Shlomo. On the map you will see Ramat Shlomo, slightly Northwest of Central Jerusalem.

This would mean that the Russian compound is in East Jerusalem if Ramat Shlomo is to be considered East. Otherwise you have to use truth & logic and declare R.S. north central Jerusalem, if the Russian compound is also central.

Logic & fact prevail over the big lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.215.137.201 (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:V and WP:NPOV, look at reliable sources that discuss Ramat Shlomo. There are many that describe where it is is in a geographical sense and many that describe where it is in a political sense. Wiki article content isn't based on truth & logic. It follows wiki policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Overall, fairly biased, anti-Israel page

I'm sorry but I have to call this as I see it. As of April 8th, 2010, this article has an imbalance of information--some stuff on the actual housing development, lots of stuff on the political front, nearly all of it from an anti-Israel standpoint. It mentions the Obama's administration's and EU's condemnation of recently announced units slated for construction, but completely leaves out Netenyahu & Israel's explanation for the announcement, and their response to the criticism.

Not surprisingly, the article also declares that "it is therefore considered to be an Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem." "Therefore considered" by whom? Not by George W. Bush or past U.S. presidents. Not by many prominent American politicians. Not by pro-Israel European countries. Also, I would venture to guess that any proposals to divide Jerusalem will for sure include Ramat Shlomo safely within Israeli territory, even those coming from the Pro-Palestinian side.

Finally, this article initially mentioned Ramat Shlomo's "East Jerusalem" political status in both the intro and "political status" pages (though since edited by yours truly), in the exact same wording and phrased as above. Perhaps this is an oversight, but in light of the other issues it does suggest an anti-Israel bias from certain editors. A good wiki page is informational first, and if it does include political viewpoints, it should give both sides equal mention. I'll be re-visiting this page. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please not make edits that say things like 'As a result, opponents to Israel claim it to be an Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem'. This is so far away from mandatory compliance with the WP:NPOV policy and so inconsistent with the way reliable sources discuss this issue that I'm somewhat lost for words. Please read the discretionary sanctions at the top of this talk page and comply with them. Compliance is absolutely mandatory. If you can't comply please stop editing the article. Please try not to voice your opinions about the real world and stick to statements based on reliable sources. There are already many sources available in the article that support its contents and many more are available. Reading 'it does suggest an anti-Israel bias from certain editors' for statements that are supported by reliable mainstream media sources suggests that you may be unfamilar with mandatory policies such as WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. First of all, I changed "opponents of Israel" to "Israel's critics" before you even posted this. Secondly, my edits dramatically improved the article, and I added no less than five sources. Finally, the talk page is for "voicing your opinions." Don't tell people not to voice their opinions on a talk page.

Furthermore, it does suggest an anti-Israel bias when one editor adds edits that are supported by the exact same reliable mainstream sources and they are immediately reverted. Furthermore, everyone else on this discussion page seems to be complaining about the anti-Israel slant of this article, except for you. Finally, my edits dramatically improved the article without removing any prior information, and are all thoroughly sourced. What right do you have to revert them? Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What is ridiculous is your insistence on removing what the overwhelming majority of sources say from the lead, that this place is an Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem. What is ridiculous is that you source facts to op-eds and other garbage sources. What is ridiculous is that you keep saying silly things like "anti-Israel" or "Israel's opponents" when you describe nearly the whole world. And a talk page is for discussing the article and how to improve it, not for "voicing opinions" nableezy - 14:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. My comments here are made with the intent of improving the article, and I think an editor is out of line if they tell another editor not to be outspoken about their problems with the page. As far as your claim that it's ridiculous to call this page out as biased, see all the other posts on it. Do you see a theme here? Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I do see a theme. nableezy - 14:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's just dirty. Because there's more than one person that may not agree with your viewpoint, it must be because of sock puppets. You sure seem like a nice person, I have to hand it to you. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read this centralized discussion. This article is just one of many articles beset with problems caused by editors using their personal views about 'the truth' rather than simply following policy. The discretionary sanctions are there to make it clear to editors what is expected of them when they edit in this narrative warring prone topic area. Do not voice your opinions about the real world on this talk page per WP:TALK "Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective". What right do I have to revert the edit ? My revert is shown here. Your edits reduce mandatory policy compliance.

• You removed the most notable aspect of this location from the lead. That should be present in the lead per WP:LEAD
• Don't use blogs to source facts.
• Phrases like 'As a result, Israel's critics claim it to be' do not comply with NPOV or WP:WTA. There is no 'claim' from from 'critics'. There are plain statements by the international community, a consensus in reliable sources that refer to this location as an Israeli Settlement in East Jerusalem in the sources.

I have no interest in the rights and wrongs of this issue or the pointless narrative wars editors like to fight over this issue. I have an interest in ensuring policy compliance. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Also stay off my talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Something is not adding up here. Okay, so you have a problem with something that's not mentioned in the lead. So expand on the last edit and add it in in a smooth manner, to help create a quality article. Just reverting it to less developed version creates more problems than it solves, as you can see here.

I've been on wikipedia for over four years and definitely had some pretty good debates in that time. When disputes come up, the different parties talk about them on the discussion page and their own personal talk pages. Immediately reverting the edits and then trying to report the person I do find unusual, as well as telling them not to post to their talk page while in the middle of a dispute. Also, to say that I'm using a blog to source facts is taking things a little out of context. That happens to be an article written by Alan Dershowitz, one of the foremost experts on the Middle East. Yes, it happens to be on a "blog," but it is being posted on mainstream news sources and this is simply where it originates from.

In any case, if you have an issue or want to make a change, instant reverts is not the way to go about it, which is the approach you and Nableezy have taken. To make matters worse, to instantly warn and then report a user who is simply doing a milder version of what you are doing does seem to be just a little out-of-line, as Nableezy has done. I'm not going to make any accusations but I can say from vast experience that this is not typical wiki editing. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not a typical topic area. It's covered by discretionary sanctions. It's covered by sanctions precisely because partisan, nationalist editors have turned wikipedia into a battlefield to fight their narrative wars, push views that are inconsistent with reliable sources and mandatory policy, use talk pages to WP:SOAP about the righteousness of their opinions and wave their flags amongst many other things, none which are part of building a neutral encyclopedia. It is also a topic area beset with problems from sockpuppets. If you simply comply with mandatory policies especially the discretionary sanctions you probably won't even know that I'm here. If you make an edit that I regard as a clear violation of policy or the discretionary sanctions, an attempt to POV push, I'll revert it. I'm happy to discuss things per WP:BRD, provide sources etc and help to maximise policy compliance and improve the article if I can but I won't discuss the real world issues. Yes, I'm very familar with Dershowitz. If you know for sure and can demonstrate that his JPost blog 'is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control' per WP:RS then you can use it for facts. If you can't then you can only use it for his opinions. My question would be, why would you want to use a partisan source when there are an abundance of reliable secondary sources on this issue ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

For example your statement 'As a result, Israel's critics claim it to be an Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem', what is this ? Look at the mismatch with the sources next to it. Start with CNN. East Jerusalem: A tale of two neighborhoods which flat out states "For the U.N., the U.S. and much of the world, the two cases are the same. Both settlements are being built on land annexed by Israel". This is exactly the kind of weasel worded POV pushing that is simply unacceptable. Don't do it. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz is not "one of the foremost experts on the Middle East". That line actually made me laugh out loud. Thanks for that. nableezy - 15:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, this

his government had not radically increased housing in the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem;...-> ...the various plans drawn up over the years.

..is or is very close to being a copyvio of the source. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

In Conclusion

I readily accept the criticism put forth by Sean Hoyland and Nableezy. A more thorough procedure could have been utilized to address my issues with this article. At the same time, I just want to point out three things:

1) This article appeared to me as being low quality. Generally speaking, when I edit what I think is a low quality article I don't bombarded with this kind of intense opposition. Usually it means that nobody has paid attention to it for quite some time, and my changes are either unnoticed or address by some rogue soul. I now understand that anything that could be labeled as part of the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is treacherous territory and I should be prepared for a reaction to any major changes. But that raises another question--if this is such a watched page, than why did it seem so low quality to somebody like me?

2) I posted what I thought was a controversial post to the discussion page. No responses. I came back 24 hours later and made what I thought were appropriate changes. All hell breaks lose. What's up with that?

3) I still have to question whether this page is an encyclopedia entry, which is the criteria I go by when I raise up objections. Let's just say, hypothetically speaking, I'm Jewish and take an academic approach to my religion. I have some other religious friends who have lived in Ramat Shlomo for years, and think I should move there. Not knowing much about the place, I decide to look it up in the encyclopedia. In 2010, that should mean Wikipedia. All I really learn about the place is that "it is considered an Israeli Settlement." Is this an encyclopedia entry?

I'm not somebody that you should be reporting--I'm an intelligent individual whose actions are based in experience. I have no problems with playing by the rules. I do feel as though I've been attacked. Maybe it was self-imposed to an extent, but this is what I have to say. Any responses? Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"international backing"

Breein, could you explain why you changed "and annexed to Israel in a move not recognised by the international community" to "and annexed to Israel in a move which has not received comprehensive international backing"? Yes, it has not received "comprehensive international backing" but that understates a bit, dont you think? The "move" has been overwhelmingly rejected by the international community, it doesnt just lack "comprehensive international backing". nableezy - 17:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that edit was by Breein initially. On the plus side it is funny. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I changed the body to match the lead, which like Sean said, wasn't my edit in the first place. Since it has sat there in the lead with no objection for a long time, I assumed that meant everyone was ok with it. I do not accept the "international community" wording, and I have explained this over and over again on many other articles. International community is very weasel-y. Look at the wikipedia article international community. It isn't a well defined term, and there is no body that makes decisions on behalf of the "international community". Rather than saying something like that, we should do what I have been asking all along. Get rid of the weasel references (including the current "comprehensive backing" bullshit), and put in real, sourced reactions by the UN, EU, US, etc... Same thing goes for who considers Ramat Shlomo to be a settlement. You can't just say "it is considered a settlement". Not everyone does, therefore we should be stating who does, and who doesn't. Breein1007 (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The international community=weasel-y argument isn't valid in my view. Secondary sources use the term about this issue without any trouble or elaboration. There isn't a body that makes decisions on behalf of the "international community". It's the other way around i.e. the international community, through the United Nations etc. That is how it's described in UN resolutions using the term 'the international community'. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

New York Times correction

Breein, is there a reliable source that considers this incident to be important because "it demonstrates the complexity over the issue and that it is even worth printing a correction over" ? Media sources use a whole spectrum of terms to refer to Ramat Shlomo even within a single article. For example..

• The Times = settlement in East Jerusalem, project, religious community
• The NYT = Jewish housing, Jewish housing development, a neighborhood
• JPost = housing in the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem, neighborhoods
• The Guardian = Israeli settlement, homes on occupied territory,
• National Post = homes for Jews, a religious community
• BBC = homes for ultra-Orthodox Jews in East Jerusalem, settlement, East Jerusalem project
• CNN = neighborhood, the Jerusalem neighborhood

What is special about this case and who says so (apart from CAMERA) ? Don't you think it's undue weight ? In effect you are giving it the same weight as the Israeli government's position. Or consider a sentence like this

"The Guardian printed an article referring to Ramat Shlomo as an 'Israeli settlement'. Two days later they didn't issue a correction and the story remained on their web site unchanged."

What's the difference ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Some sources

I've been busy but I did gather these sources, quotes etc and I've prepared the refs for use. They are all unaltered samples from the sources.Sean.hoyland - talk 18:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

UN 2010-03-22 -> Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan

Condemns the new Israeli announcement on the construction of 120 new housing units in the Bitar Elite settlement, and 1,600 new housing units for new settlers in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Ramat Shlomo, and calls upon the Government of Israel to immediately reverse its decision which would further undermine and jeopardize the ongoing efforts by the international community to reach a final settlement compliant with international legitimacy, including the relevant United Nations resolutions

In favour (46): Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, France, Gabon, Ghana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay and Zambia. Against (1): United States of America. Abstentions (0):

Sean.hoyland - talk 17:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Russian MFA

Moscow views the announcement on March 9 by Israel’s Interior Ministry of plans to build 1600 new housing units in East Jerusalem’s Ramat Shlomo neighborhood with great concern. We believe that such Israeli actions are unacceptable. They run counter to the generally recognized international legal basis for a settlement, and prejudge the outcome of the negotiation process, during which a solution must be found to the final status issues, including Jerusalem. We call on the Israeli authorities to refrain from such negative unilateral steps. This is particularly important at such a sensitive moment when the international community has intensified efforts to bring a lasting and just peace to the Middle East, and the parties – the Palestinians and Israelis – after a long hiatus show a desire to resume talks, if still indirect. The nascent opportunity to advance towards settlement cannot be allowed to fail. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

who = The international community

The international community considers East Jerusalem occupied territory. Building on occupied land is illegal under international law, but Israel regards East Jerusalem - which it annexed in 1967 - as its territory. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The view from China

Israel annexed East Jerusalem as part of its capital after capturing it in the 1967 war. Its claim is not recognized internationally. Palestinians want East Jerusalem as capital of a future state they are seeking in the occupied West Bank. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

US position

That Israel then approved a new building project, the suspension of which the United States had demanded as long ago as last July...

The Americans spent much of last year trying and failing to get Israel to freeze all construction in the Jewish settlements, which are illegal under international law. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ban Ki-moon

UN chief Ban Ki-moon also issued a statement condemning Israel's settlement plan. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Clinton statement

"But we have to make clear to our Israeli friends and partners that the two-state solution -- which we support, which the prime minister himself says he supports -- requires confidence-building measures on both sides," Clinton told CNN's Jill Dougherty. "And the announcement of the settlements the very day that the vice president was there was insulting." Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting opinion pieces

• Against ‘Pro-Israel’
• Jerusalem, settlements, and the "everybody knows" fallacy

Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The people..this article is quite interesting for the human angle.

"Ask Rabbi Sam White what he thinks of the global political row over plans to expand the community in which he lives, prays and studies, and he answers bluntly: "I don't see the problem. God gave us the land of Israel." Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

EU statement about Ramot Shlomo

"The EU position on settlements is clear. Settlements are illegal, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two state-solution impossible." Under the Israeli plans, the new homes will be built in Ramat Shlomo in East Jerusalem. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

USA Today

Israeli settlement building anywhere on occupied land is illegal and must be stopped, U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon said Saturday, after getting a closer look at some of the Israeli enclaves scattered across Palestinian-claimed territories.

The panorama included Jewish neighborhoods in traditionally Arab east Jerusalem, the Israeli-annexed sector of the city that Palestinians claim as a future capital.

Ban rejected Israel's distinction between east Jerusalem and the West Bank, noting that both are occupied lands. "The world has condemned Israel's settlement plans in east Jerusalem," Ban told a news conference after his brief tour. "Let us be clear. All settlement activity is illegal anywhere in occupied territory and must be stopped.". Sean.hoyland - talk 17:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Why "Israeli Settlement" May Still Be Inappropriate, Despite All The Quotes Above

Here's why I would still put this article in the "unfairly anti-Israel" category, absent of neutrality. Yes, you've got a whole list of people saying that it's an "Israeli settlement." But we all know that you can have thousands of sources spinning the public perception of something, and that does not make it true, especially when it comes to Israel. For example, this recent "flotilla" incident is a prime example. You can find videos made by the people on it with Islamic Jihadist leaders preparing dozens of participants for a suicide mission. Yet this is widely reported simple as an "aid flotilla." The deliberate spin put out there by enemies of Israel, and picked up by certain world leaders, does not make it reality.

So anyway, back to Ramat Shlomo and why it's NOT a "settlement." Under the Oslo accords, the PLO and Israel agreed, in writing, that any Jewish construction in greater Jerusalem would not be an obstacle to peace and can go on unabated. As of 1995, when Ramat Shlomo was built, this was fully understood by everyone involved, including Yasser Arafat.

I'll go ahead and source this and do what's necessary, but not if it's going to be instantly reverted and reported as vandalism. So if anyone has an issue, please chime in. Moreover, if anyone understands where I'm coming from and wants to support this, please chime in as well.

Also, for the record, "it is therefore considered an Israeli settlement" comes across as weasel-worded as anything, and IMNSHO makes this article look amateurish and POV'ed. Anyway, feedback to this post is appreciated. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any source backing up anything that you wrote above? Sources say that Ramat Shlomo is an Israeli settlement, and the PLO never once agreed that construction in East Jerusalem is acceptable. nableezy - 17:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I do have a reliable source, enough for me to feel confident making this post. However, I know how it is here, so let me do a little homework to make a decent presentation. I'll be back with ya. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what sources Accipio had in mind, but in the latest protocols which were brought in Al - Jazeera, the Palestinians stated clearly that they are aware (and accept) that all neighborhoods beyond the green line within Jerusalem will be part of Israel.Editorprop (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ramat Shlomo. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2686566

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal

User:Shrike today removed some stuff I had added from ARIJ.

Now, we recently had a RfC about ARIJ, here: Talk:Jabel_Mukaber#RFC; a RfC where Shrike participated. The closing admin, User:Llywrch, not only accepted ARIJ as a EL, but stated that "I would expect these resources to be mined to improve the article, not added at the end as "External links"" ...which is exactly what I did.

So how can you, Shrike, justify your removal? Huldra (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)