User talk:Marokwitz/Archives/2010/September

Israeli Leader's Views

I think this is highly informative collection of why the conflict is going on, and all these quotes do have sources, there is no bias since this is quoted directly from newspaper themselves from New York Times and Jerusalem Post, if wikipedia consider them biased, then all source form those entities should be removed. Instead of removing Israeli leader's views to hide the truth from people, you should be contributing a collection of Arab Leader's perspective, which is what I am currently working on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitoman123 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk) 16:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia is not a place for random collections of quotes (Try Wikiquotes for that), and surely not for fabricated quotes copied from a propaganda website, backed by false citations, with an obvious agenda. Read the report which I referred to you on your talk page. Marokwitz (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

CSD/AFD-tagged articles

Please don't add subsequent tags to CSD/AFD nominated articles such as you did with orphan tags here and here. Editors have reviewed these articles and nominated for them for one of the categories of deletion. Adding orphan tags does not help mend their particular issues and may only confuse the authors and new contributors. Thanks. Plutonium27 (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. Marokwitz (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphan Tag

I was just thinking that the orphan tag you put on the List of tribology organizations page should be a different tag. The page is in the process of development, as well as the relating pages. An 'under construction' tag might be a better tag. I was going to put one on, but I am pretty new to this, and so wasn't sure how to add a tag. The particular page isn't yet so wonderful, but the tribology page linking to it was starting to get cluttered with research groups trying to get their name known. The end goal is something like nanotechnology.

• See Template:Inuse/doc Marokwitz (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Great, thank you, gregzore

I will remove orphan tag from my article, because this: we don't know everything about ancient peoples. We usually knows their parentage, or their spuses and children, but we don't know anything else. Kagemi the vizier is an example. By--Mychele Trempetich (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Mychele, I think you misunderstood the meaning of this tag. It doesn't mean that the subject of the article was actually an Orphan. It means that the article is not linked to from other articles in Wikipedia. Marokwitz (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Chemistry (semisonic song)

I removed the prod after sourcing it and explaining its notability as a Top-40 single. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Peacockery

Hello. I reinstated the word "prolific" in the Kevin Phillips (footballer) article, and will do so again, because it's an accurate description of the nature of his goalscoring while with Sunderland A.F.C. which he did not reproduce with his next club. He scored goals, but failed to score goals "prolifically". There are a quite a lot of things that need cleaning up in that article – it's somewhere on my increasingly-long mental list of things to do – but removing that particular use of the word "prolific", thereby losing the gist of the sentence, isn't one of them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, no problem. Marokwitz (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

At the Raith Rovers article the term legendary may not sufficiently explain the character of Jim Baxter's status but is not really a peacock term if you follow the link. Sources there would be supportive. Replacing the term with simply successful isn't really sufficient. However I've changed the wording to "later to be regarded by some as Scotland’s greatest ever football player", again supported at the main article. Hope that meets your approval. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Mutt, thanks for letting me know. "By some" is a weasel word. See WP:WEASEL. In my view such wording is inappropriate for Wikipedia, or at least requires a citation or direct quotation. For now I added an appropriate tag. Marokwitz (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

See the cited quote in the first para of this section of the main article: Jim_Baxter#Legacy. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Raw and Un-Kutt

Hello Marokwitz, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Raw and Un-Kutt has been removed. It was removed by 71.63.206.113 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 71.63.206.113 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 12:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

IslamicJihadRockets.jpg

Hi, the IslamicJihadRockets.jpg image is copyrighted material taken Saturday, Dec. 20, 2008 by AP Photo/Ashraf Amra. See the Boston Globe. I'm going to tag for speedy deletion on commons but it may be possible to use it in Wikipedia under a fair use license. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Journalist Amir Farshad Ebrahimi has released this photo using creative commons license on flickr. I think it is legitimate. Marokwitz (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not his to release. It belongs to AP. I wish we could load all of the AP photos from OCL to commons and use them but we can't. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

Hello Marokwitz. I noticed that you have been editing extensively articles related to Arab-Israeli conflict. In the past, the conflict in the wider world has been reflected in acrimonious disputes on Wikipedia and, for that reason, special behavioural rules and norms have been enforced for these articles. There follows a boilerplate notification of these special rules; please understand that this is not a judgment of your edits but necessary to ensure that you are not being asked to adhere to norms of behaviour of which you are unaware.

Notice

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

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

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

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

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.

CIreland (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Uh what? -- tariqabjotu 08:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This was a result of an edit conflict . I was trying to revert a change made by user:Arzalan. I don't understand how this was logged under my name. Strange. Marokwitz (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Gaza aid shipment

The location was incorrectly stated as off the coast of Gaza and changed. Please check the discussion section and feel free to contribute. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to removed the "Israel defended its actions ..." bit in the Lead because that is covered in the Israeli Military account section and is not fact about the event, but fact about how Israel was justifying its actions. Zuchinni one (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edit is incorrect, according to WP:LEAD the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. I see the omission of this account of events as unfair, especially considering it is included in all the reliable sources about the topic. Marokwitz (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the WP lead. I was about to do it myself :) I am going to make one minor change though ... from 'intended' to 'promised' since we cannot know intent but there is ample RS support for Israel promising to deliver the aid. Zuchinni one (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at Zuchinni's user history. Everything points to him being a sock puppet. He creates the account in March, makes a handful of edits, then the Gaza flotilla article gets locked to new users and BAM, he makes dozens (hundreds?) of edits, threatens users with bans etc. Amazing how in one day he becomes so knowledgeable in Wiki-lawyering. He is a sock puppet, ignore him. Ruy Lopez (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Marokwitz (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Marokwitz. I am going to open a discussion on the talk page of whether to include the recently added edit in the lead. My only concern is that the lead should be short, factual, and free of unverifiable statements. Also when statements like that are added it inspires others to add more 'balancing statements' which increases the length of the lead further. Finally, this information appears later in the article in a context where lengthy balance additions are OK.

I've consistently removed both Israeli and Activist justifications from the Lead, so please don't assume I'm trying to block your content.

If a consensus is reached to include the statement you added or any others in this section I'll gladly support you and block people who try to remove what the consensus has decided.

Zuchinni one (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Can I lean why did you change the correct info?

As http://marinetraffic.com/ais/shipdetails.aspx?MMSI=616952000 clearly shows the ship is Comoros-flagged. Can I learn why did you change it?Kavas (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I must have mistaken, feel free to undo this change. Marokwitz (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit to Gaza flotilla raid

Quick question: Was the removal of this content intentional? If not, please self-revert, especially in light of the one-revert-per-day restriction on the article. -- tariqabjotu 19:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken, I added this content, not removed it. Look again. Marokwitz (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, no; look at the diff. That's why I'm asking you whether it was intentional, because your edit came just seconds after someone else's. -- tariqabjotu 19:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I later added this back. Marokwitz (talk)

I am not involved in the Israeli articles, as I have no sources. But since you are, may I point out that the header needs more balance. Perhaps the word mercenaries could be added? Also, I did not see anything about the stabbing, or the distance (thirty feet) to the lower deck.Mzk1 (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to International reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. You also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you.Lihaas (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not remove any information . The section that I removed mistakenly due to an edit conflict I added back later. All my edits have been done in good faith and according to wikipedia policy. Marokwitz (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Re

What changes do you refer to?

And why do they violate revert rules?

Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 08:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not notice that much reverts. I guess I went into reverting even when I did not want to, or when the edition did not require it. Thank you very much for your illustrative response. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 08:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Palestinian national unity government

The source uses "national unity" in quotes because it is a loaded term. I expect you know that the Palestinian government is disputed.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Disputed by whom? Saudi-sponsored negotiations in Mecca produced agreement on a Palestinian national unity government signed by Mahmoud Abbas on behalf of Fatah and Khaled Mashal on behalf of Hamas. Nobody disputes this. There are hundreds of reliable sources using this term not in quotes. For example http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/070320/2007032009.html http://www.norway.org.ps/News_and_events/policy/Al_Ram/ and more. Marokwitz (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Disputed by Fatah and Hamas. Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and Hamas govern Gaza, Fatah considers this illegitimate.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The government was not disputed by Fatah and Hamas at that time. The unity government included both Hamas and Fatah memebers. I think you are confusing the 2007 government with the present government which is indeed disputed. Do you have any sources to support your claim ? Marokwitz (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

At what time? There was clearly dispute on June 14, 2007 when Mahmoud Abbas announced the dissolution of the government.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The unity government existed between March to June 2007. It was created with 83 representatives voting in favor and three against. Between March to June 2007 it was not disputed. After June 2007 it no longer existed. See Palestinian government of March 2007 Marokwitz (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The dispute began before Hamas took control of Gaza on June 15, 2007.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not disputed that Gaza was under the control of the national unity government before Hamas took control of Gaza on June 15, 2007. I really don't understand your point. Do you have any evidence that says otherwise? 12:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the current wording "Hamas took control ... from the Palestinian national unity government" oversimplifies the situation. The "national unity government" was not functioning during the battle for Gaza. Hamas also argues that they were already in control of that government through their electoral majority.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

But they do not argue that there wasn't a national unity government and therefore it is not a loaded term. If they do dispute that the national unity government existed, feel free to add verifiable sources in the article that say so. It is certainly not the accepted view among scholars . All the independent sources (that I read) say that Hamas took over the Gaza strip from the Palestinian unity Government of March 2007, which was the governing power in effect during the 3 months preceding the takeover. Marokwitz (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The source cited does not say "Hamas took over the Gaza strip from the Palestinian unity Government" or words to that effect. I'd be surprised to see a quality source that does say that, considering the complexity of the situation, but if you could provide one, that might help.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edit is small improvement, but I still have two concerns:

1) Hamas argues that they were already in control of that government through their electoral majority.

2) The original sentence is repeated in the 2006–2007 economic sanctions section.

I suggest removing the reference to that government from the lead and, if you think an explanation of the previous government is necessary in the article, more detail in the body.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your proposal. You haven't brought any source to validate your argument #1. Regarding #2, per WP:LEAD the lead is meant to summarize the article and should include all major points, and this is a crucial point - no article about a military takeover is complete without specifying who the territory was taken from. Marokwitz (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar :)

Very cool! Thank you so much :) Zuchinni one (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip and NPOV

My contribution as phrased was not based on the statement ascribed to Bashi in Frenkel's article, but on other sentences of that article, not ascribed to anyone else. Here is the first sentence (bold is my emphasis):

As Israel ordered a slight easing of its blockade of the Gaza Strip Wednesday, McClatchy Newspapers obtained an Israeli government document that describes the blockade not as a security measure but as "economic warfare" against the Islamist group Hamas, which rules the Palestinian territory.

A few lines later, the article states, again without ascription (and again bold is my emphasis):

Israel imposed severe restrictions on Gaza in June 2007, after Hamas won elections and took control of the coastal enclave after winning elections there the previous year, and the government has long said that the aim of the blockade is to stem the flow of weapons to militants in Gaza.

Last week, after Israeli commandos killed nine volunteers on a Turkish-organized Gaza aid flotilla, Israel again said its aim was to stop the flow of terrorist arms into Gaza.

However, in response to a lawsuit by Gisha, an Israeli human rights group, the Israeli government explained the blockade as an exercise of the right of economic warfare.

If I had based my contribution on Bashi's statement, I would have used the term "punishment" or some equivalent, which I did not. Please note also that I did not copy the statements of Frenkel's article as dry facts, but explicitly described this as being reported by Frenkel, an ascription that was then removed by another editor. In any case, I do not agree with your opinion that my edit "appears to carry a non-neutral point of view".  --Lambiam 14:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The source does not state anywhere as a fact that "the document contradicts the repeated assertions of the Israeli government". Furthermore, logically there is no clear contradiction. They are waging an economic warfare against Hamas and aiming to block the flow of weapons to militants in Gaza, both at the same time. Marokwitz (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You might want to take a peek here

Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Replacement and here User_talk:Brendumb#Dogan_Photo.

I noticed you editing the caption of the Dogan photo but there are more problems with that photo than the caption.

Cheers, Zuchinni one (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hilarion_Capucci

Regarding this edit: [1]...you might have mixed him up with Elias Chacour? ..who was indeed born in Kafr Bir'im. Capucci was born in Aleppo, methinks. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right, he was born in Aleppo in northern Syria. Marokwitz (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Newspapers

There are millions of article regarding this event, many of them condemning the attacks. Wikipedia is uncensored but why are all articles with different political views not added? I will start adding them. 1. Taha Akyol(Milliyet), liberal, conservative, calls the attack as Israeli aggression: http://www.milliyet.com.tr/israil-e-tepki/taha-akyol/siyaset/yazardetay/07.06.2010/1247575/default.htm 2. Toktamış Ateş(Bugün), Kemalist, calls Israeli attack as violent: http://www.bugun.com.tr/kose-yazisi/104577-mavi-marmara-toktamis-ates-makalesi.aspx 3. Yusuf Kaplan (Yeni Şafak), Islamist, calls Israel as unscrupulous: http://www.haber10.com/makale/19894 4. Yıldıray Oğur (Taraf), liberal, supports IHH: http://www.taraf.com.tr/yildiray-ogur/makale-sessizligi-bozanlar.htm 5. Mustafa Akyol(Star), liberal, conservative, compares the event to Gallipoli Campaign using a poem of Mehmet Akif Ersoy: http://www.mustafaakyol.org/arsiv/2010/06/cirpinirdi_akdeniz_bakip_turkn_bayragina.php 6. Nazlı Ilıcak (Sabah), pro-Akp, conservative, "the event is the start of end of Israel": http://www.sabah.com.tr/Yazarlar/ilicak/2010/06/01/saldiri_gazze_zaferinin_ilk_adimi_mi 7. Yiğit Bulut (Habertürk), nationalist, Kemalist, claims Israel's attack on ships are coordinated with PKK's terrorist attack on Iskenderun port: http://www.haberturk.com/yazarlar/519546-turkiye-israil-catismasi-kacinilmazdi-ilk-temas-geldi 8. Ece Temelkuran (Habertürk), left, call the attack as declaring war on entire planet: http://www.haberturk.com/yazarlar/519867-kalbim-ve-kalemim-onlarla 9. Ferhat Kentel (Taraf), left, compares victims of Mavi Marmara to Hrant Dink : http://www.taraf.com.tr/ferhat-kentel/makale-mavi-marmara-hrant-findik-iscileri-baris.htm 10. Hilal Kaplan (Taraf), Islamist, calls the attack as persecution: http://www.taraf.com.tr/hilal-kaplan/makale-siramizi-bekliyoruz.htm 11. Ruşen Çakır (Vatan), socialist, called the attacks as massacre: http://haber.gazetevatan.com/haberdetay.asp?Newsid=308622 12. Ahmet Hakan (Hürriyet), political view is unclear, called the attacks as Israeli barbarianism: http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/yazarlar/14944261.asp 13. Fikret Bila (Milliyet), left, Kemalist, called the event as bloody attack: http://www.milliyet.com.tr/israil-kaybetti/fikret-bila/siyaset/yazardetay/23.12.2009/1246438/default.htm?ref=haberici 14. Haşmet Babaoğlu (Sabah), left, says "the event was a planned attack on peace activists": http://www.sabah.com.tr/Yazarlar/babaoglu/2010/06/02/olup_biteni_bu_medyayla_anlayabilir_miyiz 15. Sevilay Yükselir (Sabah), Alevi, compares Hitler and Israel: http://www.sabah.com.tr/Yazarlar/yukselir/2010/06/02/yoksa_hitler_israilde_hortladi_mi 16. Ali Bulaç (Zaman), Islamist, refers to pro-Israel columnists as "Israelis inside us" like Turkish coach Mustafa Denizli and supports IHH: http://www.zaman.com.tr/yazar.do?yazino=995075 17. Umur Talu (Haberturk), left, critizes Gülen: http://haberturk.org/yazarlar/524691-otorite-baski-ise-baskaldiri-haktirKavas (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. I will try to explain why the Cüneyt Ülsever article is notable enough for inclusion: The reason is that this article was a subject of multiple publications by major and independent reliable sources (other than the Hürriyet itself), such as the WSJ and YNET . That's why I chose it as an example to show the article reader that non EVERY commentator in turkey has the same opinion. In addition to the notability criterion, I found this opinion unusual and interesting analysis. If you think that this should be "balanced", feel free to articles showing other viewpoints, if they are notable. Preferably they should be covered by OTHER sources independent of themselves, to demonstrate they are indeed a notable reaction worthy of inclusion. Marokwitz (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Fikret Sadikhov

We had this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid&oldid=365332660. After a debate, this comment was removed since it only represents personal view:

1. Azerbaijan In Azerbaijan political scientist Fikret Sadikhov expressed concern: “The fact that Turkey is against Israel’s actions may worsen our ties with Israel since Turkey is our ally and our positions coincide in most issues. However, we understand that we have quite close partner relations with Israel which we would not like to worsen." Commenting on the event, he said, "if these are civil ships, the Israelis have gone beyond the frameworks of their military capacities which can certainly worsen the situation."[45]

Kavas (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me to remove it, I don't think his opinion is notable enough for inclusion, it has not been covered extensively by other sources, and Azerbaijan is not a side in the conflict anyway. I don't mind also keeping it either if you prefer. Cheers. Marokwitz (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Closing of RFC on Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid

Hi, I was just wondering why you closed the RFC on Talk:Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid so early? I think this issue is likely to come back for as long as the picture will be on the article (especially with the current caption), so it could be beneficial to leave the RFC opened for some time. What do you think? Laurent (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we reached a clear consensus, and there were no new comments four a day or so, so I closed it. Don't you agree? Marokwitz (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, there hasn't been many contributors but there is indeed a consensus. Laurent (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Activistboatclash.jpg

⚠

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

PLEASE NOTE:

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

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Friends of Israel Initiative

Do you want to help improve this article and nominate it for DKY?AMuseo (talk) 02:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Arab citizens of Israel

Hello, your recent edits to Arab citizens of Israel added a ref name of "AlArab" but did not include the source to go with it. Could you please revisit the article and add in the source you intended? Thanks. - Salamurai (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! Marokwitz (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. I think you took both the Haaretz and Kul Al-Arab references from a Memri report ([2] or a copy of that). Right? Also, you are presenting it as if you have two references but in reality you only have one. Correct me if I'm wrong. Zero^talk 05:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You're in fact right, I corrected the citation based on that policy. Thanks for bringing this into my attention! Marokwitz (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

picture in the Gaza article

consensus to keep, I couldn't see the discussion, could you show me a link to where the discussion is please. Off2riorob (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Following arbitration request, the uninvolved administrator Fences&Windows reviewed all the images in the flotilla article and ruled which images violate the fair use use policy. He ruled that the following files breach the fair use policy: File:Gaza-flotilla-boarded.jpg, File:Furkan Death.JPG, File:ALeqM5hsKMJuCoXVL9LGFWr3Xf1YXYwU4Q.jpg, File:Free Gaza Hands.JPG, File:Flotilla victim funeral.jpg, File:UN Security Council condemns flotilla raid.jpg. These image were then removed by other editors. Result of his arbitration is posted in the talk page. While consensus may shift, I find it hard to believe that your edit will stick unless you seek a new consensus. If you still contest that this image falls under the fair use criteria, please post your reasoning to the Non-free content review noticeboard and try to seek consensus. Thank you, Marokwitz (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

tourism

The information you deleted was specifically about tourism and how the occupation of these territories is related to that. Could you please explain why removed the content that was specifically about tourism? nableezy - 07:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In my view most of the information took the article to political directions not related to tourism, and what didn't, did not add any tourism related information that wasn't already in the article. I kept the parts which I found useful. We can continue the discussion in the article talk page if you wish. Marokwitz (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes please. nableezy - 07:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

OK I guess it is arguable

I knew I'd get yelled at[3] over that right after I did it. I mean, ultimately, legality is entirely a point of view, and I suppose there is no real "law" over the high seas. Things like the United Nations and international treaties are really mere fantasies which don't exist in the koinos kosmos sense of reality. As a direct male-line descendant of an infamous "pirate" myself, who I guess some might say broke "laws" by "hijacking" a man-of-war back in the day, I should know better. My bad! Who am I to judge? -- Kendrick7^talk 09:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

2006 Lebanon War

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi, since it didn't seem like much discussion was going on in the 2006 Lebanon War article I thought it might be best if we discuss it with others rather than let it become an edit war, the ANI page is here[4].My apologies over the lack of proper format--Freepsbane (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Six Day War reverts

Hi. I'm not the one who reverted your edits (obviously). In normal Wikipedia practice, WP:BOLD is the correct thing to do. From looking at your edit history, I see that you edit a lot of articles about topics related to the Middle East, including controversial topics. You should know, then, that Six Day War is an edit-war magnet. I myself, who am typically very [[WP:BOLD}} have made only formatting edits (though a very large number of them) to the article itself, and draft significant content changes in user space for discussion on article talk.

Hope this helps. • Ling.Nut 18:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. In fact, I find the current version of the paragraph that I edited shorter and more to the point. Not complaining. Marokwitz (talk) 06:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

recent changes

• recent changes to my sandbox, see this. • Ling.Nut 05:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

For you Marokwitz

I thought you deserved one of these. Thankless job this wikipedia is but there are people who appreciate your hard work in improving articles.

• Wow, thanks!!!! I appreciate it very much. Marokwitz (talk) 06:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your hard work and improvement of the Tourism in Israel article--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

territories vs authority

For one, you moved the page with no discussion. More importantly, the article does not (and should not in my opinion) only cover the PNA's territory, but the whole of the Palestinian territories including those occupied by Israel (i.e. the inclusion of settlements). If a consensus exists for the move, fine, but don't move a controversial page like this without discussion (as I learned when I moved the Tourism in Israel page to include the PT).--TM 11:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:US OFAC Specially Designated Global Terrorist

Category:US OFAC Specially Designated Global Terrorist, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.   Cs32en Talk to me  19:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that the delete !voters are not laughing as they !vote. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on closure of Israel and Aparthied mediation

Current consensus seems to be to move the article to Israel and Apartheid with an appropriate disambiguation line to prevent any misinterpretations. Please weigh in over the next few days. --Ludwigs2 17:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Noleander's war on Jews?

Thank you for your contribution on the bias article created by someone going by the name noleander Racism in Israel, that person also created such hate pages like Jews and the slave trade all based on Nation of Islam's theories and some so called historian Drecher's articles (who's that writer anyhow?)Mostiessin (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The latter article is indeed a shocking case of distorted history. Marokwitz (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Activistboatclash.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Activistboatclash.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being civil and rational

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For being sensible, fair, and thoughtful in some controversial articles - a too rare attitude in Wikipedia - I thank you. Noleander (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thank you very much ! Marokwitz (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Just wanted to drop in a good word for your wonderful work on Discrimniation in Palestine and allegations in Israel.Colourfully (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Colourfully, thank you very much, I appreciate it. Marokwitz (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Assaf Abu Rahhal

Hi, I'm just wondering why you first prodded it then put a CSD tag on it too. It's funny because I was hovering over which to do, and finally left it on watch to come back and tag if no one else did.--Kudpung (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, like you I wasn't sure what to do, and ended up both tags. Do you think this violates any policy? Marokwitz (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"claims of" on Ethnic and Racial Discrimination in Israel

Please reply to my comments on talk rather than merely reverting.--Carwil (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

marokwitz is correct, given the notorious under-constant-threat-of-arab-racist-terror Israel lives under, the disputes in the claims, especially of the motives, it can not be defined as certain.RS101 (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs great editors like you to watchdog the agenda-motivated editors.RS101 (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm getting sick of it though. I would rather add new and interesting information rather than being forced to add balance to biased articles. Marokwitz (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind...

Hello, I hope you don't mind that I changed the following: [5]Dutyscee (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cloud storage gateway

The article Cloud storage gateway has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

subject is not verifiably notable and appears to be a neologism at best

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- samj _in^out 12:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced so seeking others' opinions via AfD process. -- samj _in^out 13:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Tawfik Hamid

LoonWatch is indeed a reliable source, based mainly to expose bigots and they provide ample citations for all their data. What is deflammatory is a very subjective arbitration, much of the information in Hitler's biography can be considered equally deflammatory but does not make it any less true. I would like to believe you don't have the maturity of a 5 year old, so I hope this time you will provide a reasoned explanation for your removal of the said links. Regards. 99.238.14.24 (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

IP editor, welcome to Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia policy, External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with WP:EL or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP. LoonWatch does not qualify as a reliable source by Wikpedia standards, since it is a self-published blog. If you disagree, feel free to raise your concerns on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. And please refrain from uncivil remarks, as they may get you banned. Marokwitz (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

1/rr

Editors are currently restricted to 1 revert within a 24 hour period at Gaza War. You have crossed that.Cptnono (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Where did you see two reverts? I reverted only once. Marokwitz (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. I misread the history. Tagging something that was just reverted then immediately reverting its revert without actually giving some time for a change in consensus (since there was consensus) to be reached on the talk page is still bad formed. Technically you are not in violation now that I look at it again but you should go a little slower in the future on that page since it is and should be subject to heavy handed admins. If it makes you feel any better I mentioned it to the other editor as well. He had consensus on his side but it was still reverting.Cptnono (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was just a tag to assist discussion in the talk page, hardly a bold edit. But I will take notice . Thanks. Marokwitz (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You weren't going out of your way to be disruptive or anything. The lead has just been a pain. The reason I mention it is because this line is based on over a year of discussion on a previous version of the lead and now that editors have come to some understanding on how to handle the lead, the "massacre: term is still getting reverted and tagged without editors first going to the talk page and getting others onboard. It may not appear to you to be overly bold but it is just one more edit that was like it was when other editors were edit warring (which got it locked and then on a 1/rr). Sorry for overreacting. Hopefully we can figure it out.Cptnono (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm still concerned that the lead does not properly serve as a concise version of the article as required by WP:LEDE, which also states that notable criticisms and controversies should be mentioned in the lead. Notably, the lead mentions the Hamas criticism of Israel and "massacre" narrative but is missing the Israeli criticism of Hamas targeting civilians and hiding among civilians. Marokwitz (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That is fine but please do not state your reasoning here or in the wrong section of the talk page. If you want to add "Israeli criticism of Hamas targeting civilians and hiding among civilians." then you need to request it on the talk page in the appropriate spot. Furthermore, if that is why you are against the massacre line then it should be ignored. Cptnono (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm didn't say I'm against that line, I had 2 points, the first is improper attribution of opinions is against the manual of style, and second is that the sentence can be interpreted as accusing Hamas of committing a massacre of Isralis during the war, which is incorrect. Marokwitz (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

For your edits on Islamification of Gaza. Since it is a new article, if we both put in a little time today or tomorrow, it could be nominated for DKY. Did you see what the militants dis this week to the Crazy Water Park?AMuseo (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. How the hell do you torch a water park? I guess their idea of fun is to destroy the fun of others. Currently I am more focused on improving the Hamas article, and strangely encountering resistance against even the most trivial, completely uncontroversial changes. Marokwitz (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I cam e to thank you for recommending the Schanzer piece. But I will say that the "resistance" to reality in these edit wars knows no limits.AMuseo (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Integrity

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		awarded for well-sourced, temperate, and significant editing of articles in the controverisal Israel/Palestinian area.AMuseo (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thank you very much ! Marokwitz (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Noleander's behaviour

I just about had it with Noleander violating all wikipedia rules in pushing his POV against the Jewish people (on his various pages), it is also an issue of defamation.Salamaat (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Salamaat, I also raised a concern regarding cases where he/she clearly cherrypicked the most extreme/fringe/unusual opinion sources possible rather than provide a balanced view, for example see my message at Talk:Racism_and_ethnic_discrimination_in_Israel#Discussion of Source Selection and NPOV. I'm not sure what can be done though. I think it is mostly a case Wikipedia:Gaming the system and not "obvious" policy violations. Marokwitz (talk) 06:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Starting with this [6]Salamaat (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)