| Revision as of 10:48, 12 September 2007 editRobert Ham (talk | contribs)461 edits →Response in Talk:Jerusalem#Category:Cities in the West Bank (take 2): new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:31, 22 September 2007 edit undoTegwarrior (talk | contribs)365 edits →3RR violationNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
| I have responded to your original objection in ]. This is in response to your claim that you are willing to communicate with people other than Timeshifter. ] 10:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | I have responded to your original objection in ]. This is in response to your claim that you are willing to communicate with people other than Timeshifter. ] 10:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == 3RR violation == | |||
| Okedem, you seem to have violated the ] of three reversions within 24 hours at the ] article. Relevant diffs are: | |||
| 1. | |||
| 2. | |||
| 3.a. | |||
| 3.b. (this one I don't count against you} | |||
| 4. | |||
| 5. | |||
| You can be blocked for this violation. I suggest that you undo your last revision. | |||
| ] 15:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:31, 22 September 2007
See also: Archive 1 - Jul 2006 --> Apr 2007
BC/BCE, etc.
Hi,
I understand that many feel BCE and CE to be more neutral than BC/AD, so your revert was justified, but maybe you can explain something to me - regardless of the suffix, we still count by the approximate time of birth of Jesus, right? So how, exactly, is saying "1000BCE" better than "1000BC"?
The whole "Common Era" thing seems like a sham, to me. Personally, I'd rather use BC/AD. If we're using Jesus Time, might as well use the Latin with it, and the BC/AD difference is much clearer (easier to see) than BCE/CE. But that's just me (the atheist Jew)...
Cheers, mate. okedem 21:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps the issue comes from the fact that BC means "Before Christ" and AD is the Latin abbreviation for "In the Year of Our Lord", suggesting that Jesus is "our" (everyone's) lord and our (everyone's) Anointed One. -- tariqabjotu 21:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe. Still seems silly to me... okedem 06:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant source?
How is that source not relevant? It's... a... map... -- tariqabjotu 21:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, man. I only clicked on the introduction link, not the map link, and couldn't understand the point... I readded it. okedem 21:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Watching Jerusalem
How's your schedule today? The article is featured on the main page today. I have been helping to keep a close eye on the page, but I have to go soon. Want to help with reverting? And you don't have to worry about 3RR with respect to things we have a big consensus on ("capital", "largest city"), since this was discussed on WP:AN/I. nadav (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'll try, but it's almost lunch time... okedem 10:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This may be inadvertently my fault, but they are using your refusal to waste time with nonsense as grounds for an RfC. Tewfik 08:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yea, I saw that. The grounds are obviously ridicules, and I'll respond to that, but I do think (=hope) an RfC might help. We're not really getting anywhere there. okedem 08:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Human RIghts in Israel
You are not supposed to be editing this article. YOu are an adult Israeli, and thus a member of the IDF, or a reserve member. As a member of one of the organizations being discussed, you are not impartial and are party to an outside conflict, and thus can not under WIkipedia policy edit any articles pertaining to that conflict. 88.154.234.14 17:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Don't make claims you can't back up. You've been doing that a lot lately. okedem 17:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Idea
I was wondering, could I put a random wiki page that I find interesting, its full content onto my wiki page?
- Well, there are two issues with that - one is that just copying the page wouldn't include the proper credits for its editors, and would thus infringe upon the GFDL (you could solve that by just putting a comment above the content that says something like - "copied in for from..."). Second - it's just not encouraged - the user page is for info about the user, not a random article. Why not just link the article? okedem 21:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi
Hello i did noticed you removing my edits from disscusion board from Jew peoplw article. Im sorry if that offended you. Balu2000 13:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- You see, even if your edit was in good faith, it was offending, and frankly - completely unrelated to the article. The talk page is meant for discussion intended towards improving the article, not for general discussions.
- If you're really curious - Jews don't have a "typical appearance". One walk down a street of any Israeli town will reveal that. That said, the Jewish community of a certain area (like Syrian Jews) might look somewhat different from the surrounding population (like Syrian Arabs). There are no typical characteristics to Jews as a whole. okedem 14:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
A hasty revert
Hi. You reverted my addition to the intro of Israeli Security Zone with this comment:
- unencylopedic text. Also, there's no "chicken and egg" issue here. The attacks started long before Israel occupied any area of Lebanon; the PLO fought from there against Israel's very existence
I'd rather have my text left in the body of the article, pending outcome of discussion at talk:Israeli Security Zone. Is this okay with you? --Uncle Ed 15:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- It is customary to leave the article at its stable version while discussing disputed additions, so please - let's have the discussion before making the change. Will you remove the text for now? okedem 16:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Response in Talk:Jerusalem#Category:Cities in the West Bank (take 2)
I have responded to your original objection in Talk:Jerusalem#Category:Cities in the West Bank (take 2). This is in response to your claim that you are willing to communicate with people other than Timeshifter. Robert Ham 10:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
3RR violation
Okedem, you seem to have violated the limit of three reversions within 24 hours at the Israel article. Relevant diffs are:
3.b. 09:19, 22 September 2007 (this one I don't count against you}
You can be blocked for this violation. I suggest that you undo your last revision.