Hello, Itayb, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm Anas, one of the many editors here at Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing 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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. I'm looking forward for your contributions! ← ANASTalk20:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be glad to be of help. As there is no need to put in a formal request since you have expressly contacted me, that saves us 'paper' work so to speak, but I need the particulars (who did what, links, et cetera.) If your complaints are valid, this could lead to a greater issue as to the moderators. If you wish this to be more private, you can email me at davelikesdinos *asdj*at|sdfui| gmail.com, or you can just post on my user page. If so, I'll create a special section so that it'll stay out of the other users responding on my talk page. Regards, Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're adding in some of the recent developments. I sent you an email, but I had not gotten all the story about the porn stuff, though Yonatan filled me in. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / contribs) 01:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For tirelessly and indefatigably creating pronunciation recordings for over 30 articles, and for using them to spice and jazz up my articles, I award you this well-deserved Original Barnstar! Keep it up Itay. - AnasTalk?20:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shalom Itay, how's it going? :) You know what, your pronunciation is pretty accurate! Thanks so much for that. I'd appreciate it if you can upload your version of the pronunciation of Faten Hamama by replacing this file. Good luck recording and thanks again. :) - AnasAnas Salloum12:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite impressive, I applaud you for your enthusiasm. For uploading the recordings, just upload it normally. Name it, preferably, something like 'Article name'-pronunciation.ogg and use a normal summary and license, like you would do with any normal image. The guideline was set for recordings of complete spoken articles, not the mere pronunciation recordings, so there isn't any problem if you don't use the Spoken Article template; actually I prefer not to myself, as it is somehow inaccurate to use. For simplicity's sake, you can copy what I used in the Faten Hamama file and just change the information which needs changing. For the Faten Hamama file, I suggest just replacing yours with mine. I've been meaning to record a better one (the current one is terrible), but I'm a lazy man. :D
As for the pronunciation, well, it depends. Film titles are usually pronounced without tashkil, in TV for example, so I think it is better to ignore tashkil in such pronunciations, especially that most of them are films that use vernacular languages, not the literary Arabic language. As for people names, you should definitely ignore tashkil. Generally, I think it is better to ignore tashkil and use it only in such cases like a pronunciation from the Qur'an, which uses the literary language. Please leave me a message if you need any help at all. Good luck recording! - AnasTalk?14:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, just wow! Splendid work! Thank you so much Itay, I am very appreciative of your diligent efforts. The pronunciations were mostly correct and some were very accurate. There were four which were kind of inaccurate (Khulood, Lahn al-Khulood, Kursi al-I`tiraf, and Al Haram), I have replaced them with correct versions, I hope you don't mind. :) Here's a barnstar for your hard work. Other more important articles need pronunciations too, like those of countries, historical figures, presidents, etc. I really hope you can continue your valuable work. I have left you a welcome message, a late one, for you to get a grip of the place, that is if you haven't already. Thanks again, have a good day! - AnasTalk?20:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well, I'm sorry to hear that. Anyways, you certainly deserved it! Yep, 13 is pronounced Talata`sh in Egyptian Arabic (vernacular), and since the film is Egyptian, it is named so. As for Maw`ed Ma` al-Hayat, you're right the ta' marbouta is silent. As for the remaining two, you were right again, I have mistaken the Arabic script. :D Hehe, I wrote all of her article and more than 30 of her films (and counting) and I haven't even seen a single full movie for her! But I guess, she is pretty popular as a classic Egyptian star and I think her films are pretty good. See you around. :) - AnasTalk?21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Abu zaydi lhilaali.ogg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Hi Itay, how's it going? Actually, the article is definitely not in its final form, I still have a huge expansion for it, which I'm planning to do in a coming vacation, so I really don't think you should waste your time recording it. :) As for me previewing a sound file, well, as long as STC rules Saudi Arabia, that's probably not going to happen. Yep, I use dial-up! Those 20KB files were exhausting enough to download. :D But hey, if you like and enjoy doing it, don't mind me. All the best. - AnasTalk?12:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if you doubt the accuracy of the claim, one thing you can do is add [citation needed] at the end of the sentence ({{cn}}), if you didn't know that. You can also bring it up on the article's talk page, or if you feel really strongly about it go ahead and remove it from the text until/unless someone can cite it. Everyking12:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a cite to Akkadian language. WP was a lot more fast-and-loose back in 02, so very little from that time will be well cited, and none of it will use the recently-developed ref tags.. If you'd like to see the actual page the diagram is from, look here: [1]. -Ben18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider your reorganization linking to the scanned version of Caplice. I used my print versions of the book for the article back in 2002, and never became aware of the online version until today. In fact, if you look at the root page of the online version, you'll see that the poster has retracted his scans. I only mentioned the link to the scanned version to you because it seemed like a good reference -- I had to hack the URL to find it. Caplice appears to be quite popular among amateurs like me, not least because of his affordability and clear organization. I'm willing to bet that many of the other editors of the article also possess hardcopy versions, based on its popularity in LibraryThing. -Ben03:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first citation was for the 6.1% figure (actually I have a better citation that has the direct data from the 1994 census; the embassy citation is unnecessary and a broken link anyway), which comes out to about 4.5 million when considering Ethiopia's current population (in the 1994 census, when the 6.1% was calculated, it was only some 3. something million). If this is to conjectural for you, the most recent (2005) CSA census data (CSA 2005 National Statistics, Table B.3.) shows Tigray Region to have a population of 4.35 million, with the region being 95% Tigrayan (i.e. native Tigrinya speakers). There are another few hundred thousand or so speakers outside of Tigray, and a few hundred thousand in the diaspora (see http://www.joshuaproject.net/ for diaspora numbers). Is this good enough for you? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia03:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Itayb, not all Tigrinya speakers live in Tigray Region, but you are missing a big piece of information. I never claimed that any more than 4.5 million Tigrinya speakers live in Ethiopia. That is in fact my claim. However, there are another 2+ million speakers in Eritrea that must be included. For this reason, I am reverting your changes, since it seems your disagreement stems only from this misunderstanding. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia16:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaaaaaaaargh! You're absolutely right: that method doesn't display correctly with Internet Explorer! OK, how about plan B? There are some templates, {{columns-start}}, {{columns}}, and {{columns-end}}. If you look at the examples below, you can see how they work.
Apparently, Alexa has redesigned their website once again, and now the traffic details page at the end states that: "Susning.nu traffic rank in other countries: Sweden 304; Finland 13,740" --LA222:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why revert something that remains untrue? He considered running, put up his candidacy, but then dropped out. Why is a source needed for something not happening? I could quote the Knesset election results which show he didn't run, but isn't it a bit pointless? Number 5709:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, but I think you're overdoing it with the referencing, and it is making the article look very ugly. Why on earth do we need a reference for how his name is spelt in Arabic and Hebrew and what his DOB is? I would suggest that instead of having every single sentence/fact followed by a reference, only quotes from him or news items about him should be specifically referenced with a [1], whilst everything else can just be put under references without citing it in the text.
Also, why is there a seperate section for notes and references? The notes section appears totally unhelpful and unnecessary - why not just go straight to the references. Number 5717:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. What is the picture of a camera all about?
No offence taken. In fact, i pride myself of my contribution to the current high degree of verifiability of this article.
As for the article being rendered very ugly due to the abundance of citation indicators: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You may look at them and see visual disturbance; i look at them and see the Attribution policy - "one of Wikipedia's two core content policies" - at work.
You ask: "Why on earth do we need a reference for how his name is spelt in Arabic and Hebrew and what his DOB is?" First of all, who are we? As you know, there is no editorial board in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I'm an inclusionist in the sense that if someone has added a piece of information to an article which (1) is relevant to the subject of the article, (2) does not duplicate already existing information and (3) is attributable to a reliable source, then i see no reason to delete it, whether or not i consider it useful, important or "encyclopedic". However i do, in fact, think that Bishara's birth date, as well as the spelling of his name in Arabic and in Hebrew, are useful, important and encyclopedic pieces of information (i wasn't the one who added these pieces of information, by the way). As for the DOB, take for comparison the articles William Shakespeare, Isaac Asimov or Robert Aumann. As for the Arabic/Hebrew spelling of Bishara's name i urge you to look up in the library Donald Knuth's monumental series of reference books "The art of computer programming" and peruse the index. You'll find he mentions, besides the English transliteration of each name, the original spelling, too.
As for the separate sections for notes and references, i'll have to take a rain-check on this one, because it deserves a careful explanation, and i'm too tired to do it now.
But this isn't the Attribution policy at work. According to Wikipedia's own guidelines, you only need to reference on three occasions:
for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged
when adding negative material about living people
when quoting published material
Shakespeare's DOB is not referenced, but is a note because it was affected by the change in the caledar dates (possibly the same reason for Asimov as the Russians moved calendar in the early 20th C or because it is not a well-known fact) whilst Aumann's is not referenced. With regards to Bishara's DOB or the spelling of his name in other languages, there are no doubts whatsoever about their authenticity, and therefore they will not be challenged. They are also not negative, and not quotes. Thus a reference is unnecessary. Number 5722:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But again, this almost certainly does not apply to the extremely basic information such as DOB and name. If you're going to do that, why not cite the spelling of his name in English? Articles would be ridiculously convoluted if there was a reference after every fact, and this is happening to the Bishara one. Number 5709:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you. If you look closely, you'll see that i did, in fact, provide a citation for the spelling of his name in English. Adequate citation does not make articles convoluted: if you don't want to verify the citations, you don't have to. Just ignore them. That's one of the reasons why i opted for footnotes rather than Harvard-style - or similar - citation method: it's the least visually obtrusive method (hence the easiest to ignore) i could think of.
I believe, that in an encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia, which anyone can edit, pedantic citation is the only way to assure consistent quality and to reduce content-based edit wars to a minimum.
In any case, if you feel strongly about it, i suggest that we request comments from other editors (you may, of course, just delete those citations you consider superfluous, but i'll just restore them - you see, i feel strongly about it, too - so we can try to preempt edit war by directly jumping to the RfC stage). Itayb18:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Itayb! I'd be happy to adopt you and teach you as much as I can about templates. I can point your towards documentation on how these work, and supervise any templates you are working on or will work on. I guess I should start by learning what you already know. Do you know HTML, and more specifically, HTML tables? Do you understand wiki format, and more specifically, wiki-formatted tables? This gives me an idea on whether I can get right into designing templates or if we should start with tables. The only hard part will be giving you assignments that will be useful to Wikipedia. Honestly, if I knew of a template that is needed by the community, I probably would've already created it. We can always start creating templates in your userspace. But I would suggest getting involved in WikiProjects. Most of the templates I have built have been in response to a need by a WikiProject I am involved with. You can also go through current template messages and see if you can improve any. There have been a couple occasions where I have combined two templates into one. Nevertheless, we'll start wherever we can and contribute wherever we can. I look forward to working with you.↔NMajdan•talk14:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! Thanks for your warm response.
I have but skimpy knowledge of the topics you've mentioned (HTML, HTML tables and wikitables). For example, i can set-up wikitables, but only the simplest of their kind. So, if you don't find it exacerbating, i would like to start with the very basics. But if you can't be bothered with such low-level fuss, i'll do my best to fill up any gaps of knowledge i have as we go along.
Ok, great. Sounds like you have an intermediate grasp of wikitables. I'm gonna start with basically a list of "must read" documentation from the Meta site. To learn more on wikitables, see m:Help:Table. After reading that and practicing it a little, move on to m:Help:Template, m:Help:Advanced templates, and m:Help:Parser function. More reading: m:Help:Parameter default, m:Help:Variable, parts of m:Help:Magic words, and m:Help:Calculation. Now remember, these are all the major readings so a lot of this stuff may not make sense until you have practiced it. Also, go out and look at current templates and infoboxes and view the code. Start playing with templates in your own userspace. I have a template that I developed (well, I expanded its functionality) but have not yet implemented at User:Nmajdan/Test. You can view how to develop a template and view the results on a userpage there. If you have any questions, let me know.↔NMajdan•talk16:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll read everything you've recommended, but it will take me some time. I'll keep you posted on my progress. :) Itayb21:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. Like I said, some of those latter links may not make sense yet but they will as you begin to develop templates.↔NMajdan•talk22:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shalom Itay, I must admit that I feel bad about inviting you into this snake pit especially as I have not had time to contribute to the discussions myself. Just a short note to say that your work there, (as well as on other articles) is much appreciated. ابو علي (Abu Ali)09:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You needn't feel bad. I don't see it as a snake pit. I think the subject matter is emotional, and controversial, and the strong reactions from all sides are only to be expected. I hope that we can all be able to work out our differences of opinions and shape together a good article. But even if this doesn't turn out to be the case, there's still a lot to be gained just from participating in the discussion, in my opinion. Besides, human interaction - even hostile - is part of the fun of Wikipedia, in my opinion. Please also bear in mind, that, after all, there are other places on the web, where people can stumble on the name "Israel Shahak", and there are other references, beside Wikipedia, where interested people can find out more about him and his work. Take it easy. ;) And thanks for your kind comment. Itayb14:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a good idea for you to recruit people to edit war on your behalf. It would make more sense to engage in discussion on the Talk: page, and abide by policy, don't you think? I note you still have failed to respond to any of the issues raised there. Jayjg (talk)22:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, David. I'm involved in a dispute over an article. Since i'm very much absorbed in it, it is difficult for me to see things objectively. I've tried to solicit comments from the community via an RfC, but no one has accepted my request. I am concerned that some sections of a biographical article i'm collaborating on are biased to the point of being libelous (the subject of the article is deceased, so the matter is less urgent than it might have been). What makes me particularly frustrated is that i feel the persons with whom i am arguing are not being consistent; this makes it very difficult for me to conduct an effective discussion.
The disputed article is Israel Shahak. The disputed sections are the "Alleged telephone incident" section and the Categories pseudo-section.
More specifically, there are three issues i'm currently actively arguing about:
1. Werner Cohn's quote. I feel it's being misused to push a POV. Cohn was a professor of Sociology, but his book review, from which the quote is taken, is distinctly not an academic composition. I feel Cohn's academic credentials are used to endow the personal views he expresses with illegitimate respectability and authority. See Talk:Israel Shahak#Mr. Cohn's review of Shahak's "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" (up to "convenience break 1").
2. Most of the criticism given in the section abstractly deals with orthodox Jewish ethics and is not directly relevant to the incident at hand. But i met with strong opposition when i tried to change the section's title to "Shahak vs. the Jewish law: criticism and counter-criticism". This is a good example of the inconsistency i was referring to above. See Talk:Israel Shahak#Student's commentary in the "Alleged telephone incident" section.
3. Shahak is being categorized under "Anti-Judaism". I consider this to be inaccurate, to the point of libelous. Shahak was a fierce and vocal critic of Jewish fundamentalism and of the orthodox interpretation of the Jewish religion, but Judaism and orthodox Judaism are not synonymous. In fact Reform Judaism is the largest denomination of American Jews, and American Jewry constitutes roughly a half of the world Jewry. Shahak and no particular spite with this denomination, for example. Hence, saying Shahak was anti-Judaic does injustice both to Shahak and to Judaism. See [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]
It is noteworthy, that all these issues have already come up in the discussion in the past several times, as can be seen by perusing the current talk page from top to bottom. Take, for example the following representative diffs (but there are others i could have brought instead):
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond; I looked over the pertinent stuff on the talk pages, and the only thing I can think of short of mediation would be to create an RfC, which was obviously attempted, though I would say that little seems to have come of it... I would also say then, that WP:RFM is pro'lly the best fit for this, provided the parties you name are agreeable to mediation. I've watchlisted the page, so I can keep tabs on it. Dåvid Fuchs(talk / frog blast the vent core!)15:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already put this on the talk page, but could you replace that reference about him being the first Arab MK to run with this BBC article which defines him as the first Israeli Arab to run for PM? I can't work out the referencing system! Thanks, Number5710:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Apologies is my original comments on the issue ("utterly ridiculous") were a bit heated (I did tone them down later!). I'm still not sure I agree with your definition of original research; from what I understand from WP:OR#What_is_excluded.3F, OR covers:
new, unpublished discoveries relating to scientific studies
new words/terms or definitions of them
arguments against ideas already in the text
case/argument building
I can't see how my edit met any of them - it is certainly not a new discovery or an argument against a pre-existing stance. At worst, it would merit a {{fact}} citation rather than straight removal as WP:OR. Number5710:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, WP:V and WP:OR are tightly intertwined and "should not be interpreted in isolation from one another" (WP:OR).
Secondly, i was quite in line reverting your statement, there's no policy saying an unattributed statement should be marked with [citation needed] rather then deleted. In fact, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." (W:A). Some editors, including myself, think that "Anyone who adds material to an article, but cannot be bothered to cite any sources, is being discourteous to the other editors who later have to try to find reliable sources." [12], User:SMcCandlish#Smartest things I've seen lately on Wikipedia.
Finally, "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." WP:OR (my emphasis). A statement is considered OR if
"* It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;"
Your statement that Bishara was the first Arab Israeli to run for prime minister, introduced an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purported to refute the existing, attributed, claim that Bishara was the first Arab MK to run for prime minister. As i analysed here, your statement introduced a synthesis of facts without attributing that synthesis to a reputable source.
i was planning on adding a source a little later today. i think you're being overly uptight about the way you "run" the bishara article, for example i wouldn't even know how to work in a refrence into that article due to the unique ref meathod you're enforcing there. what i'm saying is this: if the statement is not clearly contentious, you can easily add a [citation needed] tag and give it a day before you remove it. Jaakobou16:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for your pointing out that i can easily add a [citation needed] tag, you're right, that's one possible measure, which i occasionally employ. Another possible course of action would be for you to do the required research before you insert a statement into the article. You can create a special "sandbox" subpage for temporary experimentations. When an experimentation matures, add it to the article.
In the specific case under discussion, i deleted the statement, because it seemed inconsistent with the fact that Barak won the 99 elections by a landslide. Moreover, it was initially inserted into the article along with the false additional claim, that Barak won the elections only barely. This made the whole addition a bit suspicious to me.
Finally, i don't "run" the article more than you do. I'm being active, WP:BOLD and opinionated, as you are welcome to be too (as, in fact, you are). Itayb17:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) since when 13% is a landslide? a landslide is when mubarak wins his "elections" with 98% of the votes. (2) you're being uptight -- about direct linking to uncontested materia (and quick movals) and about the a ref system that's unusable -- on top of being opinionated. Jaakobou17:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit problematic to compare a dictatorship such as Egypt to a Democracy such as Israel. Anyway, i'm not the only one to describe Barak's victory with the word "landslide": "Polls had shown Mr Barak pulling ahead of Binyamin Netanyahu, but few dared to predict such a landslide." [14].
I'm being uptight am i? Maybe so. But maybe when you've read this (not the grade for the history article at the end of this newspiece) and this and this and this: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." [15], you'll be as uptight as me.
You should also realize that i'm not the alone in my uptightness. I've already quoted a couple of possibly similar minded users. Here's another one.
Sorry to hear you have retired from the project, just when I was stopping in to ask your advice on an issue. Best of luck in your future endeavors. Stardust821202:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case you probably don't want to get involved in this can of worms again. If you'll recall you were involved in the RfC on Stephen M. Cohen a while back which resulted in it being merged. It has since been unmerged and is suffering from the same editing conflicts which came up before. I was looking for someone else who had been in on the RfC to hopefully give an opinion since I really have no desire in getting stressed by that article again. It seems however that everyone involved has since left wikipedia (or so the user pages would indicate). You were so helpful in my dealings with you that I hated to see you leaving the project. Anyway, don't feel obligated to get involved again, I don't want to raise your wikistress, glad to see you're still editing. Stardust821212:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome, Itayb!
← ANAS Talk 20:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
