User talk:Frederico1234

Welcome!

Hello, Frederico1234, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -Razorflame (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to revert your change to the content that the anti-semitic attack was made. Let other read it and read my respond, otherwise my respond makes no sense. And we have nothing to hide, and should not be sterial just to keep the Ass-Holes setecfied. It is on the talk page not on the article. I been working with User:Gwen Gale on humus and we keep the insults on the talk page, and eventially peace comes around! Igor Berger (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm rather surprised by your revert. i'd prefer to have the section deleted altogether. is there no limit to the craziness you can post on these talk pages?Frederico1234 (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like it to be educational to people with hatred of Israel and Jews. Did you see the video? Igor Berger (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wikipedia:NOT#censored Igor Berger (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i saw the video. it was not educational but a dishonest piece of propaganda (eg. it linked jimmy carter to neo-nazis in a true guilt-by-association style). what you are doing is fighting garbage with garbage. and i relly don't see the purpose of keeping a title that is both offensive to jews AND says nothing about the content of the section. i'd advice you to either delete the section or atleast rename the section title into a less offensive one. following common sense is better than trying to interpret wikipedia policies. Frederico1234 (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, it does seem POV on my side, so let's delete the whole section. And the video, although it does have some good parts, some are not, and it is propogandish like! Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks a lot for your cooperation. much appreciated. i wish you a nice weekend and the best of luck in the future. regards, Frederico1234 (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about commensense, not POV. If more people would work together, there would be no wars. I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a series of edits (and then reversions) that are contrary to various Wikipedia policies. I read all of your edit summaries. They don't excuse the fact that you are violating policies with your editing. Citations are not only needed for controversial statements (and for the record, the statement in question IS controversial anyway). Editors do not get to decide to delete certain sourced facts because they feel they are "minor" and not important enough to mention. It is sourced and relevant information. I strongly suggest that you review some of the core Wikipedia policies before continuing to edit, otherwise you face the possibility of facing blocks for disruptive editing. I also suggest you stop this edit war before you breach 3RR. Breein1007 (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for wrongfully accusing you of not reading my comments. That was out of line. I'll consider your comments in the weekend when I have more time. Cheers. Frederico1234 (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best way forward from here, I believe, is to address each edit one by one.

• The following sentence in The War of Independence: The civil war phase was changed by me:

Initially the Arabs had the advantage as the British maintained an embargo on Palestine's seas preventing the Jews from importing arms or manpower, while Arab states could supply local Arabs who also occupied more strategic areas—and outnumbered the Jews by approximately two to one.

where a source is provided for the fact that of the total population of the Mandate there were twice as many arabs as jews. I changed the sentence to this:

Initially the Arabs had the advantage as the British maintained an embargo on Palestine's seas preventing the Jews from importing arms or manpower, while Arab states could supply local Arabs who also occupied more strategic areas.

You reverted this here and here, stating that "deletion summary does not change the fact that this is sourced and fully appropriate". In my view, and as stated in the comment, the total population is not relevant in context of war. The fact that a source of the population figure is provided does not change that. Please explain why you think it is "fully appropriate". --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly relevant to note the population difference. If the population of one side is twice that of the other, it is likely that the army of that side will be much larger than the others as well. We can't include that in the article, because it is WP:OR, but we can certainly include the population and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. Breein1007 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following that line of reasoning, it would be much more reasonable to mention total manpower instead of total population, as total population also includes children, women and elderly. In "Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict" Charles D. Smith (professor in history at University of Arizona) on page 200 writes "The Jewish community had a slight manpower advantage over Palestinians among males in the twenty to forty-four age group". I suggest we replace the current erroneous text with this one. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't raise any objections, so I'll go ahead with the change. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The UN figure for the number of Arab refugees. Here I must admit I may have been mistaken. In neither of the books I have the figure 711,000 is mentioned. While the figure itself can be found here, the source is a primary source which should be avoided. The figure I found in secondary sources was the earlier 726,000 figure. If you don't object, I will change the figure to that and add the reference. --Frederico1234 (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you provide an appropriate source, then please do go ahead. Breein1007 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll do that. Thanks. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This revert. I maintain that the level of detail here is excessive. The article is already too long at 121 kilobytes. I believe it has to be made smaller. See WP:TOOLONG. --Frederico1234 (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing three words in the name of WP:TOOLONG is pretty ridiculous, so I'll suggest that you give up on that point. Breein1007 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Point dropped. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The total number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands. Diff of revert here. I suggest moving this figure into the next section, "Ben Gurion and mass immigration". If this figure should be in the article, which I dispute, then that's the proper place for it. --Frederico1234 (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that it makes more sense to the reader to see the figure contrasted with the Arab refugees. Even though it is not perfectly chronological, it is much easier for the reader to understand than to separate the two. Breein1007 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the figures be contrasted with each other in the first place? I see no reason for doing so, except from a pro-Isreali propaganda point-of-view, which is I'm quite sure is forbidden by Wikipedia policies. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, so when it comes to contrasting numbers that paint Israel in a better light, it's pro-"Isreal" propaganda, but when it comes to contrasting numbers that make Israel look bad, such as including charts showing casualty figures in conflicts where more Palestinians are killed than Israelis, it's perfectly fine? Give it up dude, this isn't even worth discussing. Breein1007 (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But then again, what is the reason for contrasting the numbers with each other? My point was that if the reason is to show Israel in a better light, then that is an invalid reason. I hope you agree with that. --Frederico1234 (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're reading into my reasons and assuming that I'm editing with the intention of painting Israel in a good light. This is a dangerous attitude to take, because it makes it difficult to make objective edits yourself if you assume you are "countering" a POV-warrior. On the contrary, I am trying to make the article more objective and simply present facts in a properly organized fashion so that readers can draw their own conclusions. In terms of this issue, it simply makes sense to include the Jewish refugee numbers next to the Arab refugee numbers. Organizationally, that is an obvious way to sort the information. Put related figures together so that readers can get an understanding of the big picture. Breein1007 (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apology for failing to assume good faith. Regarding the issue at hands, I don't think we'll come to an agreement here. I say we drop the issue. Thanks for taking the time. Cheers. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't know, WP:BLP applies on every page of this project, including edit summaries. Calling a living person (who happens to be a professor at a major university) a "propagandist" is a serious violation of this policy, and could get you blocked. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is a propagandist. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your opinion, but you may not write that in the encyclopedia. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop saying that then. Thanks for the notice. But still, Gottheil is not a historian and his "work" has received no recognition among historians. His claims has been discredited. He's not a reliable source.

He's an economist, and an award winning author of economic textbooks. You can't remove material published by him just because you don't like him. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove it because I don't like him. I removed it because he's not a reliable source. This isn't about economics. It's about history. His accomplishments in economics are simply irrelevant here. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a scholarly article, using fundamental economic principles to make an argument. He is quite competent to make that argument, which is highly relevant. Anyway, what you and I think is relevant does not matter - it was published in a reliable source, he is qualified to make that argument, it really ends right there. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a scholarly article. It's an article designed to look as a scholarly article. Again, he just does not have the qualifications as a historian (or demographer). --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what the mission statement says for Middle East Forum, where Gottheils "sholarly" article was published: "the Middle East Forum, a think tank [...] promotes American interests in the Middle East [...] working for Palestinian acceptance of Israel". Does that sound like a strictly academic organisation without bias or agenda? I think not. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you're confusing a potentially biased source with an unreliable source. It's not the same thing, and unreliability does not follow from having an agenda. You are removing the comments of an award winning academic, published in a reliable source, which we don't do here. Take it to the reliable sources noticeboard, or the article's talk page, to gain consensus, instead of deleting and edit warring. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll do that. I just have to read up on this noticeboard stuff first. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call Frederico - I changed the title as suggested. Thanks.Phersu (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your dispute to Talk:Israel. Further reverts may result in your being blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thanks for the notice. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Frederico, i apologize if my response was taken as bullying - it was not my intention. This is not our first discussion, and i assume we could make fruitful discussions now and in the future. I've changed the bold text after your request for italic (the quotations). Regards.Greyshark09 (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. Thanks! --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• recent changes to my sandbox, see this. • Ling.Nut 05:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noticed your comments on the talk page of my sandbox. I feel like JRHammond and I are negotiating the sale of a house! See my sandbox for latest version. I must be the seller and he the buyer, 'cause I keep asking for more & he for less.... Tks. • Ling.Nut 09:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy! If you are trying to discredit JVL then How much crediblity -- do you think-- your POV holds? Now let's see what RS say, Shall we?

What does the PBS say?

The Jewish Americans . Resources | PBS A division of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, the Jewish Virtual Library is a comprehensive online Jewish encyclopedia, covering everything... ^[1]

More from PBS relying on information from JVL. [2]

You might also want to say that the CNN, BBC, CBS news, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Foxnews, are all not RS since they rely on JVL... In other words none is in your POV.

From wiki:

The Jewish Virtual Library has been cited by CNN,^[2] New York Times,^[3] BBC,^[4] CBS News,^[5] Fox News,^[6][7] The Los Angeles Times,^[8] USA Today,^[9] Business Week,^[10][11] and Bloomberg,[3] among others. It is listed as reference by academic libraries at Pennsylvania State University,^[12] Michigan State University,^[13] University of Washington,^[14] King's College, London,^[15] and the University of Delaware.^[16]

JVL received awards from Britannica Internet Guide Selection, USA Today Hot Site, and the Best of the Jewish Web from the Jewish Agency for Israel, the Academic Excellence Award from Study Web and others.^[17]

JVL is mainstream not at all 'right wing.' Incidently, Is there any right wing Israeli news source that in your "pov" is RS? Can you cite one for me.

Good luck on wikipedia and welcome. but please refrain from dictating your own POV on wikipedia.RS101 (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not referring to jewishvirtuallibrary in general, but the "Myths and Facts" part of it. "Myths and Facts" is highly unreliable. --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just to say thanks for these edits. That whole article is the biggest BLP mess I think I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP mess indeed. --Frederico1234 (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just let the IP fuss. Choose your battles, in this case, it won;t make a difference. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frederico1234, you've always been a fair and impartial commenter and mediator, in my view. I'm having a dispute, once again, involving WGFinley, where he is again issuing veiled threats to ban me from yet another article, on the alleged grounds that I'm refusing to consider others' arguments. I've proposed an edit that NoMoreMisterNiceGuy and WGFinley are objecting to on the basis that I've violated WP:SYNTH. I maintain that the statements I've proposed adding to the article are completely factually accurate, and that their accuracy can be verified from the sources given. I maintain that the latter is absolutely incontrovertible. I've avoided even paraphrasing and instead quoted directly from the source at length after having revised my proposed edit numerous times in an effort to satisfy the stated objections. Yet every time I revise in an attempt to change the wording they identify as problematic, they simply repeat their objections that I'm "synthing". I keep asking them questions to clarify their objections and explain in what way the sources don't verifiably state what I say they state, and in what way they think I have "synthed" by drawing any conclusions, making my own analysis, etc., and they have refused for the most part to answer my questions. They just keep repeating "synth", "synth", "synth" over and over without any actual argument as to why this is so. I would greatly appreciate it if you would take the time to review my proposed edit, their objections, and my replies, and comment with your view so as to help resolve the dispute. If you agree I've violated WP:SYNTH, perhaps you could explain to me how this is so, so that I can resolve the issue. I feel confident, however, that you will find this not to be the case. Please take a few moments to review the matter here:[4]. Thank you. JRHammond (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. Unfortunately, I must decline your request as I haven't got the time to look into the matter. Please accept my apology. --Frederico1234 (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've attempted to systematize the discussion on the scope of Racism in the Palestinian territories with regard to racism by Israeli settlers and soldiers at Talk:Racism in the Palestinian territories#Proposed resolutions. This debate does not concern whether such racism exists, merely whether it is an appropriate part of the article. Issues of WP:POLICY are currently being discussed. You've previously addressed the issue. Please contribute your opinion.--Carwil (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Frederico. Have you ever edited a computer programming article using an IP, perhaps inadvertently? Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes post when logged out, so it's possible. I only (infrequently nowadays) edit programming articles related to the C language. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Supreme Deliciousness for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. Do I need to do anything? --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Frederico, considering our fruitful cooperation on the Timeline page, i would like you to express your opinion in the discussion whether to merge Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Thank you!Greyshark09 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are content rules in Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Verifiability) and if you violate the rules, they will block you. Editors are not allowed to write statements with no reference to reliable sources, especially when there are reliable sources that contradict these statements. I have already given references for sources supporting my statements but you did not do so.
I know there is a wide consensus in among Egyptians that the 1973 war was a victory for the Egyptian army and a defeat for the Israeli army. However, this is due to a propaganda campaign made by the Egyptian regime for one purpose:
Ensuring the good reputation of the Egyptian army which is sworn to protect Egypt's secular constitution, and thus, reducing the public support for the Ichwan. Megaidler (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Megaidler! Thank you for visiting my talk page.

What particular edit of mine do you found questionable? --Frederico1234 (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frederico, I read you wrong. You're an okay chap and I want to apologize if I ever did anything on wikipedia that caused you offense.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:) Thanks for the kind words. Cheers! --Frederico1234 (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a move request discussion going on at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority#Requested move, with which you were previously involved. I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new discussion. Nightw 08:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the section is an important part of Palestinian history.

the purpose of wikipedia is to spread relevant knowledge  , not fiction and political propaganda. 

palestinian leadership ties and collaboration with nazi germany in world w2 are essential part of palestinian history. without it's impossible to really understand what happened in 1948 war, and after.

I put this section in the "history" section of the article. and I don't think there is more appropriate venue. you wrote about reaching a consensus on talk page. but i don't know with whom and how, since i'm new here. so , i'm going to revert the article again. please reach a consensus before reverting beck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs) 06:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to draw your attention to the "Palestine" article, which largely is encopassing the Palestine geographical region. Currently if we try to search Palaestina province of the Byzantine Empire we reach Palestine geography article, and same with Palaestina Prima and Palaestina Secunda. Considering the independent nature of article "British Manadate for Palestine", which is a similar political entity to "Byzantine province of Palaestina" i think the latter deserves an article of its own. What do you think?Greyshark09 (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an excellent idea! Go for it! --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case you have not noticed, i have already done this, see Palaestina Prima and Palaestina Secunda. I also intend to create Palaestina Salutaris.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The move request at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority was closed, so we're now taking suggestions for an alternative. As you were involved in the previous discussion, I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new one. Please lodge your support for a proposal, or make one of your own. Night w2 (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just wanted to leave you a note about your recent reversion. Using automated tools such as Popups or Twinkle is seen by some editors as a suggestion that their edits are vandalism. When reverting non-vandalism, especially contentious edits, you might want to avoid the use of automated tools. Just a suggestion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I'll avoid that in the future. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Tnxman307#Sockpuppet. It's a Ledenierhomme sockpuppet. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job hunting down those pesky socks! --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since we had some good cooperation in the Israeli-Palestinian articles, i would also ask your valueable opinion on the 2005 Ahwazi unrest article (created by myself), which is highly disputed by some editors. Though probably not directly related to your interests, i would appreciate your opinion here - [5].Greyshark09 (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apology, but I'm afraid I'l have to respectfully decline your kind request, as I've got no degree of expertise on the subject whatsoever (Ahwaz, is that in Bulgaria? ;)). --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahwaz is in Iran, with the article speaking of Arab minority protests in Iran. Since the situation in Khuzestan province has some similarities to Arab minority in Israel, i thought you might have an opinion on this issue. Thanks anyway. Greyshark09 (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bulgaria thing was just a silly joke.

I did some googling and found this report from the US state department: link. It doesn't seem to be used in the article. Search for "Ahwaz"; you should find some info on the event there. I hope that could be of some value for you. Cheers. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting link, i will use some of the info, thanx!Greyshark09 (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not realize that I am reverting all the speedy deletion tags or do you not care?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Why are you doing that? It's a sock of a banned uset. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because in my opinion, and in the opinion of any non-wikilawyer, this encyclopedia is better off with the content than without the content. Deleting all these articles is pure disruption.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales disagrees: "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". The creators of the speedy deletion criteria disagrees, or they wouldn't have created the CS5 rule.

Way unanalogous. We are dealing with true information not false information. The SD criteria was created similar to any other SD criteria --when any non-creator disagrees the SD fails.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the majority of the articles were substantially edited by other editors making them illegible under the given SD criteria. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the SD notice regardless of whether anyone besides the sock had edited them or not. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You first added the SD noticed regardless of whether anyone besides the sock had edited them or not. Thus your SD tagging did not have creditability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that. I got lazy and did not check the edit histories. My wrong.

If I had limited myself to only those articles where the banned user was the sole author, would you still have reverted? --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now why the banned users won't accept the WP:OFFER: they have no incentive to do so as all their work will be kept anyway. If cought, just create another account and continue editing as nothing happened. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the OFFER will not remove the topic ban. Secondly, it still sucks getting caught and blocked every few weeks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It won't suck for the banned user as his new account won't be blocked. It's just continuing editing as if nothing happened. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what grounds you have to say that Gotthiel is an unreliable source. The other main source Justin McCarthy has been shown on several incidents to be extremely biased:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_McCarthy_%28American_historian%29

He's a former member of the Turkish Peace Corps and is funded by the Institute of Turkish Studies, a main proponent in the denial of the Armenian Genocide.

--APKeaton (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2011 (EST)

Gottheil is not an expert in the field. He's an economist. He's also a propagandist. This makes him highly unreliable.

McCarthy on the other hand is a professional demographer. This makes him an expert. --Frederico1234 (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gotthiel's article focuses largely on the historical economics and how they may have influenced demographics. He is most certainly qualified to make judgement on that issue. Furthermore, McCarthy has been shown on numerous occassions to misquote his sources. He has several complaints of bias against him by other scholars. If McCarthy work is deemed reliable, then so should Gotthiel's response. Gotthiel is no more a propagandist than McCarthy.

--APKeaton (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2011 (EST)

Further research into Gotthiel shows he is employed by the University of Illinois and his research is focussed on the economics of the middle east. He is most certainly qualified to weigh in on whether economic development by Jews resulted in an increase in movements in the labour force.

http://www.economics.illinois.edu/people/fgotthei/

The University of Illinois is considered one of the leading research universties in the USA and a "public Ivy". Your dismissal of Gotthiel as a "propagandist" is libelous.

McCarthy is employed by the Univeristy of Kentucky, a far less well regarded school.

--APKeaton (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2011 (EST)

Please consider yourself notified. Broccolo (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This complaint has been closed with a warning to you. It will be logged in the case at WP:ARBPIA. You are warned against any further violation of the WP:1RR restriction and warned not to assume bad faith about groups of editors in the I-P articles. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

— EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Frederico, i'm relisting the proposal, after it got "lost".

Please express your opinion over the relisted suggestion to merge the article Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both articles are substantially the same and shouldn't exist in separate. You can participate in the discussion here Talk:Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict#Merging with Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was closed with an outcome of merge, you are welcome to assist the merger procedure. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Federico. I should have said many thanks a while ago. My only excuse is that I am a bit embarrassed and not sure if I deserve it. But I'm not going to refuse it either. Glad someone felt the work was some use. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you reverted was not a forum link but a good reference.Please pay attention in the future.--Shrike (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I interpreted your edit summary the wrong way. My apology. --Frederico1234 (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've put up a proposal re: Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Naming_Conventions_for_Locations_in_Jerusalem) and would very much appreciate any comments you have on this issue. BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested on the AfD regarding the Azzam Pasha quote that the article be merged with Azzam Pasha and have already moved most of the material to that article. Please note your opinion on a suggested merge at the AfD.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frederico, this was admirable on your part. On the other hand, I was dismayed to see that you changed colors back in July.—Biosketch (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add that user box in order to mislead anyone. But since that seems to be what you think, I removed it. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? No, that's not what I meant. I was commenting that I was a little disappointed to see you conform.—Biosketch (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Stupid me:) --Frederico1234 (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry for my betrayal of the Red Pact! --Frederico1234 (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for your kind words! Appreciated. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frederico, you have participated in the discussion, though no clear opinion on your behalf was expressed, would you like to take a stand on the issue here?Greyshark09 (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still a little bit torn between the two options. I do plan to make a stand though. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Frederico, Foo Bar Buzz Netz is claimed to be a sock of NoCal100 and another guy. Both are male. But Foo Bar Buzz Netz is a female per her own comments... Both have the same problems on the article related on the I-P conflict and both focus much on the grammar of other editors. Gilabrand was trapped to use socks during her block. Given the little number of female users, the 'duck test' is rather conclusive. 91.180.110.219 (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. Gilabrand is an old account not currently subject to topic-bans. Why sock? --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For you efforts also I noticed that you a good editor even though we disagree on many issues. Shrike (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Appreciated *slurp*.

I'll reopen it and see what happens; it would be supremely helpful if you could copy his new statement over, as it's very hard to cut and paste on my iPhone. I'll take care of it now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Statement copied. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frederico. Hope you are doing well. Regarding Barkan, Much of the Judean mountain range is located within Israel proper and even if it wasn't, we need to stick with what the source actually says and not what we think it should say. Please take these comments in a constructive manner as I do believe that you are a valuable contributor and I have nothing but the utmost respect for your sense of fairness and keen insight. Best regards,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words as well as your constructive criticism!

Looking at the source, it seems that mention of "Judean mountains" is no longer present. Perhaps the company has moved away from the Barkan Industrial Park in the West Bank? I'll open a discussion at the talk page. --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct. The source says Jerusalem mountains not Judean mountains. I have made the correction. Thank you for pointing that out. Best regards,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frederico. Hope you are doing well. I saw your vote to oppose the proposal. Naturally, I have nothing but the utmost respect for your opinions as I believe that they are sincere and stem from a desire to improve content rather than advocate for a political position. However, would you be inclined to accept a position whereby the boilerplate text, rather than being removed in its entirety, is modified to something along the lines of Soosim's suggestion? I just wanted to know whether there's some flexibility in your position.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and again thanks for the kind words! Regarding Soosims proposal, I think it's fine to include it in addition to the current wording, but not substitute it as that would mean that the illegality issue is removed. So I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, though I look forward to cooperate with you on other issues. Happy editing! --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Frederico. Let me throw one out there and move several steps closer to your position. How would you feel about the following language as a substitute to the current boilerplate language? Palestinians and their supporters within the international community view settlements as illegal though Israel draws a distinction between those communities it has officially sanctioned and outposts that settlers built without permission. How does that strike you? Before you answer please bear in mind that a substantial part of the community wishes to see all boilerplate language removed. But in the interest of moving forward and in the interest of bridging the gap, I was wondering if this formulation is something that you could live with.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: no. Long answer: "Palestinians and their supporters within the international community" make it sound as it is just some parts of the international community which hold the settlements to be illegal (under international law). In reality, it's pretty much Israel vs. the rest of the world, so that phrasing would be misleading. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The United States has not adopted that position. Is the United States not part of the international community? Moreover, you have to understand that the majority seem to favor removal of the mandatory text in its entirety on policy considerations. However, a compromise might be reached whereby some text that both sides can swallow, remains. Does that not seem logical to you?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a point about the US. But the point still stands: A very clear majority of the international community rejects the legitimacy of the settlements. I don't think reaching a compromise is realistic as the the sides are too far apart. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. What about this text? Much of the international community view settlements as illegal though Israel draws a distinction between those communities it has officially sanctioned and outposts that settlers built without permission. Is that something you'd find acceptable as a compromise?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JJG, if you can source this, that may be fair to add, international community, at the notable exception of the United States, view the settlements as illegal but I am nore sure that the US stated the contrary...

By the way such a discussion should not take place on a single user page but on a page dedicated to the topic and that is followed by more users. 87.66.161.203 (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with "Much of the international community". But "under international law" should not be omitted. That Israel view some settlements as illegal under Israeli law (i.e. the "outposts") is less relevant for non-outpost settlements, so that part of the proposed sentence does not belong here. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

it seems you are aware of the issue that they didn't participate to the war. I provided the source (Morris) and quoted it in the talk:page of 1948 Arab-Israeli war article but I have some difficulties in modifying the caption of the article (where it is listed among the invading armies). Could you please come and give your mind and eventually other sources ? I have also some concerns about the flags for the volunteers. This should be discussed in the talk pages. 81.247.97.117 (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Olive branch
	I would very much like to work productively with you in the future Ankh.Morpork 23:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Accepted :) --Frederico1234 (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could help me improve Deception: Betraying the Peace Process? Ankh.Morpork 21:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look later today. Cheers! --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Automatic Reference Counting.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the reviewer's talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Athleek123 20:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on User talk:Sandstein, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you.  Sandstein  18:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frederico. There's a weird rule on the Six-day war article that requires all reverts to be explained on corresponding talk page. I voiced concurrence with your revert at talk and you don't ever have to worry about me reporting you (even though we're at opposite political ends) but I don't want to see you get into trouble so you might want to drop a word or two at Talk. You can even cut and paste your edit summary.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Actually, I didn't know that, so thanks a lot for telling me! Cheers! --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem my friend.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	Sincerely, I award you a barnstar for your civility in the Argaman debates. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My first barnstar :) Thank you very much!

Hello, Frederico1234. You have new messages at AnkhMorpork's talk page.
Message added 19:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ankh.Morpork 19:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Automatic Reference Counting.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the reviewer's talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Topher385 (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frederico, since you have contributed in the past on improving articles on historical events and timelines in the Levant, i would like your assistance on History of Gaza. For some reason, one of the editors of this article is increasingly feeling ownership over it, and even my simple attempts to ask for citations ({{cn}}) and verifications ({{verify source}}) are boldly reverted. I believe that civil discussion and neutral review of sources (which i find very problematic and missing in some cases) can transform the article into a much better piece. Frankly, i have no idea how this article appears as "good article".Greyshark09 (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge of 7th century Gaza is quite limited, unfortunately. I'm more into the modern era. Perhaps someone at WP:IPCOLL could provide input? --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Frederico1234. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Could you please exaplain your revert on [talk page] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.49.34 (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your sockpuppet report. You confirmed my suspicions... All the best. --E4024 (talk) 12:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Cheers! --Frederico1234 (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear user, since you participated on a geopolitical context discussion on Palestine [6], you might be interested in expressing your opinion on a reformulated discussion Talk:Palestinian National Authority#Palestinian Authority - an organization (government) or a geopolitical entity?. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After you recent reverts of my edits to categorization of industrial parks in Israel, I've created a new category following the precident of airports, roads, etc. in Israeli-occupied territories. I think this might satisfy. Kind regards, --@Efrat (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks good. Well done! --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

! --@Efrat (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize you reverted my edit after I already reverted it.
—Sowlos (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't realize that. Sorry about that. --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Honestly, thought it was funny more than anything.
—Sowlos (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 January 2013. 

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. 

Hello. You are receiving this message because you have recently participated at Talk:Jerusalem or because you were listed at one of the two recent requests for mediation of the Jerusalem article (1, 2). The Arbitration Committee recently mandated a binding request for comments about the wording of the lead of the Jerusalem article, and this message is to let you know that there is currently a moderated discussion underway to decide how that request for comments should be structured. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, you are invited to read the thread at Talk:Jerusalem#Moderation, add yourself to the list of participants, and leave a statement. Please note that this discussion will not affect the contents of the article directly; the contents of the article will be decided in the request for comments itself, which will begin after we have finalised its structure. If you do not wish to participate in the present discussion, you may safely ignore this message; there is no need to respond. If you have any questions or comments about this, please leave them at my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I've noticed your interest in articles relating to C/C++ and would like to invite you to join the WikiProject C/C++, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to C and C++. If you're interested, please consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. --—Sowlos

Yes, look upon your comment. I did it because they were useful and referenced. Why did you remove them? Kordas (sínome!) 19:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So someone did contact you? Could you please identify this person? (The reasons for removal could be seen at the talk page.) --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

You can search for images directly in VisualEditor. Click the media icon, which looks like this:

Then type a few keywords into the search box. VisualEditor will search Commons for images or other files whose titles or descriptions contain those words, and will display thumbnail pictures of them for your review. Click one time on the image you want to insert in the article.

For more details, read VisualEditor's user guide.

This Thursday's VisualEditor update was mostly about stability and performance improvements, and some preparatory work for major planned improvements, along with bug fixes for non-English language support and right-to-left text. Everything that the English Wikipedia received today has been running on Mediawiki for a week already.

Officially, the problem with the link inspector not linking to a specific section on a page (bug 53219) was fixed in this release, although that critical patch actually appeared here earlier.

A number of bugs related to copy-and-paste functionality were fixed (48604, bug 50043, bug 53362, bug 51538, among others). Full rich copy-and-paste from external sources into VisualEditor is expected "soon".

In other fixes, you can no longer add empty ref tags (<ref/>) (bug 53345). Selecting both an image and some text, and then trying to add a link, previously deleted the selected image and the text. This was fixed in bug 50127. There was another problem related to using arrow keys to move the cursor next to an inline image that was fixed (bug 53507).

Looking ahead: The next planned upgrade is scheduled for next Thursday, and you should expect to find a redesigned toolbar with drop-down menus that include room for references, templates, underline, strikethrough, superscript, subscript, and code formatting. There will also be keyboard shortcuts for setting the format (paragraph vs section headings).

If you are active at other Wikipedias, the next group of Wikipedias to have VisualEditor offered to all users is being determined at this time. Generally speaking, languages that depend on the input method editor are not going to receive VisualEditor this month. The current target date is Tuesday, September 24 for logged-in users only. You can help with translating the documentation. In several cases, most of the translation is already done, and it only needs to be copied over to the relevant Wikipedia. If you are interested in finding out whether a particular Wikipedia is currently on the list, you can leave a message for me at my talk page.

For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your revert of my edit here. I did ask for the source, preferably a quote. Because I distinctly remember that those people killed were civilians. Debresser (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try to find one yourself? --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't have that book. Don't worry, I try to do my homework on Wikipedia, when I can. But, absent a source, I must revert to the previous version. Debresser (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try another book then. And you don't need to revert anything. --Frederico1234 (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

You can edit a page's categories in VisualEditor. Click the "Page settings" button (next to Cancel/Save) in the toolbar to open the category tool. It will show you a list of the current categories for that page.

To add a category, type the name of the category you want to add in the search field. To remove an existing category, click on the category in the list and then, in the dialog that opens, click on the "Remove" icon (trash can). "Options" will allow you to set a default sorting key.

For more details, read VisualEditor's user guide.

VisualEditor has been updated twice in the last two weeks. As usual, what is now running on the English Wikipedia had a test run at Mediawiki during the previous week.

As announced, the toolbar was redesigned to be simpler, shorter, and to have the ability to have drop-down groups with descriptions. What you see now is the initial configuration and is expected to change in response to feedback from the English Wikipedia and other Wikipedias. The controls to add <u> (underline), <sub> (subscript), and <sup> (superscript), <s> (strikethrough) and <code> (computer code/monospace font) annotations to text are available to all users in the drop-down menu. At the moment, all but the most basic tools have been moved into a single drop-down menu, including the tools for inserting media, references, reference lists, and templates. The current location of all of the items in the toolbar is temporary, and your opinions about the best order are needed! Please offer suggestions at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback/Toolbar.

In an eagerly anticipated upgrade to the reference dialog, newly added references or reference groups no longer need the page to be saved before they can be re-used (bugs 51689 and 52000). The 'Use existing reference' button is now disabled on pages which don't yet have any references (bug 51848). The template parameter filter in the transclusion dialog now searches both parameter name and label (bug 51670).

In response to several requests, there are some new keyboard shortcuts. You can now set the block/paragraph formatting from the keyboard: Ctrl+0 sets a block as a regular paragraph; Ctrl+1 up to Ctrl+6 sets it as a Heading 1 ("Page title") to Heading 6 ("Sub-heading 4"); Ctrl+7 sets it as pre-formatted (bug 33512). Ctrl+2, which creates level 2 section headings, may be the most useful.

Some improvements were made to capitalization for links, so typing in "iPhone" will offer a link to "iPhone" as well as "IPhone" (bug 50452).

Copying and pasting within the same document should work better as of today's update, as should copying from VisualEditor into a third-party application (bug 53364, bug 52271, bug 52460). Work on copying and pasting between VisualEditor instances (for example, between two articles) and retaining formatting when copying from an external source into VisualEditor is progressing.

Major improvements to editing with input method editors (IMEs; mostly used for Indic and East Asian languages) are being deployed today. This is a complex change, so it may produce unexpected errors. On a related point, the names of languages listed in the "languages" (langlinks) panel in the Page settings dialog now display as RTL when appropriate (bug 53503).

Looking ahead: The help/'beta' menu will soon expose the build number next to the "Leave feedback" link, so users can give more specific reports about issues they encounter (bug 53050). This change will make it easier for developers to identify any cacheing issues, once it starts reporting the build number (currently, it says "Version false"). Also, inserting a link, reference or media file will put the cursor after the new content again (bug 53560). Next week’s update will likely improve how dropdowns and other selection menus behave when they do not fit on the screen, with things scrolling so the selected item is always in view.

If you are active at other Wikipedias, the next group of Wikipedias to have VisualEditor offered to all users is being finalized. About two dozen Wikipedias are on the list for Tuesday, September 24 for logged-in users only, and on Monday, September 30 for unregistered editors. You can help with translating the documentation. In several cases, most of the translation is already done, and it only needs to be copied over to the relevant Wikipedia. If you are interested in finding out whether a particular Wikipedia is currently on the list, you can leave a message for me at my talk page.

For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

You can create and edit multi-level lists in VisualEditor. The first two icons let you set or remove list formatting.

The last two are used to increase or decrease the indentation level. This can also be done from the keyboard, by using Tab ↹ to indent the list and ⇧ Shift+Tab ↹ to outdent it.

For more information, read Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide.

VisualEditor is still being updated every Thursday. As usual, what is now running on the English Wikipedia had a test run at Mediawiki during the previous week. If you haven't done so already, you can turn on VisualEditor by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable".

The reference dialog for all Wikipedias, especially the way it handles citation templates, is being redesigned. Please offer suggestions and opinions at mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog. (Use your Wikipedia username/password to login there.) You can also drag and drop references (select the reference, then hover over the selected item until your cursor turns into the drag-and-drop tool). This also works for some templates, images, and other page elements (but not yet for text or floated items). References are now editable when they appear inside a media item's caption (bug 50459).

There were a number of miscellaneous fixes made: Firstly, there was a bug that meant that it was impossible to move the cursor using the keyboard away from a selected node (like a reference or template) once it had been selected (bug 54443). Several improvements have been made to scrollable windows, panels, and menus when they don't fit on the screen or when the selected item moves off-screen. Editing in the "slug" at the start of a page no longer shows up a chess pawn character ("♙") in some circumstances (bug 54791). Another bug meant that links with a final punctuation character in them broke extending them in some circumstances (bug 54332). The "page settings" dialog once again allows you to remove categories (bug 54727). There have been some problems with deployment scripts, including one that resulted in VisualEditor being broken for an hour or two at all Wikipedias (bug 54935). Finally, snowmen characters ("☃") no longer appear near newly added references, templates and other nodes (bug 54712).

Looking ahead: Development work right now is on rich copy-and-paste abilities, quicker addition of citation templates in references, setting media items' options (such as being able to put images on the left), switching into wikitext mode, and simplifying the toolbar. A significant amount of work is being done on other languages during this month. If you speak a language other than English, you can help with translating the documentation.

For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "West Bank". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 16:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

VisualEditor's toolbar has a new feature (currently working only in some browsers), "Switch to source editing". By choosing this item, you can move directly into the wikitext source editor without saving. This is particularly useful if you need to make significant changes to tables, image galleries, or other elements that are not currently supported.

For more information about how to use VisualEditor, read Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has worked on some feature changes, major infrastructure improvements to make the system more stable, dependable and extensible, some minor toolbar improvements, and fixing bugs.

A new form parsing library for language characters in Parsoid caused the corruption of pages containing diacritics for about an hour two weeks ago. Relatively few pages at the English Wikipedia were affected, but this created immediate problems at some other Wikipedias, sometimes affecting several dozen pages. The development teams for Parsoid and VisualEditor apologize for the serious disruption and thank the people who reported this emergency at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and on the public IRC channel, #mediawiki-visualeditor.

There have been dozens of changes since the last newsletter. Here are some of the highlights:

• Accidental deletion of infoboxes and other items: You now need to press the Delete or ← Backspace key twice to delete a template, reference or image. The first time, the item becomes selected, and the second time, it is removed. The need to press the delete key twice should make it more obvious what you are doing and help avoid accidental removals of infoboxes and similar (bug 55336).
• Switch from VisualEditor to the wikitext editor: A new feature lets you make a direct, one-way editing interface change, which will preserve your changes without needing to save the page and re-open it in the wikitext editor (bug 50687). It is available in a new menu in the action buttons by the Cancel button (where the "Page Settings" button used to be). Note that this new feature is not currently working in Firefox.
• Categories and Languages are also now directly available in that menu. The category suggestions drop-down was appearing in the wrong place rather than below its input box, which is now fixed. An incompatibility between VisualEditor and the deployed Parsoid service that prevented editing categories and language links was fixed.
• File:, Help: and Category: namespaces: VisualEditor was enabled for these namespaces the on all wikis (bug 55968), the Portal: and Viquiprojecte: namespaces on the Catalan Wikipedia (bug 56000), and the Portal: and Book: namespaces on the English Wikipedia (bug 56001).
• Media item resizing: We improved how files are viewed in a few ways. First, inline media items can now be resized in the same way that has been possible with block ones (like thumbnails) before. When resizing a media item, you can see a live preview of how it will look as you drag it (bug 54298). While you are dragging an image to resize it, we now show a label with the current dimensions (bug 54297). Once you have resized it, we fetch a new, higher resolution image for the media item if necessary (bug 55697). Manual setting of media item sizes in their dialog is nearly complete and should be available next week. If you hold down the ⇧ Shift key whilst resizing an image, it will now snap to a 10 pixel grid instead of the normal free-hand sizing. The media item resize label now is centered while resizing regardless of which tool you use to resize it.
• Undo and redo: A number of improvements were made to the transactions system which make undoing and redoing more reliable during real-time collaboration (bug 53224).
• Save dialogue: The save page was re-written to use the same code as all other dialogs (bug 48566), and in the process fixed a number of issues. The save dialog is re-accessible if it loses focus (bug 50722), or if you review a null edit (bug 53313); its checkboxes for minor edit, watch the page, and flagged revisions options now layout much more cleanly (bug 52175), and the tab order of the buttons is now closer to what users will expect (bug 51918). There was a bug in the save dialog that caused it to crash if there was an error in loading the page from Parsoid, which is now fixed.
• Links to other articles or pages sometimes sent people to invalid pages. VisualEditor now keeps track of the context in which you loaded the page, which lets us fix up links in document to point to the correct place regardless of what entry point you launched the editor from—so the content of pages loaded through /wiki/Foobar?veaction=edit and /w/index.php?title=Foobar&veaction=edit both now have text links that work if triggered (bug 48915).
• Toolbar links: A bug that caused the toolbar's menus to get shorter or even blank when scrolled down the page in Firefox is now fixed (bug 55343).
• Numbered external links: VisualEditor now supports Parsoid's changed representation of numbered external links (bug 53505).
• Removed empty templates: We also fixed an issue that meant that completely empty templates became impossible to interact with inside VisualEditor, as they didn't show up (bug 55810).
• Mathematics formulae: If you would like to try the experimental LaTeX mathematics tool in VisualEditor, you will need to opt-in to Beta Features. This is currently available on Meta-wiki, Wikimedia Commons, and Mediawiki.org. It will be available on all other Wikimedia sites on 21 November.
• Browser testing support: If you are interested in technical details, the browser tests were expanded to cover some basic cursor operations, which uncovered an issue in our testing framework that doesn't work with cursoring in Firefox; the Chrome tests continue to fail due to a bug with the welcome message for that part of the testing framework.
• Load time: VisualEditor now uses content language when fetching Wikipedia:TemplateData information, so reducing bandwidth use, and users on multi-language or multi-script wikis now get TemplateData hinting for templates as they would expect (bug 50888).
• Reuse of VisualEditor: Work on spinning out the user experience (UX) framework from VisualEditor into oojs-ui, which lets other teams at Wikimedia (like Flow) and gadget authors re-use VisualEditor UX components, is now complete and is being moved to a shared code repository.
• Support for private wikis: If you maintain a private wiki at home or at work, VisualEditor now supports editing of private wikis, by forwarding the Cookie: HTTP header to Parsoid ($wgVisualEditorParsoidForwardCookies set to true) (bug 44483). (Most private wikis will also need to install Parsoid and node.js, as VisualEditor requires them.)

Looking ahead:

• VisualEditor will be released to some of the smaller Wikipedias on 02 December 2013. If you are active at one or more smaller Wikipedias where VisualEditor is not yet generally available, please see the list at VisualEditor/Rollouts.
• Public office hours on IRC to discuss VisualEditor with Product Manager James Forrester will be held on Monday, 2 December, at 1900 UTC and on Tuesday, 3 December, at 0100 UTC. Bring your questions. Logs will be posted on Meta after each office hour completes.
• In terms of feature improvements, one of the major infrastructure projects affects how inserting characters works, both using your computer's built-in Unicode input systems and through a planned character inserter tool for VisualEditor. The forthcoming rich copying and pasting feature was extended and greater testing is currently being done. Work continues to support the improved reference dialog to quickly add citations based on local templates.

If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 22:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Modi'in-Maccabim-Re'ut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page It (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

VisualEditor's toolbar has a new drop-down menu that contains all character formatting: bold, italics, subscript, superscript, strikethrough, computer code, underline, and the ability to remove all formatting from text.

For more information about how to use VisualEditor, read the user guide.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has worked on some toolbar improvements, fixing bugs, and improving support for Indic languages as well as other languages with complex characters. The current focus is on improving the reference dialog and expanding the new character inserter tool.

There have been dozens of changes since the last newsletter. Here are some of the highlights:

• Rich copying and pasting is now available. If you copy text from another website, then character formatting and some other HTML attributes are preserved. This means, for example, that if you copy a pre-formatted suggested citation from a source like this, then VisualEditor will preserve the formatting of the title in the citation. Keep in mind that copying the formatting may include formatting that you don't want (like section headings). If you want to paste plain, unformatted text onto a page, then use Control+⇧ Shift+V or ⌘ Command+⇧ Shift+V (Mac).
• Auto-numbered external links like [7] can now be edited just like any other link. However, they cannot be created in VisualEditor easily.
• Several changes to the toolbar and dialogs have been made, and more are on the way. The toolbar has been simplified with a new drop-down text styles menu and an "insert" menu. Your feedback on the toolbar is wanted here. The transclusion/template dialog has been simplified. If you have enabled mathematical formula editing, then the menu item is now called the formula editor instead of LaTeX.
• There is a new character inserter, which you can find in the new "insert" menu, with a capital Omega ("Ω"). It's a very basic set of characters. Your feedback on the character inserter is wanted here.
• Saving the page should seem faster by several seconds now.
• It is now possible to access VisualEditor by manually editing the URL, even if you are not logged in or have not opted in to VisualEditor normally.  To do so, append ?veaction=edit to the end of the page name.  For example, change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random?veaction=edit to open a random page in VisualEditor.  This is intended to support bug testing across multiple browsers, without requiring editors to login repeatedly.

Looking ahead: The transclusion dialog will see further changes in the coming weeks, with a simple mode for single templates and an advanced mode for more complex transclusions. The new character formatting menu on the toolbar will get an arrow to show that it is a drop-down menu. The reference dialog will be improved, and the Reference item will become a button in the main toolbar, rather than an item in the Insert menu.

If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have previously participated (one year ago). The discussion is now heated up - you are welcome to rejoin it at Talk:Jewish insurgency in Palestine.GreyShark (dibra) 16:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]