Wikiwand AI

User talk:Frederico1234

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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:

Welcome!

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)

Israel

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)

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

Edits on History of Israel

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)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
You didn't raise any objections, so I'll go ahead with the change. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
If you provide an appropriate source, then please do go ahead. Breein1007 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok I'll do that. Thanks. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
Ok. Point dropped. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

BLP

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)

He is a propagandist. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Ok I'll do that. I just have to read up on this noticeboard stuff first. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Six Day War/ "Preemptive"

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

Israel and Lebanon

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)

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

1948 Palestinian Exodus

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)

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

recent changes

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

Your extreme invalid POV regarding RS as "non reliable"

LGBT politicians

Deir Yassin

Request for comment/mediation

Scope of Racism in the Palestinian territories

IP editing

Sockpuppetry case

Merging of page into Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Dear Frederico

Thank you

RM alert

Palestinian people - Palestinian leadership Ties with Nazi Germany and the Axis Powers during World War II

Palaestina and Palaestina Prima/Secunda

RM alert

Racism in the Palestinian territories

93.91.196.117 et al

Your opinion in regard to 2005 Ahwazi unrest

Speedy deletions

Demographics of Palestine

You have been reported at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Frederico1234

Notified of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA

Merging

Belated thanks for barnstar

your revert on uss liberty page

Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem

Azzam Pasha quote AfD

Merge of Mandate Palestine

Gilabrand sockpuppetry

A beer for you!

Re Chesdovi's appeal

Barkan

IPCOLL

Lebanon in '48 war

Please accept this

Your submission at Articles for creation

July 2012

Heyo

A barnstar for you!

Talkback

Your submission at Articles for creation

Historical articles

Could you please explain your edit on the talk page ?

User: AbrahemHaif

Palestinian Authority issue

new cat

C

Formal mediation has been requested

Request for mediation rejected

Moderation of Jerusalem RfC

WikiProject C/C++

Fwd: Your edits at 1948 Arab-Israeli War

VisualEditor newsletter for September 5

Source

VisualEditor newsletter for September 19, 2013

VisualEditor newsletter on 16 October 2013

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

VisualEditor newsletter for November 2013

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

VisualEditor newsletter • 19 December 2013

Discussion in Mandatory Palestine

VisualEditor newsletter for Janaury 2014

VisualEditor Newsletter—February 2014

VisualEditor newsletter—March 2014

VisualEditor newsletter—April 2014

VisualEditor newsletter—May 2014

VisualEditor global newsletter—June 2014

VisualEditor newsletter—July and August 2014

VisualEditor newsletter—September and October 2014

VisualEditor newsletter—November 2014

VisualEditor newsletter—December 2014

VisualEditor News 2015—#1

VisualEditor News #2—2015

VisualEditor News #3—2015

VisualEditor News #4—2015

VisualEditor update

VisualEditor News #5—2015

ArbCom elections are now open!

VisualEditor News #6—2015

VisualEditor News #1—2016

Do you want one Edit tab, or two? It's your choice

Editing News #2—2016

Editing News #3—2016

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Editing News #1—2017

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Editing News #1—2018

Request for comment of Israeli neighborhoods

Editing News #2—2018

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Editing News #1—July 2019

Editing News #2 – Mobile editing and talk pages – October 2019

Editing news 2020 #1 – Discussion tools

Editing news 2020 #2 – Quick updates

Editing news 2020 #3

Editing news 2020 #4

Editing news 2021 #1

Editing news 2021 #2

Editing newsletter 2022 – #1

Editing news 2022 #2

Editing news 2023 #1

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks