User talk:Prokurator11

shalom, these mountains too were previously individually referenced in wp:en and lately gathered in a list. How do you suppose that any reader from a different language could get to the one s/he is looking for if you delete the link? Hope&Act3! (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

There could be several ways to link the specific mountains listed in the article with the relevant he-articles. For example, by linking the Hebrew name of a mountain in the table with a he-article, like this: Mount Avital/Tall Abu an Nada ({{lang-he|[[:he:הר אביטל|הר אביטל]]}}) instead of simply Mount Avital/Tall Abu an Nada ({{lang-he|הר אביטל}}). Or even specifying the link to the he-article in a reference. But it would be clearly erroneous to link the list directly with those specific articles, as the bots constantly try to do: the interwiki is meant to be an instrument to lead to the identical article in another language project, not just to point at some random article sharing the same semantic field; the latter could cause only mess and confusion. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Prokurator11! Your literal translation is correct, however, "corps" can also mean hayil in Hebrew, and in fact, this is the far more-oft-used word. We also use it on Wikipedia, so it would be strange to not be consistent. Moreover, the IDF uses the term for hayil on their website, as do a myriad or other sources. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It is possible to divide the list into a table that includes both professional and operational units, which are essentially different. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Prokurator11! I just went over WikiProject Israel's member list and noticed you weren't there. Given your contributions to Israel-related topics, let me formally invite you to the project. Please feel free to add your name to the list of active participants. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, the name of the officer is mentioned a few times in other articles as "Tamir Yadai". Do you know that it's pronounced Yed'i, or was this an educated guess? Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Goog question. I've encountered both versions several times. I guess I'll just ask people acquainted with him personally. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It is closed.
http://www.iaf.org.il/4398-40953-he/IAF.aspx Flayer (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If it is closed, how will it accept C130-J planes? The article says exactly the opposite: the staff of 103, dealing with the old planes, is accepted into 131 (maybe that's why the article opens with a sentence about a "union"); while 103 is to be dedicated to the new planes. The article is closed with the words: "Therefore the two squadrons will remain to be one family from many aspects". Two squadrons... -- Prokurator11 (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It will re-open next year as "Shimshon Squadron", when C-130J will arrive to Israel. Therefore the two squadrons will remain to be one family from many aspects. Flayer (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It does not take an expert in shalishut matters to know that no one ever closes units to re-open them in several months. Or do you suppose that the Lt-Colonel mentioned in the article was fired to be rehired again, the reservists are readressed to the new unit to be returned to the old one, the unit names and codes have been erased from the army databases and the tags have been destroyed to be rearranged and reprinted again? As it usually happens, the squadron remains (that's what the article clearly states), but most of its staff specializing in the old planes is transferred to the 131st squadron. The first C130-J has already arrived and, as you may suggest, it would not wait for a non-existing squadron at Ben Gurion airport. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

If you have a problem with content in a Wikipedia article you take it to the Talk Page. Removing sourced content before reaching consensus is called POV PUSHING. Learn how to properly use this site. Next time you remove properly sourced content I will take this to WP:ANI and report you. Montblamc1 (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

It is quite odd when an editor with one year of experience and numerous warnings on violations of Wikipedia rules comes to tell an editor with over 15 years of experience to "educate himself" in such a demeaning and aggressive manner. Maybe you are the one who should learn certain rules instead of choosing this tone, first in your unhinged edit comment, and now here on my talk page. However, I have seen odder, and I do understand that, in the absence of more valuable contributions, some users may prefer to wage petty fights over this sort of edits.

You are pushing evidently irrelevant info into the preamble (!) under a laughable assumption that a single Iraqi unnamed source (quoted by AFP, despite your blatantly false attribution to the Times of Israel) is sufficient to substantiate the statement that the United States of America (!) was prepared to govern its entire Middle East military deployment policy based on the destiny of a single non-US hostage - if only you could hear how preposterous it sounds... In any case, I am not going to fuel your urge for petty quarrels, I have better things to do (such as actual valuable contributions to Wikipedia), and I am prepared to leave your absurd edit in the article just to serve as a joke for anyone with actual understanding of the Middle East. If you suddenly decide to cause the article not to look ridiculous, you are welcome to reconsider, I promise not to come and say "I told you so". Good luck and easy on those violations, you might get yourself blocked. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

None of what you said about the actual content and source, even if true, would justify removing sourced content. You were clearly POV pushing and clearly your personal idealisations of the US and its military guided your decision to remove the content, instead of a genuine desire to keep the encyclopaedia as accurate as possible. In that case, you would’ve corrected the wording, or relocated the content (which I’m not against) instead of removing it completely. Read your reply again and think hard and carefully about this: is your line of reasoning –including your personal idealisations of the USA and its government– driving your editing habits on this site, and does anything in your “arguments” justify removing someone’s sourced edits on Wikipedia?

And about me getting blocked, something tells me you would’ve been the one receiving disciplinary action if I would’ve taken this to ANI. Montblamc1 (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Your incoherent fantasies about my idealizations just do not make any sense whatsoever, and you prefer to waste my valuable time on this meaningless discussion, but in any case any further exchange on this issue is no longer required: you have been proven wrong, and you evidently no longer believe in your own argument (unless your decision not to start an edit war stems from your preference to point your aggressive impulses only towards those who, mistakenly, appear to you to be an easy victim for your demeaning assaults). There is a bright side here: maybe you are still able to learn from your mistakes, keep it up, you still have a lot to learn, on the Middle East and on humility alike. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

If you actually still think you’re right, I challenge you to bring me a specific guideline that justifies you removing the sourced text. Montblamc1 (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Despite my hopes, I guess your affection for falsehoods and unhinged aggression will eventually get you blocked. You keep insisting that my edit was to remove the sentence added by you. My first edit was to remove the sentence you added, since it is not notable in the core encyclopedic sense, due to its sole purpose to present a dubious statement attributed to a single unnamed source and being in stark contradiction with both other sources and the common sense itself. "Wikipedia is not the place to add indiscriminate information", even if it can be supported by a source - this is the rule for you, if you have a difficulty exploring the rules yourself, and it is the sufficient basis for the removal of dubious information of limited notability and inexistent verification, regardless of whether a source exists to support it. After you reverted, my next edit was not to remove, but to place this irrelevant, POV-pushing and blatantly exaggerated sentence in the article outside of the preamble, while concurrently fixing your false attribution. Notwithstanding, you are the one who restored the falsehood and started an edit war, including by restoring the obviosly false attribution to the Times of Israel instead of AFP and knowingly and purposefully removing my correct attribution. Now, I made it clear that I have no interest in continuing this meaningless discussion, you have been warned for your violation on your talk page and your edit in the article was revised (substantially in the same way proposed by me) and moved where it belongs (reflecting the community consensus on the unreasonability of your position and pending final deletion when this dubious info finds no further support). Instead of dealing with this, you return to my talk page to bully and gaslight me. What a disgrace. Don't come back to my talk page, otherwise I swear I will not rest until your destructive behavior is blocked forever. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Instead of giving me a guideline, you opted to waffle and lie. I have not been warned, that’s a figment of your imagination, and my content is not “pending final deletion by the community”, is that an admission of intention? Are you planning on deleting my content again in the future? Please do so and I will report you immediately. Let’s see who gets blocked then. Again, if you really think you’re right about removing my sourced content, bring me a guideline that supports it. Montblamc1 (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Go away. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2025 (UTC)