User talk:Koakhtzvigad - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Koakhtzvigad (talk | contribs) at 23:22, 31 January 2011 (→Have you seen this site?: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:22, 31 January 2011 by Koakhtzvigad (talk | contribs) (→Have you seen this site?: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

The five pillars of Misplaced Pages

Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

Help:Wiki_markup#Format

Misplaced Pages:Template messages/Cleanup

Arnhem

Thanks Koakhtzvigad, you are of course quite correct. I had a feeling when I reworked the sentence that there was more to it than that, and Ryan details the incident you mention a lot more. Do you have a full ref (title, authors year etc...) for the document you mention? I might be able to use it as well. Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember what Ryan says in his book, but I think its unlikely since it seems to me Ultra was still a secret in 1974 when he wrote his book. Maybe he cites it under some other excuse.

pdf link --Koakhtzvigad (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Re; Archers' Hall

I'm not sure the hall really counts as a visitor attraction in the same way as, say, Edinburgh Zoo or Dynamic Earth, though you may be right here. It is worth mentioning that tours are available, yes - I assumed it was not open to the public and so would not count as an attraction. The other category I removed was Category:Historic Scotland properties, which is intended for buildings which are in the ownership or care of Historic Scotland, not historic buildings in general. The listed building categories fill this role. I trust this makes sense. By the way, do you have a translation of the latin lines, or know the author or title of the work they are taken from? Then the big ugly translate tag can be removed! Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've also made some changes to List of winners of the Edinburgh Arrow - I hope you dont think I'm stalking you! But you need to add a reference for the list of names, and it also needs a copyedit - it looks like an OCR scan? I changed "Cockbum" to "Cockburn" but there are others, and probably several names can be linked too. Thanks for adding the page though. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, yes putting in times and contacts would be advertising. But you can say, for instance: "Public access to the Archers' Hall is available by appointment". Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Royal Company of Archers Peer Review

Hi, I noticed you started a Peer review for the Royal Company of Archers article. You actually missed the final step which creates the peer review subpage. I've done this now, so your request for peer review should show up at Misplaced Pages:Peer review, or you can see the subpage directly at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Royal Company of Archers/archive1. Dr pda (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-tank warfare, sources

Hi, I see you are adding material to Anti-tank warfare, which is great! However, could you provide some reliable sources for your additions please? (Hohum ) 02:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Your page

You created the page in article space, not sandbox space. If you want it to be treated as a sandbox page, then create it as one next time — because if it's in article space, then it's subject to article space rules. And I am an administrator, by the way, so you'd be well advised to watch your tone of voice if you don't want to get your edit privileges suspended. Bearcat (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobody on here is obliged to assume anything — and the page was not in your "personal" space. You know, I'd be quite happy to restore the page to your user space for you, if you're prepared to drop the belligerent attitude and ask in a respectful and polite manner. But I'm not obliged to do so if you keep talking to me in the arrogant tone you've been using so far. Bearcat (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Listen...I am not going to be intimidated by you while you refuse to believe you did something wrong.

What do you think this Koakhtzvigad/FIELD ENGINEERING looks like, a new article stub? I made a mistake, and you diligently eliminated my sandbox NO QUESTIONS ASKED. So who is a belligerent? Wouldn't be someone who shoots first and asks questions later, would it?

How about this. You put it back, and you won't look silly when I ask another administrator with better people skills to do it?

May I also remind you at this time that your administrative privileges were given to help editors, and not hinder them. Or maybe its been so long since 2003 that you forgot? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to clarify this one more time for the record: you created a page with virtually no content in article space. I deleted it; you'll find that almost any administrator on this site would have done the same, and almost nobody would have assumed that they needed to act otherwise. Nobody on here owes you the benefit of the doubt; people create weird and unsalvageable "articles" on here all the time, and deleting such flotsam is part of an administrator's job.

But instead of politely asking me to restore the page to your userspace for you, which I would have done quite happily, your very first post to me on the matter was a belligerent "how dare you delete my outstanding work" attack, complete with a threat to take it straight to arbitration even though you hadn't even attempted any of the standard first steps that even the arbitration committee would have told you to take before they would step in. Do you really think that any reasonable person, confronted with the tone of your original post, would have responded any differently than I did? If you think I'm trying to be "intimidating" or "unaccountable" or "hindering", then I've got news for you: I've done nothing of the sort.

You'll kindly note that the page has already been restored to your actual user space, so there's no point in continuing to accuse me of being difficult. You started this discussion already displaying the approximate people skills of an orc with a migraine, before I'd even had the opportunity to say a single word — so if you really think that you were some sort of paragon of patience and maturity in this discussion and I was being a selfish idiot, then you really need to take a good long look at your own communication style before you point any more fingers at other people. End of discussion. Bearcat (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If you wanted to end a discussion (and I said - no need to reply), you would not have asked a question (which needs a reply) - Do you really think that any reasonable person, confronted with the tone of your original post, would have responded any differently than I did?

This assumes that I conform to you definition of reasonable. As it turns out, I have a definition of my own - Good Faith Collaboration.

So my question is - do you think any reasonable person, confronted with something irregular, deletes it before looking?

I never claimed it was "my outstanding work", nor was it a "weird and unsalvageable "article".

The rule in the real world is, you mess up, you clean up. Unfortunately, you as an administrator denied me this opportunity, and made my mistake, your own.

I shouldn't have to say please. If its true that administrators do not give anyone benefit of the doubt (A favorable judgement given in the absence of full evidence), or actually looks at what they are doing, but just clicks their mouse button, then I suppose thats a Wikipedian culture issue. But, this is not news :)Koakhtzvigad (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I think the issue is far simpler than that; we're just looking at the page from different perspectives. As the editor who created it, you're seeing it through the lens of how you planned to develop it into a full article — but as an administrator who spends at least two hours of every day sorting through new articles, and dealing on a daily basis with the endless parade of ways in which people can intentionally or unintentionally create things that don't actually resemble real articles, from my perspective the page as it stood didn't actually look like anything other than a regular, run of the mill speedy deletion candidate.

You think your page looked "irregular" enough to warrant some kind of special attention above and beyond the standard process, because you're seeing what you intend the finished product to be — whereas I see anywhere between 50 and 100 pages a day which look very much like yours did, and which usually don't deserve any special handling apart from the delete button. I think you may not fully realize how much junk the administrators on here end up dealing with each day — I suppose your page might have looked odd enough to warrant some sort of special attention if such non-articles were rare enough to raise an eyebrow, but unfortunately these days it's the quality contributions that are rare and unusual, not the "er, what the heck is this?" pages. Bearcat (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Then I would suggest that you start looking at the speedy delete candidates more carefully. Given the number of people that edit Misplaced Pages, it is quite reasonable to assume that sometimes users will make same common mistakes, such as forgetting to add User: before their sandbox name. So, if you see what looks like a user name with a \, assume its that, since this qualifies for an intended use of correct syntax. From the 1037+ articles created daily, the 100 slated for speedy deletion represent less than 10%, so not bad considering some people have a problem ordering at McDonald's. Try and see if any are just honest mistakes than willful mischievousness. In any case, your two hours will get substantially shorter soon Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Your Question

I just went here and looked through all the links.... Seems weird to me - hope someone has an answer. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Systematic process

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Systematic process, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://cmapskm.ihmc.us/rid=1052458945600_298605774_8263/Systematic%20process.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Israel and the apartheid analogy

Hello. This article, like all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, is subject to a one-revert rule. That means an editor may only make one revert in any 24-hour period. You have made two reverts today.

I recommend that you undo your last revert in order to avoid violating the one-revert rule. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:ANEW#User:Koakhtzvigad reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ). — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 00:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on B'Tselem. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. RolandR (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

@ RolandR - why have not the editors that reverted my editing in articles not followed this advice themselves "If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors." before reverting? After all, they were perhaps more aware of the controversial nature of the articles connected to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Regards Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for breaking 1RR on Israel and the apartheid analogy and B'Tselem; no self-reverts despite multiple requests on WP:EWN and above. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Slp1 (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Please take this time to understand WP's policies and guidelines about the collaborative editing model. In particular WP:DISPUTE, WP:EW and WP:CONSENSUS. As noted above, you can also appeal the block if you wish, and I myself will be happy to unblock as soon as you indicate that you understand and accept the 3RR and 1RR rules, and that you will strive to avoid breaching either in the future. I am also adding below formal notification of the arbitration committee's decision regarding editing in the Israel-Palestine domain, including the special restrictions placed on these articles. If you have any questions about any of this then feel free to ask here, or indeed elsewhere after your block as expired. The talkpage of the policy/guideline concerned is likely a good place if you want to discuss the logic and reasoning for them, for example. Slp1 (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.Slp1 (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

yeh, right Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss your recent 1RR blocking of my account Koakhtzvigad (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Your question

Hi Koakhtzvigad, i'm happy to but my preference is to let other editors work on it so that it becomes a true consensus article. What do you think? Oncenawhile (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that on any article someone has to take the lead and carry it until a team gathers that can take the load off. So far there hasn't been any other editors, and I go back to work tomorrow which will reduce my editing substantially. As it is I am supposed to be doing an entirely different article (hobby-based), and perhaps you have noticed that I got involved in another article (via your 'criticism') which is quite appallingly planned, written and supported. It is so funny that one can be blocked for reverting on an article in a 'controversial' area, but not blocked if the article is written based on naiveté of the subject. Ah, Misplaced Pages, someone warned me about this.

I do have a suggestion though in expanding the content.

What is missing are the Areas of criticism. Essentially as I can see (I looked earlier today), there are five such areas:

Security (military) related
Economy - this is mostly domestic economy though international trade in defense systems (Israel rarely exports actual stuff that kills) also
Diplomatic and Political - the former mostly for activities by its covert orgs, the later I haven't quite figured out since it seems the Israelis are bending over backwards to please, and yet get criticised
Sociological - a mixed bag that of course includes ethnicities, religions, cultural frictions, etc.
Environmental - often closely related to regional economics due to the water issue, though on first glans to me there seems to be far more beneficial knowledge and technology being exported than any damage being done

How does that sound? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Koakhtzvigad, thanks for your message - I almost didn't see it because I only get notified if someone writes on my own talk page.

I think your comments on the apartheid page are very interesting, i fully agree with where you're coming from. I have also got myself distracted by a debate ongoing in another article in this field - it seems to me that a majority of the wikipedia articles in the Israel/Palestine space are badly planned / in a bit of a mess. I guess it's early days, but wikipedia's current policies / regulations are simply not yet developed enough to stop editors driven by nationalistic tendencies from manipulating the editing process around such a charged topic - I have seen editors on both sides gaming the system on a consistent basis. The result seems to be that simple improvements to articles in this space can be simply too painful to implement - in other words the barriers are too high and so most people give up. I am optimistic though - there is a huge amount of room for improvement in the policies, and there seems to be a good iteration process for reaching those improvements.

Anyway, to answer your question, unfortunately I chose my username for a good reason - that is that I will only every be able to contribute to wikipedia once in a while. I also go back to work tomorrow, and so will have to substantially reduce my involvement over the coming weeks.

With respect to the article, you are probably right, although I am hoping that given the attention it has received to date that there should be enough interested people around to help build it out. It will be interesting to see - if it doesn't improve I would be delighted to get back involved as soon as I can.

Hope your first Monday back is not too tough - happy new year!

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Koakhtzvigad. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 23:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Personal version of articles is a very bad idea

User:Koakhtzvigad/Israel and the apartheid analogy ? We really shouldn't be using our userspace to host personalized versions of what we think articles should be like. If everyone did this, we'd have personal versions of Barack Obama full of citizenship conspiracies, private Sarah Palins with every nutty charge that the far left can think of, and so on. Please consider deleting this sub-page yourself, or it will likely have to head to WP:MFD for a deletion discussion. Tarc (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Koakhtzvigad/Wikiwriting

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Koakhtzvigad/Wikiwriting requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Misplaced Pages to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 05:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Koakhtzvigad/The Apartheid Analogy: Wrong for Israel

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Koakhtzvigad/The Apartheid Analogy: Wrong for Israel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

Your comment

Hi Koakhtzvigad, sorry but i'm not sure i fully understood your comment. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Koakhtzvigad. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 00:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re-thinking edit strategy

IMO, the reasoning of two of your recent edit summaries at Border is ~~off-piste~~ not a bullseye. Your lexicography/taxonomy analysis is a counterintuitive mistake -- not obvious at first. It is interesting, but ultimately indefensible.

1st diff 15:34, 15 January 2011 Koakhtzvigad (21,285 bytes) (→Maritime boundary: boundaries -> borders; eliminate confusion)
2nd diff 18:40, 15 January 2011 Rwendland m (22,640 bytes) (rv - but changing to "maritime border" would be contrary to the cited sources, like the U.S. Dept of State one, and normal international law terminology - see talk)
3rd diff 22:46, 15 January 2011 Koakhtzvigad (22,637 bytes) (Undid revision 408059487 by Rwendland US DoS is not an international organisation that defines terminology or usage)

I wonder what, if anything, might help persuade you to revert your own edit? --Tenmei (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. the term 'maritime boundaries' affects all such boundaries, and not only those of the United Sates. Therefore a definition of the term has to have international , and preferably geographic, consensus and not just one of the US legislature. I'm not insistent, but it seems to me that such a definition does not exist in maritime use. However, feel free to educate me to the contrary. Solely legal definition is not helpful because some boundaries do not reflect national territorial waters (but would be a start) Koakhtzvigad (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. My open-ended questions were intended to be mild, circumspect. In that fuzzy logic context, your response is measured, thoughtful, good enough for now. --Tenmei (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The movement I was trying to initiate was not "wrong", nor was it irrelevant or untimely in the hortatory context established by WP:Five Pillars. However, I also recognize that the narrow issues I had in mind are less important or secondary when compared to the explicit "consensus-building" argument of the edit summary here. In other words, our shared collaborative editing goals require me to backoff or to backpedal. --Tenmei (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-naming "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy" article

You have written, on the Talk page of the article, that you "oppose" the proposal to re-name the "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy" article. Is that your actual view? The comment you give suggests not, and that you sort of reversed the question put, and meant to register a vote for "agreeing" with the proposal. I am not sure myself that any change would be for the better, but I just wanted to alert you to the possible misunderstanding of the proposal.Tempered (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

note - BLPN

Hi, one of your edits has been mentioned at the BLP noticeboard here, feel free to comment or not as you feel, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Your addition to 2011 Victorian floods has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Lifting content from other copyrighted media (TV, newspapers websites ect) like you did with the ADF media release Bidgee (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Bidgee (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit at Paintball

Regarding this edit, I am not going to revert it, but you do need to supply a source and do some cleanup. u n☯mi 11:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I understood the reason for your revert on Israeli Archaeology

But anyways, . -asad (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen this site?

Hi Koakhtzvigad, I found a site with a very great quote by Charles Krauthammer - The Weekly Standard, May 11, 1998

"Israel is the very embodiment of Jewish continuity: It is the only nation on earth that inhabits the same land, bears the same name, speaks the same language, and worships the same God that it did 3,000 years ago. You dig the soil and you find pottery from Davidic times, coins from Bar Kokhba, and 2,000-year-old scrolls written in a script remarkably like the one that today advertises ice cream at the corner candy store."

There are lots of other useful information on that site that could help you with the editing of the topic you are interested in.

Good luck!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Mbz1, but which specific article is this useful for as a reliable source? For now I am mostly interested in ensuring correct terminology is used in the articles, regardless of the subject, and that they are properly referenced with reliable and verifiable sources Koakhtzvigad (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)