User talk:Mazeartist

Yesod HaMa'ala

I noticed your new addition. Please announce all new Israel-related articles to Portal:Israel/New so that others can learn about your contributions. Thanks. --PiMaster3 ^talk 14:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Assata Shakur

Please be mindful of WP:BLP. You recently stated allegations against Shakur as a fact. The only neutral fact supported by that article is that the Msgr. identified her from F.B.I. photos but that she was never tried for this crime. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Haaretz

Hello. I do read Haaretz from time to time on the web. I would like to point out a few things about your contribution to that article.

• The section in question, Haaretz#Editorial policy, concerns the newspaper's editorial policy: the views expressed by the editorial board in its editorials, which are typically published without bylines. Viewpoints that may be expressed in the newspaper's articles, if any, aren't the subject here — although the article can have a section about that if you can find reliable sources that discuss it.
• Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. A news article that says that a Haaretz columnist and member of its editorial board uses the word apartheid, and says that Haaretz uses the word, does not support your statement that "In recent years, the Haaretz editorial board has often been accused of holding an left-wing viewpoint."
• If the statement concerning criticism of editorial board is true, find a reliable source that says so. Without a reliable source, it is considered original research and cannot be allowed to stay in the article. It doesn't matter whether you or I believe the sentence to be true — find a source that says it is.
• The statement you attribute to Rubinstein doesn't "confirm" that statement for two reasons:

1. Rubinstein said that "my newspaper increasingly uses that word." Is he referring to news articles, columns by Bradley Burston and others, unsigned editorials in the newspaper, or conversation in the hallways? He didn't say.
2. More importantly, no source is cited for the (implicit) assertion that the use of the word apartheid is evidence of "holding an left-wing viewpoint." It doesn't matter what you or I believe the word means in the Israeli context, without a reliable source it's considered original research.

If you have questions, or if you'd like to discuss this matter further, you can leave me a message or write a message at Talk:Haaretz, where other editors can offer their opinions. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Haaretz

Hi. Would you take a look at some of the recent edits concerning the editorial view of Haaretz and the discussion concerning the sources at Talk:Haaretz. Since you've made a large number of edits to the article, I'd appreciate your views on the matter. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

History of the Jews in South Korea

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of History of the Jews in South Korea, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.prescriptiondrug-info.com/drug_information_online.asp?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_South_Korea. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of History of the Jews in South Korea

A tag has been placed on History of the Jews in South Korea requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant 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 Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia'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 {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. flaminglawyer^c 03:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Carter article

As posted on the article talk page:

No one is challenging the source of this section, and no one is saying the reference itself is biased or inaccurate. The source exists for, and does, present one viewpoint of an issue. The problem with the section in this article is that it only presents one side of an issue, and does so in an unbalanced and biased way. I only restored the tag to the article and answered your post, in which you asked for explanation of the tag. I'm fairly certain I was clear in my response about the issue in this section. A third person placed the tag originally, so it is apparent that more than one person believes the section to be biased. I merely explained why it is and it isn't necessarily my job to fix it. Maintenance tags are placed for a purpose, which is to point out issues to those who routinely, or in passing, care to edit the article. It is inappropriate to remove those tags because you don't like them. Please assume good faith and don't make the placing of a maintenance tag into a personal issue.

Again, the section is a problem because a) it contains only one side of the question, which is what the JewishPress.com article says about the tapes - it contains no opposing viewpoint or response from Carter, or for that matter, anyone else; and b) it improperly quotes the article, at least stylistically. Whether that was done out of ignorance of properly abridging quotes or done purposely, it also tends to bias the section. That's what is wrong with the section and removing the tag doesn't fix the problem.

Finally, please sign your talk page posts, as you've been warned before. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish Press openly cites Meir Kahane as having been a contributing editor. This suggests to me that it has a "Kahanist history".

Btw, here's what one of Wikipedia's most noted pro-Israel editors has to say about using this paper as a source: [1]. CJCurrie (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The AJCommittee is considered to be a mainstream organization, but this doesn't mean that a comment made by one of its members in a fairly small journal should be deemed "encyclopedic". Beyond which, the comments made by Rabbi Gary Greenebaum (whose name is misspelled in the original article) aren't quite portrayed accurately in your summary remarks. If we mention his criticisms, shouldn't we also mention the part where he says "I can’t impute negative intent to [Carter]. I don’t know that."? CJCurrie (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My description of the paper is taken from the link referenced above, and I have yet to see any evidence that this controversy is encyclopedic. CJCurrie (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Shack (journalism)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Shack (journalism), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

non-notable neologism per WP:NEO

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.     JCutter  ^{{ talk to me }}     00:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Strawberry Fields article

Hi! I can restore the article, but I simply cannot guarantee it'll stay up for long. A single mention in the New York Post is insufficient support and YouTube videos aren't counted as sources. If you can expand it and add more third-party references, you should be OK. Good luck. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Press

Howdy, Could you please contribute to the discussion on Talk:The Jewish Press regarding edits you have made. Joe407 (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Campus (CCNY)

The article The Campus (CCNY) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unnotable student newspaper

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)