User talk:6SJ7/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Jayjg (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

welcome
Thanks for your contribution to west bank barrier

As they say in wikipedia "be bold". Zeq 04:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Apartheid Wall article
I'm not sure what Wikipedia standard is for these kinds of articles. I thought a discussion of the terminology was a reasonable compromise between those who wanted it to simply re-direct to Israeli West Bank barrier, and those who wanted to delete it as POV. Note that Ramallite's suggestion would end up turning it into a re-direct to Israeli West Bank barrier. Jayjg (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help in copy edit. Please feel more than welcome to correct my English. Zeq 10:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Please vote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ramallite

Please see this
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_Arab&diff=28437362&oldid=28435794

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_Arab&diff=28490655&oldid=28490217

Thanks, Zeq 09:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

A bit surprised
I noticed this edit and was struck by the edit summary "Edited intro to make it less anti-Israel POV". I have no idea why you would consider something that is just maybe 'pro Palestinian' as necessarily 'anti Israeli'. The two are not synonymous. I hope you can accept that, and that not every single statement made about Palestine or the Palestinian people is necessarily a political one. Ramallite (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

welcome back
Can you e-mail me ? Zeq 18:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

you need to open a mail box any where (yahoo/gmail etc) enbale it in your prefrnces page.

next I think you can from my user or talk page click on e-mail this user.

Zeq 20:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Disputes among the sources
The way they're usually handled is simply to quote all the sources, unless you can find some outside corroboration which leads you to think one is correct, more recent, etc. Jayjg (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The edits look good to me. Nowadays most people are using a different footnoting system, the  combination. Jayjg (talk)

Re: HOTR vs. Zeq
Its already been brought up here. If there are new developments I will let you know.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought this belonged on your talk page!
"Maybe Wikipedia should not aspire to be a reflection of the informational chaos of the Web, but rather an oasis from it." Great statement, Elizmr 01:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just writing to Elizmr and got curious about your thank you for some reason -but yeah -Damn good! --Armon 15:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeq
Zeq has not only "pushed the envelope" he's on probation and has violated his probation explicitly. The ArbComm ruling on Zeq gives admins the authority to ban him. Nevertheless, I asked Arbitrators about it before acting and am referring Zeq's probation violation to them for an opinion. Thanks for the "pushed the envelope" comment, btw, I'll use it as evidence that even his supporters view his editing as tendendatious.Homey 02:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As to Zeq, another admin has now banned him from the article in question after an Arbitrator put the issue to Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement (shortcut WP:AE).Homey 03:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
For writing something nice on my talk page. When I first started using wikipedia, when I saw the orange it would make me happy. Now it terrifies me! Your message was a nice break from the usual. Elizmr 13:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

what is wrong with this ?
Israeli apartheid is a a focused, targeted propaganda epithet which is at the center of a campaign for a political platform is attempting to rewrite and redefine the history of Israel as that of a "racist apartheid state".it's sole purpose is to to demonize the State of Israel.[1][2][3][4] **The apartheid wall is a similarly controversial term used by the same critics to describe the Israeli West Bank barrier, currently under construction.

FYI
See this and few more of my recent contrubutions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29&diff=prev&oldid=56942662

Zeq 05:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, we have a suspected impersonator
Hi SJ, let's keep an eye on. I suspect an impersonator. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is my first time dealing with an impersonator. I used the most appropriate template I found at WP:SOCK. Feel free to edit or take any other action. I assumed good faith and didn't block it, but if suspicious activity persists, let me (or more experienced admins) know. ←Humus sapiens ну? 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I replied there at talk. Until the AFDs run their course, it doesn't really matter. This circus cannot go on. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#FYI_-_clear_pattern_of_edit_war_using_sock_puppets

Hafrada
If I understand it correctly you want to merge an article about a term that describes policies aimed to separate Israelis from Palestinians into Apartheid outside of South Africa. That means that you are aware of the connection between the terms hafrada and apartheid. As for my personal POV (which you misrepresent here); I believe that it is detrimental to try to change the appearance of reality rather than reality itself. Palestinians have representation in Knesset, etc, so Israeli is not an apartheid state. But some policies in regard to housing, transportation, marriage, etc, are discriminatory against Palestinians - and reminiscent of the racial segregation in South Africa. Trying to conceal this instead of dealing with it will not prove beneficial to anyone. I will not be editing Hafrada any further since Zeq have started a campaign against me for using legitimate multiple accounts, not to decieve but for segregation and security reasons. I hope that you will reconsider your position. Regards. Article20 09:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_apartheid&curid=5330946&diff=59410459&oldid=59405587

Renaming articles
Please do not rename Israeli apartheid without consensus. If you want to move the article discuss it on talk first rather than acting unilaterally. Homey 04:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Kim moved the article back when it was protected because the use of parenthesis for non-disambiguation purposes was against policy.

Why are you unwilling to seek consensus before renaming the page? Homey 04:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping that you were unaware of the fact that you have unilaterally attempted to reverse to changes accomplished by a mediator and via consensus. Homey 04:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As per your request I raised this on the Talk page and your renaming has been reversed.Homey 05:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see the diffs between the old version and the consensus version. I'm afraid your claim is mistaken.Homey 06:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There are two questions 1) should there be a reference to Duke in the lead and 2) should it be in the article at all. When I was referring to consensus I was referring only to question 1, not to question 2.

As for your other point, please read Civility. Homey 06:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:HOTR_reported_by_User:Zeq_2

The consensus intro
I don't see where you see this second paragraph:


 * Israeli apartheid (or calling Israel an apartheid state) is a controversial phrase used by some critics of Israel to describe the country's policies towards the Palestinian and Israeli Arab populations. Critics of the term argue that it is historically inaccurate, offensive, antisemitic, and is used as justification for terrorist attacks against Israel.


 * ==Origins==


 * The analogy was used as early as 1987 by Uri Davis, an Israeli-born academic and Jewish member of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in his book Israel: An Apartheid State (ISBN 0862323177) which provided a detailed comparison of Israel and South Africa. The highly controversial World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa adopted resolutions describing Israel as an "apartheid state" . The term was subsequently used by the South African cleric Desmond Tutu in the articles he published following his visit to Israel..

And here is Kim's edit note for the version above (Action as mediator: Of all contributers to the discussion,this first sentence was accepted by all except 1 editor) Homey 16:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Several to three?
Please explain how "several" is more specific than "three"? Homey 20:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually read what you were reverting? I didn't put the descriptions back in, I just tweaked the previous revert for accuracy - only three organizations are cited not "several". Please self-revert. Homey 20:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Apartheid arbitration
The move/revert war issue for Israeli Apartheid has been referred to arbitration. See Requests for arbitration --John Nagle 00:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

RfM
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/[[Apartheid (disambiguation)]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.SlimVirgin (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

1st
"'Israeli apartheid' is a highly controversial allegation that is used by .... who seeks to compare the policies of Israel toward West Bank Palestinians, and to a lesser extent, its own Arab citizens, to those of apartheid-era South Africa. Opponents of this allegation state that the term is both without merit, and misused to isolate and condemn Israel." Zeq 03:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Israeli
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Israeli. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Israeli/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Israeli/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Kuntar

wall of shame
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5181520.stm try this

And I don't even feel guilty

 * ) BTW, I made a couple more edits there. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem
I wasn't changing the capital, I was adding a capital to make it a more international point of view.

You do have to see the funny side of the addition though ;) --Ptclark 15:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
He seemed to stop after Tawkerbot's reverts. Anyway next time you see a user who has passed the final warning, you can go here and post the name and a brief explanation. You seem to have your hands full right now but anyway thanks and have a nice day.--Gdo01 19:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid
This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

To summarize: Discussion of global issues which concern use of "apartheid" and all polls shall be at Central discussions/Apartheid with subsidiary dialog on the talk page of affected articles. Based on the difficult and controversial nature of this matter, with the exception of, who remains banned from editing the article, the principal participants in this dispute shall be granted an amnesty for past actions, but are strongly encouraged to engage in negotiations. All involved administrators are admonished not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus.

- Mgm|(talk) 20:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving back to Israel lobby in the United States
Hi 6SJ7. I am likely going to start contributing again to the Israel lobby in the United States in the next few days. Jayjg the other day mentioned that it wasn't in a good state and that this reflectively negatively on my abilities as an editor. Also, since I took a break from it, no one has really edited it thus I am not sure my continued absence from editing it has really accomplished that much. Anyways, I'm just seeking your opinion on the matter before resuming editing. Best. --Ben Houston 16:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Protecting children's privacy
Hi. You contributed to the discussion at Protecting children's privacy. If you have time and interest, I'm asking for contributors to make a brief statement summarizing your thoughts about it here, thanks. Herostratus 19:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Links in Zionism
Hello, Could you please explain why you believe that those links don't belong there? --Anonymous44 21:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I second that question!207.47.40.19 22:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Clerk, FloNight 21:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding this response: I'm sorry if you took that to be rudeness, but it wasn't meant as such. Please realise that you can't hear my tone when I am typing these things out and perhaps I meant it as an honest response. You seem to see this as a me-against-them struggle, in that anyone who is against you is trying to put you down. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not. Now, if you are going to accuse me of trying to be rude or nasty, that's a good way to get me to that point. As far as the ArbCom case goes, whether it was rude or not has nothing to do with the proposed final decision which is why I'm replying here.  Big Nate 37 (T) 14:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Kerry article
I know, I thought hard about it (I had been working on it too).

But really, where it was was kind of out of place. Where it is now is much better. Sorry about the consternation- I understand where you're comign from though. Like you said, all's well that ends well. :) Cheers --DarthBinky 04:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

State of Palestine
Please stop reintroducing inaccuracies into this article. I don't want to get into a revert war, I just couldn't be bothered, but the mistakes you are making are pretty basic ones, so please read up on the issues involved a bit before editing the article. Palmiro | Talk 01:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand. The article contains all sorts of mistakes regarding the PNA. These really ought to be fixed, and I don't see why you are reverting my changes to them if you don't understand the issue. The article also contains anachronistic references to the PLO charter of 1964 (the State of Palestine was proclaimed in 1988) and - apparently, the sentence was a fragment - inaccuracies regarding the political positions of the PLO and various of its member organizations. I fixed all of these issues and you unfixed them. This is unhelpful. Palmiro | Talk 01:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Obviously I was in a somewhat cranky humour the other day. I can't see the problem with having an article about a state that's recognised by 11 other states, however, even if it doesn't actually exercise any sovereignty anywhere. Palmiro | Talk 23:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Confusion
I think I misread your edit summary. I thought you were implying I was another user attempting to cause trouble on the Jews for Jesus page. I now realize that the "again" language may have been because of an edit conflict. I hope it is. If my response is harsh, that is the reason, I apologize.

As for your claim that there is no dispute about the "Jewishness" of JFJ, that may be true in the Jewish community, but in the Christian community, most Christians who even know about this group take them at face value... as "Jews" who believe in Jesus, despite what Lev Leigh says. Most Christians don't have the knowledge of exactly why Jews can't believe in Jesus. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. And I must add we certainly agree with the last statement. I am not sure if you are aware of this, but many of these evangelical groups try to "convert" other Christians as well.  So I can empathize with your feelings in that regard.  FTR- I love studying religions, and do so amateurly as well, so I am well versed in the doctrinal and practical delineations between the two religions. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 02:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Dear 6SJ7, thank you for giving me your support.--Berig 11:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Corollary
By your own statement, guidelines cannot be merely descriptive. Yes, I'm playing devil's advocate here. From this statement, it follows that WP:CHILD cannot be a guideline, since it is descriptive. Thus, would you agree to make it say "essay" instead? And if not, why not?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  23:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC

Israel CIA map
I do not want an edit war over this, but (1) I think the map is relevant ("not relevant" is a stock reason we give for anything we do not like), and (2) as the link stands at present, the map (which implies that there is no capital) comes up but it is not obvious that there is text underneath the map. I really do think that my version was more helpful. I think there should be likes to both the map and directly to the relevant text. Please allow me to reinstate them. Viewfinder 07:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Howard Zinn
You were right. I noted it, on Jimbo's page, as follows:


 * 6SJ7, is CORRECT, Howard Zimm = Howard Zinn. I was misled by Google: - 164 hits, includung USATODAY.com.
 * Yours truly, Ludvikus 02:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * --Ludvikus 02:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian state
I beg your pardon, I completely overlooked the issue of the "Palestinian state" article, which I had never seen. I entirely agree with you that that article should be merged with the "Proposals for a Palestinian state" article; indeed, they are so obviously two articles concerning exactly the same topic that I would suggest that you just go ahead and merge them. My objection was to the merging of an article about proposals for a putative future Palestinian state with the article about the State of Palestine, which is an entirely different issue: one is about possible future arrangements, the other about a political entity (if that's the right word) which already exists, insofar as a diplomatic fiction can be said to exist. Hope that helps. Palmiro | Talk 21:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If Americans Knew
Sorry for the edit war, but you need to provide sources for material, especially in the header of an article it seems. As I mention on the talk page, lets keep the intro real short and fact based. Then go into analysis below. Check out the critism I added. Anyways.--Tom 20:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging Religious Antisemitism with Anti-Judaism
Hi, just curious to get your take on re-merging Religious Antisemitism with Anti-Judaism, but under the title of Anti-Judaism. The issue is being discussed on Talk:Religious antisemitism currently. Thanks, Mackan79 22:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for your support in my RfA. I've felt it best to withdraw on this occasion and think about the good advice I received. Thanks again, Jakew 19:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Polling is not a substitute for discussion
FYI, when you edit a guideline page, find yourself reverted, and respond by re-tagging the page as an essay, it doesn't look very good. ("Well, if the guideline can't be precisely how I believe it should be, there shall be no guideline at all!") —David Levy 18:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That page should be labeled (at best) an essay anyway, because it does not have consensus to be a guideline. My edit (which has been made in various forms before, and always reverted) was intended as a compromise, so that I could at least live with the page.  (Which does not change the fact that, due to other peoples' objections, it does not have consensus to be a guideline.)  Since my suggestion quickly rejected out of hand, I decided to restore the tag that the page should really have in the first place.  Frankly I find this whole thing laughable, because it shows that many decisions on Wikipedia are not really made by consensus at all, but rather rather by bullying.   6SJ7 18:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your assessment that the page lacks consensus, but you're welcome to debate this on the talk page. Retagging a page from guideline to essay because your specific changes aren't accepted is inappropriate.  —David Levy 18:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You are entitled to your opinion about what is appropriate or inappropriate. 6SJ7 18:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As are you, of course, but your current strategy obviously isn't yielding constructive results. —David Levy 18:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Apartheid
6SJ7, would it be possible to ask you to engage the ongoing discussion on the talk page? Several editors are making a concerted effort to discuss the issues in good faith. If you would be willing to take part, I feel like the page and the civility of the discussion could only benefit, without the reverting back and forth. Mackan79 05:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your response, but I think I need to explain the problem here a little better. First, I would love to discuss it on the talk page, and have made extensive efforts to do so.  With each of your last reverts, though, I don't see that you've made any response on talk or particularly any attempt at a compromise, despite the many suggestions being made by various editors.  So are you saying I should simply keep leaving comments there even though you don't respond?  I left a comment here in the hope that you might rejoin the discussion, since you continue to revert the page.  This leads to the second problem, which is that while it may seem reasonable to you to simply revert per your previous comments, are you also then suggesting then that this is what everybody else should do also?  Of course, I could simply revert you then based on my previous comments, and what, we would each use up our 3 reverts and see what happens?  I'm not sure if this is your experience on WP, but my experience has been that this is very strongly discouraged.  That's why I'm trying to get you to keep discussing the matter on the talk page, so we don't simply result in an all out revert-war between the many editors on the page.


 * I really don't want to sound accusatory, but it seems to me that continuing discussion here is really vital to the civil environment, and to avoid a prolonged revert war, which ultimately will only result in the page being protected. Can't we try a little harder here to reach an agreement?  This is what I'm asking.  I won't leave further messages on your talk page relating to this if you don't like, but wanted to suggest this before simply reverting you myself, which seems like something we should try to avoid.  Regards, Mackan79 17:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&diff=118494753&oldid=118494279 Zeq 12:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your 8th of March edit to "Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy"
Dear 6SJ7, as you claimed in your edit summary "There has been no objection to any of this; it reflects current practice, therefore it is a "guideline"; also removing old merge tag", I would like it to be on the record that I HEREBY OBJECT as do, in words and in deeds, Kevin Murray and Radiant!

Best wishes. Charon X /talk 19:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy
Please stop reverting the tags on Protecting children's privacy. It seems clear from the talk page that there is no consensus that the page has even been a guideline and no apparent consensus to make it one. CMummert · talk 03:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you feel that the guideline should be reconsidered, please start a discussion. Your edits to the tags could easily be construed as edit warring or making a point since you have added the tag 6 times and it has been removed 5 times. CMummert · talk 04:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing has changed in the 1 week period since you last attempt to singlehandedly "policiefy" that page, 6SJ7. There is still no consensus to call this thing a policy. Your edit summary of "Rv nonsense" is less than civil and your statement to "continue to do what I think is right" sound awfully like accouncing you are ready to editwar over this. FYI, I have added "Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy" to my watchlist. Charon X /talk 00:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop edit warring over the essay/disputed/rejected tags at Youth protection and other places. If you continue to introduce tags without first obtaining consensus on the talk page, you may be blocked. CMummert · talk 16:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As you can verify by looking at talk pages, I only warned you. You have made multiple reversions to Protecting children's privacy, Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and Youth protection, while making almost no attempt to discuss the status of these pages, even when your changes were reverted by several people. However, all the pages are now protected for a little while until everyone can find a middle ground on what tag to put on the top. I hope that you will join in the discussion. CMummert · talk 18:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have asked for input at Village pump (policy) and Requests for comment/Policies. CMummert · talk 16:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Straw polls
Hello 6SJ7, just want to let you know that myself and User:Kim Bruning are currently working on this page to reestablish its prior "guideline" recognition. Please bear in mind that this page is not going to be about pro or anti polling but is going to be a descriptive guideline about how polling is done (and is best done) on the project. There is an active discussion going on, perhaps you could join in? Thanks. 16:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Children's privacy
I'm very interested in improving Wikipedia's policy regarding this issue. I've read the arbitration results. What happens now? Do you have a proposed policy in the works? Where is the best place to join discussion on this issue. Sancho 16:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind, in the interest of finding a resolution that everyone can accept, would you leave a comment here explaining what tags you would like to see on these pages? The goal of the village pump discussion is to find a solution that everyone can live with. CMummert · talk 11:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Question on AfD
Hi 6SJ7,

I put a question for you here. Others have replied to it, which kind of annoys me because it really was meant for you. Would you mind answering? The question buried in there is:

"Speaking of fairness, what do you think of the fact that Allegations of Israeli apartheid has arguments in favour of the term and arguments against the term, whereas Allegations_of_apartheid#New_Zealand only has arguments in favour of the term? Do you think that's fair? Kla'quot 05:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)"

Cheers, Kla'quot 15:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history
I have responded to your comment on the AfD. Can you please take a look (also at the details I have provided under my keep vote). Thanks --Aminz 07:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

otrs
Please contact User talk:Zscout370; I don't have access to the OTRS system and am making these edits at his request. My impression is that there is some privacy concern that has led to a decision that the username should be expunged. Beyond that, your guess is as good as mine, although I trust ZScount has a good reason, since the OTRS system is only used for actions that require discretion. CMummert · talk 04:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians
You accidentally reverted my spelling correction; perhaps you'd like to self-revert. :-) Jayjg (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI
I wrote an article about "apes and Pigs" but Zero deleted it: Zeq 05:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"per current version of WP:TRIVIA"
Your edit history contains a number of edit summaries like "→In popular culture - Remove 'trivia' template from 'popular culture' section, per current version of WP:TRIVIA" This is only "per current version of WP:TRIVIA" because of a change you made to the relevant text so it would support your own edits elsewhere, a change for which for which there is not a consensus. This is stacking the deck.

I've restored the reference to "In popular culture" sections on WP:AVTRIVIA. I would wait on this, but the removal now seems improper. / edgarde 21:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo: country debate
Hello. There's a discussion going on Talk:List of countries as to whether or not Kosovo should be included in that list. You've contributed to discussions on the page and I thought you might be interested. The articles List of countries and Annex to the list of countries (where the inclusion criteria reside) are both relevant. Cheers. DSuser 13:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. It's probably a minor point, but there a discussion and vote going on at Talk:Kosovo as to whether or not it's better to use Kosovo rather than Kosovan or Kosovar in the Wikipedia articles. Perhaps you have no interest, in which case sorry to bother you! DSuser 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance on Palestinian right of return article
I often noticed those particular users never justifying their changes on the talk page. Amoruso 01:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

A note
I don't eat puppies, and my cup runneth not over with the tears of innocents. Just sayin. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 20:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated note -- Hi. I replied to you at Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid to explore possible titles you might live with and accept, albeit not your favorites. HG | Talk 04:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,Newyorkbrad 18:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)