User talk:Amoruso/Archive 2

Second archive.

Thank you amoruso-for contacting me about MA. I find it disgusting that people do not consider him an anti-semite-but since when have people cared about the jews. Thank you for contacting me. --Max 22:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Good Job
Keep up the good work in Lehi. The narrower your criteria for truth, the better the quality of the article will be. Just be careful and be curteous even to users that you do not agree with and take a break if its gets too tense. Also get an email address.

Regards,

Guy Montag 17:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

infrastructure
Hi amarouso, sorry to drop in uninvited. I changed the controversial thousands of buildings entry in the leb conflict section of the Israel page. The source you quoted said 6000 claims for damage, not 6000 buildings destroyed (the grauniad article I mean, the other source only deals with the human casualties) an insurance claim for damage could include a wrecked pool, a broken window or any other less serious incident. 950 Katushas may have been able to destroy thousands of buildings, i dont know, but if you provide a source that shows they did, please post it and change the article back. Boynamedsue 120604

Revisionist Zionism
Please see my recent comments at Talk:Revisionist Zionism. - Jmabel | Talk 22:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Lehi
It really is a fascinating group. Thanks for getting me interested. Derex 07:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Peaceful" was actually a quote from Uri Davis in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. Now, I hope you'll be a little less smug and condescending in the future. And, that you will quit removing well-cited sources. But, I doubt it. I'll be watching; your attitude has ensured that. Derex 16:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't care who said it... you must grasp the issue of balances and not pushing one version over another. The article in question is articulate and complicated enough for you not to choose one random source and depict it as fact telling an incident. And your negative attitude is uncalled for, I don't know where your general animosity and belligerent approach comes from. It's a shame. Amoruso 16:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Samir Kuntar
no problem to add pro stuff. There's a section for it.. Amoruso 11:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I know it's tricky to find anything pro- on a person like this - well, tricky might be an understatement - but (and I know this sounds bad) just because he's a child killer and a terrorist, doesn't mean we shouldn't treat him fairly, surely? Tricky, as I know next to nothing about this man, but phrases like 'smashed in the 4 year old girls head' and the like don't really add anything to the article compared to something slightly more neutral, like 'bludgeoned the girl to death'. We can add the 'four-year-old' bit in earlier in the article. Also, why 'burst into', as opposed to 'entered' - did they burst into the building? Is that an opinion? Where do you draw the line between entering and bursting into? - and AFAIK 'suffocated to death' isn't grammaitcally correct! Finally, why did you remove 'by the Israeli authorities' from the phrase 'Kuntar was tried and convicted for the murders of Danny and Einat Haran by the Israeli authorities.'? HawkerTyphoon 12:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. Could you reply to my talk page? thanks.


 * My friend . :


 * Him being convicted by Israel can be added if you wish, but I think it's redundant as it's obvious who convicted him from the article. Authorities is what - police ? It's Israel's court of law (not military).


 * As for suffocated to death, well, suffocated doesn't mean to death is it, so if it's not correct - suffocated and she died... something like that.


 * burst into means they went in by force... they didn't just enter as the building was closed you know. They broke the door. This was used by kuntar himself, I saw in his site link in the external links. ((((I see you already changed it though now....which is a shame. I think "enter" implies walked in...}}}}


 * as for the daughter's death description - I really think that it sounding horrible doesn't mean it's not WP:NPOV - Kuntar himself talked about the incident this way, he's the one in the interrogation that from his words the whole incident is made clear. I don't think we should omit details that aren't disputed by anyone, from the article. If someone would say that he didn't do it in this way, then it can be disputed, but his supporters don't dispute the event, just the cause or motive maybe, not the details of the killing which he recounted himself.


 * it might sound a bit WP:POV, but it's one of these cases when it's impossible to treat it differently I think, since both sides acknowledge the facts for the full extent. Look at other articles here : - this is what child murderers in cold blood are described like.

Amoruso 12:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed thge Israel phrase totally, as it was a pro- section that didn't really need any anti-sentiments in it.


 * As for suffocation, generally you can die of suffocation, but the phrase 'suffocated to death' sounds like 'drowned to death' - I'll try and rewrite this bit totally.


 * As for entered/burst in, how about 'broke in' or 'entered by force' or something?


 * The daughters death description is a tricky one. I feel it can be rewritten from a stand-off viewpoint, using more neutral words - we don't say things like 'obliterated' about 9/11, we say 'destroyed', even though no-one disputes that the buildings were obliterated.


 * Some people would dispute that he murdered the child and parent, they might consider it part of a 'holy war' or the like, and that the deaths were unavoidable collateral damage. You can see the trouble with NPoVing an article like this, and I'd appreciate your help. HawkerTyphoon 12:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

E-mail
Well, if you set yourself up with an e-mail account, then I can e-mail you instead... Jayjg (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Any luck with that? Jayjg (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Borderline 3RR violation on Mount Hermon
I will not block you because I think this is due to mis-understanding of policy, but make sure this does not happen again. Even excluding your edit as an anon, when you made that edit just inserting "Israel" without re-inserting the category, you were still on the same POV side, and this is just ganging up against one user. Though there is nothing on the 3RR page about this, I consider this enough reason to block for its violation. I have fully protected that page until you, Viewfinder, Isarig, and anyone else who's involved, come to some agreement or compromise on what should be on that page or at least come to some state where you can agree to stop edit warring. In his email to me Viewfinder has expressed that he is considering applying for mediation on this matter, I think this might be a good idea (have a read of Dispute Resolution if you are unfamiliar with methods to resolve disputes). Please note that even though the page is protected in the state you left it, this is not an endorsion of your version, and unless you reach some agreement there is 0 guarantee that it will not escalate into another edit war once it's unprotected.--Konstable 06:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

licence
Hello Amoruso. Could you tell me under what licence is the image in the wp:en ? . Thank you in advance ! Alithien 22:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "This is a picture that's originated in the knesset website. The evaluation is that one can use it in the article that deals with the parliament member in it and only in it under the fair use terms"

Amoruso 23:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your help ! If you see a picture of Ben Gurion that is free, please don't hesitate to tell me ! Alithien 08:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting balance
I find it interesting that you remove the word "terrorist" about Lehi murders, in the interest of "balance" and NPOV. Yet you then replace the word "gunmen" with "terrorist" to describe Palestinian murders. You also seem to believe that only Palestinians are capable of "massacres", while Israeli groups engage only in "battles". This selective language, depending on who is doing the murdering, leads me to question whether you are truly interested in promoting neutrality and balance. Or are you perhaps here trying to promote a particular point of view? Andalusian1 23:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The answer is quite simple. A terrorist is like a murderer a person who killed someone innocent. That's why I have no problem to call Jews that murdered civilians terrorists (in fact, I considered it in the past and later even tried to insert the terrorists into some of these entries so your accusation of bias is out of place and wrong). But Lehi like PLO in general is a political organization, so it can either be a designated terrorist organization or militant/etc. However a person who kills a baby or children in school, the actual one that shoots that is, in cold blood can be called a terrorist I'm sure you understand the difference. Amoruso 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I see we agree; killing innocent children is terrorism. I assume we also agree with that sentiment, whether the murder is from reckless indifference or from cold-blooded intent. You deleted the following sourced quote from a Jewish Israeli scholar "they murdered over 200 people, half of whom were women and children". Moreover, is Count Bernadotte guilty of something, or was his murder not terrorism? That was planned and executed by Lehi leadership. If that isn't terrorism, is it even _possible_ to have a "terrorist" group, because one can always simply state that a particular member was the terrorist? At any rate, you certainly didn't take any effort to describe the individual Lehi gunmen as terrorists.
 * Bottom line your claims to be of superior balance and neutrality have little credibility. That's because your editing changes when the names of the subject change.
 * A final word on our point of agreement, that murdering children is terrorism (whether through depraved & reckless indifference or direct intent): "A third of casualties in Lebanon are children, says UN relief chief". Andalusian1 20:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we agree. I didn't delete anything, I just replaced it with material from the article which is more established and researched. The thing is the allegations of murders of children in Deir Yassin are BS, it never happened. And the sources in the article depict that myth very well. Of course if there was a Lehi member specifically who killed an innocent child then he would be a terrorist - he himself, no doubt. As for Bernadotte, he was a British representive. I specifically, perhaps you missed it, underline that politicans/soldiers and anyone in office of some colonial power is a legitimate target, he's not a civilian. And about a terorrist group, indeed nobody calls anyone a terrorist group in wikipedia. Your last note is ridicilious since children aren't supposed to be where armed men are in battles according to the geneva convention. A state that defends itself and targets those  military targets might hurt those civilians used as human shields but it did not target them, I'm sure you can understand the difference. A final note - times have changed through the years. Britian bombed civilian areas killing 10000's of civilians in WW 2 and also bombing children hospitals in occupied Denmark and other countries. That's no longer justified and acceptable, and terorrism is also much more frowned upon. This is just a historical note since international law has indeed developed. I'm sure you can see the difference between actions taken during the time of WW2 against the British who were here on a temporary mandte and between attacking civilians of a 58 years old country. You can twist it around but you can't around that the British weren't civilians in the area. But a person who murderes a 4 year old kid in cold blood, admits it, and mind you he came from some other country, went into an apartment, broke in, took the kid and smashed her head on a rock - that particular person can be called a terrorist, yes. Oh and one final note, a legal note. "reckless indiffrence" if something really is that - it's still not murder. Murder requires intent and not just intent but premedidated intent, and not just that, but also not under influence of momentary rage for instance - that's a doctrine in itself and so on. It's a specific charge. I'm more familiar with the hebrew terms, but there is man slaughter, negligent killing and levels. This is just to correct your defitinition mistake so you know. So whatever your political or moral position is, you can not ignore a difference between a premedidated killing of a child and a collateral damage from a bomb shell for instance. Amoruso 22:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A rose is a rose. Dead is dead. Immoral is immoral. Terrorism is terrorism. You can't make it pretty no matter what you call it and no matter who is responsible. But you can make Wikipedia POV. If you have the same principles, regardless of the names, then editing differences are good faith. The evidence I've seen is to the contrary for you. I'll leave it at that. Andalusian1 22:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What's bothering you is what one can see in the discussion of the palestinian political violence. A user, Jayjg responded there very well. You need to understand that there can be actually a differnece. The fact that these specific palestinians are terrorists doesn't mean that Jews and Israel have to be autuomatically are to maintain some fake NPOV. Same thing with Al Qaida and U.S.A for example - it doesn't have to be that way just because "the world is always balanced and everything is the same". No - dead is not dead, terrorism is not terrorism. The job of people who take things seriously enough is to look at who's the culprit and to define acts in as much accuracy as possible and point out to the differences when and if they exist. They don't always exist. Certainly one side wasn't always an angel. The Kfar Kasem massacre for instance was horrible and unjustified and done by Israeli in the 1950's and the court punished them for it. Same with Americans and certain massacres in vietnam, iraq and so on. But one can't just say that every thing Israel does equals what hamas do just for the sake of npov, no matter how it can be annoyed for those politicall supportive for the palestinians for instance. Just as one can safely side that was the nazis did was evil and without precedent, and it won't be pov. not every murder, killing, not even genocide is the same - there are details, motives, ideology, factors, considerations, perspectives, timeline, and many things. Amoruso 22:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't want to get involved in the details of this debate, but I just want to point out that both of you are using the term "terrorist" much more loosely than is generally accepted. Killing civilians is of course murder (as is killing any human being), but there has to be a specific kind of motivation behind that murder for it to be called terrorism.  For the sake of accuracy in your edits, it should be noted that accidental civilian deaths in open warfare isn't terrorism (from a NPOV perspective). Markovich292 01:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

חברון
I understand. However, we must keep in mind that all these people played a part in the history of one city: Hebron. As divided these people may be, keep in mind that Shmulevich is not famous for being Jewish, and al-Manasra is not famous for being Arab. These people are known for what they did, what they contributed to this world. That's why List of famous people raised in Houston, for example, categorizes by occupation, not by ethnicity. &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please
---> my comment:(the Markovich complaining his harrassment being removed issue Amoruso 15:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC) )

Do not remove warnings like you did here. The concerns of Markovich292 are perfectly legitimate. Discuss it with him before removing his comments. Otherwise, what you did comes off as incivil. Woohookitty(meow) 12:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed what was legitimate to remove after uncivil and bad faith behaviour including lies from him. He removed my comments as well. Amoruso 14:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no WP rule that all warnings must be retained. A user is certainly not obliged to keep a "warning" from a nonadmin that is not in good faith and is trolling. However, if it is later found to have merit and to have been made in good faith, it can be held against one. You can't, for example, engage in a 3RR and then remove a 3RR warning as "trolling." But very often users charge "harassment" and the like to intimidate other users.--Mantanmoreland 15:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

(markovich's comments and further discussion removed per policy). Amoruso 02:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Proving the negative
Hey just wanted to let you know that I've responded in my talk page. Let's discuss it there.UberCryxic 17:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Fascism
Take a look at Neo-Fascism and at the POV edits that Will314159 has been making there Isarig 04:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at Neo-Fascism and at the reversions edits that Isarig has been making there. I know that you can be fair. Best Wishes Will314159 18:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Something to Consider
I once saw an episode of a television show called "Becker" that really is worth mentioning to you. Just wondering, have you watched this show? Anyway, in this episode, Dr. Becker was accused by a writer of making racist comments. When confronted about it, it was revealed that it was the writer who was at fault for assigning racial overtones to an ordinary conversation. On thing in particular involved Becker's use of the phrase "those people that grill on the sidewalk." The writer assumed that Becker was talking about Puerto Rican's because he knew it was mostly Puerto Ricans that do that (in the show). He just ignored that Becker was refering only to people that grill on the sidewalk (because it gets in the way he says), and not Puerto Ricans.

Hopefully that illustrates the situation. I made a comment directed at all the people that were not dealing with the issue and making personal remarks/arguments/attacks instead. ThuranX saw something that was not there, and both you and he will not recognize that he was wrong. You both are in the position of the writer, and the only decent thing you can do is let go of your false assumption and drop the attitude you have because of it. Markovich292 05:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Is Dr. Becker the show with that guy from "Cheers"? Amoruso 06:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is indeed...never seen Cheers myself though. Markovich292 16:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! --Shamir1 06:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

From Scott Adler
I wonder why there is no "Siege of Jerusalem (1948)" article. Was it removed? Or never written. My view is that it was at Jerusalem that the Arab pleading collapses. Jerusalem was not to be included in the Jewish state, so why besiege it? Unless you are the aggressor, that is... Scott Adler 10:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought.
 * Good question, I don't know. I suppose it wasn't written. You can expand it and of course make it also a whole article in itself. Amoruso 10:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Population of Ashdod
Can you please provide a source for the number you inserted as the population of Ashdod? If you are sourcing their official website, then the number is probably an unreliable estimate. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * these are the new israeli statistics : Amoruso 11:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC) and already used in hebrew wikipedia.


 * The article you linked to seems to be based on CBS data, which does list Ashdod as having over 200,000 residents in 2005 as provisional data.
 * This however is still slightly above 200,000 and not the 212,500 figure you posted. The Hebrew Wikipedia is almost always wrong on these issues because they quote the city websites which always exaggerate figures. A while ago I found out that they exaggerated the population of Eilat by over 20% (at over 57,000, while the real population is about 45,000) and brought it up in talk and they corrected it. So unless there's a better source than CBS, we should use their statistics alone. On a side note, I'm confused as to why CBS lists 2005 statistics as provisional data and 2004 statistics as normal data, considering the last census was in 1995 and all population data since then has been provisional.
 * -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the explanations. And sorry for writing a non accurate figure. Amoruso 20:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I haven't see there any city population numbers, only the dencity. As ashdodian I'm very intrested in this statistic, so were is this number from? Shmuliko 13:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The news articles on various news sites says the denisty and that the population passed 200,000. I looked at hebrew wikipedia, saw that it says this number and assmued they looked at the latest one that the article referrs to. Amoruso 13:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, about your message - I dont recall having seen this, Ill go check it out. Maybe you clicked my talk page by mistake? Stick to the Facts 20:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I gotcha - I hadn't seen the new edits, only the revert by Brimba.

They will never go for any statement that characterizes posts, even if it pertains to a quality shared by the vast majority of posters or threads. I've tried before. This is why it is a matter of time before another edit war and probably why the thread should be scrapped.

I'm not sure if you saw the lengthy debate about the genocide reference. I demonstrated that since genocide includes 'merely' trying to force the expatriation of a people through mental anguish, and is not limited to mass murder, that pretty much the WHOLE SITE is a big genocide fest. I asked for, and was not presented with, one single means of achieving a 'white nation' that didn't involve genocide within the legal definition of the word - they did not or could not produce one. Stick to the Facts 20:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but my point is that until the sock puppets are banned you won't be able to make it stick. They'll keep yanking it back out. But you have as much right as anyone to your opinion so I don't see why you shouldn't make the change if you think it is appropriate. Stick to the Facts 21:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

NAS People
Whoa! Fraid I'm not with you on this brother. Two thoughts: first the name is ambiguous ("new people" or "new anti-semitism") but most importantly I don't agree with yr comment that this is in any way a compromise. None needed. MA is anti-Semitic by any measure, and not just an anti-semitic from the standpoint of "new" antisemitism. Jes my humble opinion but I think this might be construed as weakening the case for including him in the antisemitism cat as he richly deserves.--Mantanmoreland 01:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm I tried to go to the link you sent but it didn't work - neither did it work when I typed it in nor when I clicked on another link for it. Is it already deleted? I saw the deletion category entry tho. Stick to the Facts 02:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the category being protected, that is not an endorsement of the current version. That measure was just taken in order to prevent edit warring. I think that using the NAS category as you're suggesting does not help matters and also is not likely to be accepted as a compromise by those unwilling to see MA as antisemitic. --Mantanmoreland 02:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

West Bank
I was wondering if you can help me out with the West Bank. There were possible reasons provided in the article, and then a user deleted them. I then completed it, had it better written, and added it again, adding some of the sources on the Talk page. THEY STILL DELETE IT. You can see the section I added when you click history, I am sure you can see it is all true! --Shamir1 02:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Use article talk pages
Hi Amoruso, would you please use the article talk page for People's Mujahedin of Iran rather than engage in an edit war. I recently cleaned up the article and put amore than a little work into making sure everything I did was factual well referenced. If you persist in removing factual information because it does not suit your POV I will feel obliged to get an admin involved. Feel free to discuss the ussie in the article talk space, but pleas refrain from deleting factual information without talking about it first. --Dave 05:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * the article was in violation of wikipedia policy. You can't say an organization is terrorist, only that's it's called / designated as such. any adminstrator will tell you the same. Amoruso 05:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Lehi
Hello Amoruso. I saw you read French. You can maybe get some more information about Lehi on the wp:fr article : Lehi. The article should soon be categorised "featured article" (article de qualité). His author is fr:user:Christophe cagé. He should be able to help you (nb: he speaks English - French but not Hebrew). Chavoua Tov, Alithien 17:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources
Hi Amoruso. You don't seem to quite understand the full implications of WP:CITE. I suggest you read it through thoroughly. If you are making a claim, you need to cite a source that backs up that claim, e.g. for the claim that Mark Twain has been taken as the primary source for Ottoman Palestinian demography you will need to find a reliable source that says that, not just sources that quote him about Palestinian demography or sources that say that he has been quoted about it. Similarly, if you wish to imply that the reason Abu Ali Mustafa was killed was related to any particular government's claims that the PFLP was a terrorist organization, or to Israeli claims that he was responsible for killings, you will have to find a reliable source to that effect. You can't just include information without a source, even if you are sure it is true - after all, you might be wrong! Palmiro | Talk 01:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No reason to include a citation for mark twain being used by various scholars simply one can see all the scholars who quoted him. You misunderstand the idea of WP:CITE and I suggest you brush op on it. As for Abu Ali Mustafa, there is no OR there - you have vandalised the page by deleting sourced material concerning the designation of the organization. Please don't do that. Amoruso 01:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey
Hello friend. I thought you might be interested in my rebuttal to A student in history's comments in the talk page Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I have long been trying to protect the article from bias and misinformation. My comments do not make a difference to anything, I just thought you might like to read the last couple of responses (primarily the last/most recent). Thanks. --Shamir1 01:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Notice
Your vandalism at Folke Bernadotte is the last straw. I'm out of town at the moment but when I get back I'll be presenting a case to the Arbitration Committee to get you banned. I should have done that months ago but I foolishly hoped you might improve. --Zerotalk 03:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your threats are out of line and your abuse of power and false allegations are simply outrageous. The person who blanked material on the page is you. Your attempt to make content disuptes into something else is extreme bad faith and you should be banned for that behaviour. Amoruso 04:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Abu Ali Mustafa
Hi Cousin, Please fill in the comment field in you edits. Just adding the letter "m" is not always very iluminating. Todah Abu ali 13:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * m is for minor changes - spelling mistakes, spacing, you mean? Amoruso 13:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

1929 Hebron Massacre
Please give your thoughts on the relevance (or lack thereof) of anti-Zionist offered by a survivor of the 1929 Hebron Massacre. Thanks.--Meshulam 19:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

address
Of course I have an e-mail, tell me if you would like it. By the way, I wanted to thank you for effort on Wikipedia. I don't feel I have repaid you. Please let me know of anything. --Shamir1 03:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, to be honest, I don't know how to e-mail you. --Shamir1 04:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Stateless people
Why is English people not tagged in Category:Stateless people? England is not independent either. &mdash; Wereon 10:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a reply on my talk page. I think you should clarify exactly what is meant by "stateless people". To my mind, the canonical example is of course the Jews before the creation of Israel. But Corsica and Catalan people? The people have a separate ethnic identity, but they are also concentrated in one place, and have some local autonomy.
 * Also, do not forget that you must tag every single native or aboriginal people in existence. &mdash; Wereon 10:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The idea is not they don't have a citizenship at all, but that they as a people don't have a state of their own. This is true for them and for Welsh as well. Amoruso 10:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You are quite right, Welsh people, Scottish people and English people are all stateless nations. There is some misunderstanding here, they are stateless in that they have no nation-state of their own. In this respect they are all just as stateless a Kurdish people, after all Kurdish people have citizenship in many states, one might argue that these are their states, but it is normal to consider stateless nations as nations that lack a nation-state of their own. I fail to see why it should be contentious to include them in this category. A stateless person is a person that lacks any nationality or state. Alun 13:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Stormfront
Amoruso-- let's not delete those "Citation needed" sentences just yet. Having them in the article is a good way to get eyeballs on the problem and to solicit the people who are knowledgable into adding a citation. But, I'm 100% in agreement with you that the sentences will have to come out if no citation is produced. --Alecmconroy 11:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Timeline
I have violated nothing, and if you claim I'm guilty of the 3RR rule, then go ahead and accuse Shamir1 of this as well. You continue to claim that I remove "factual" and pertinent information, but this is simply not true. I am removing the POV's that you and Shamir1 insist on writting. It is clear from both of your comments, and you user pages that you are not neutral and you don't wish to conform to neutrality on this issue. You both insist on knowing some "truth", (that being a pro-Israeli interpretation of events) and you insist on writting this in. If what you say are "facts" really are "facts", then provide some sources for them, credible sources, primary ones if you can.A student of history 05:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You have revereted 4 times in less than 24 H. Shamir didn't. It is a violation of WP:3RR . Amoruso 05:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You are being absolutely absurd, you insist that removing propoganda and unsourced POV's is "vandalism". You are editting this timeline in blatant violation of wikipedia's NPOV policy. I am simply removing unsourced, uncredible, POV's that are destroying this timeline. A student of history
 * Your "false" reasoning is irrelevant. You're not allowed to violate 3RR no matter what. Amoruso 05:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain
from PA. If you look at my contributions, you will see that I have worked/am working extensively on depopulated 1948 villages. And it is most certainly *not* a "spam" link: how on earth can a link that only link to one specific article be spam? Regards, Huldra 05:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * link provided was a derogatory non WP:RS on a geographical non poltical article. Amoruso 05:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You must be joking: similar links are accepted all other places that are on the List of villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. As for WP:RS; I would say it is certainly not more unreliable than, say, CAMERA or MEMRI or PalestineFacts -links; do you want them removed everywhere, too? ´Couse they will be, if this link is not allowed to stand. Regards, Huldra 06:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't WP:POINT Amoruso 06:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Amoruso, this is not WP:POINT, this is an attempt (yes!) at WP:NPOV. You really cannot have literally hundreds of links to sites that are ...what shall I say ...somewhat "tilted" in a pro-Israeli direction, and not accept any that are ..eh... ...somewhat "tilted" in an anti-Israeli direction, too. I hope that that is not your idea of fairness: to only have the first type of links, and not the second. (And I assume you are interested in fairness ;-) ) Regards, Huldra 06:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: ..and I have no problems with your expansion ;-)
 * Yes, but if you went around and took off links because a link was taken off it would be WP:POINT. Anyway, if you want the link, I have no problem with it. But it's obviously biased and quite extreme in its use of words, and it doesn't seem the right place. Amoruso 06:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That it is biased ...eh.."tilted", sure, but that it is in the wrong place: I disagree. The link is about this specific place, after all. Also: I´m thinking of adding (under "See also") Operation Kedem ...it was through that article I "found" Manahat. The Operation Kedem  article gives (some of) the specific history of the place in 1948, which the Manahat article now does not give. Regards, Huldra 06:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

צ'רקסים
Hi Amoruso, perhaps you could help me with something. Since August, an anon in Damascus has been deleting paragraphs about the Circassians in Israel. I'm guessing it's because he/she sees the Golan Heights (where Israeli Circassians live) as a part of Syria. Regardless, I was wondering if you could add some sources to the statements in the paragraphs the anon keeps deleting. Perhaps that might get him to stop. I haven't been able to talk to this person as they're on a dynamic IP. Thanks in advance. &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, I'll try to help. Amoruso 19:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because simply adding the tag isn't going to protect the page (he can still edit the page). You need an admin to do it. &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! :-) &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Arrgghhh, can you please keep an eye on this page? &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

deletion of editing tags
Don't delete editing tags that other editors have placed on an article until those concerns are fixed. DesertSky85451 22:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * the specifc tag says it can be deleted. Amoruso 22:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can be. However, deleting the tag is not a very convincing argument the song is notable.  And the article is still linkless. DesertSky85451 22:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I specified in talk. This article was just created, you could have waited too. This is a really really defining song in Israel. Amoruso 22:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * \ I've removed my deletion nomination. Also, replying on your own talk page is really useless for me to see if you've replied.  DesertSky85451 23:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * as you can see above, if you want me to reply to your page, just ask (politely :) ). You really shouldn't nominate articles so quickly. Amoruso 23:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Did my cursing on your talk page offend you? Oh No!! DesertSky85451 23:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No it didn't. Btw, how do we know how many articles link to each article ? Amoruso 23:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Left side > below the search window > Toolbox > What links here DesertSky85451 23:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Amoruso 23:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Beer and breweries in Israel
is a perfectly valid category. Pavel Vozenilek 02:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * indeed it is. Amoruso 02:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Fisk support for statement
Here it is on google books: page 126 of Pity the Nation. I'm reverting that part of your edit -- Kendrick7 01:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is the last sentence of the third complete paragraph -- Kendrick7 01:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I guess that isn't a permalink -- try -- Kendrick7 06:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'm not exactly sure how you can accuse the reference of not supporting the sentence, unless you have a copy of the reference to begin with? You really shouldn't need the google book link, right? -- Kendrick7 07:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I'm not surprised you don't remember one sentence out of a 727 page book you once read. Sorry if the links I've provided don't work, but should you get the chance to someday view the last sentence of the third paragraph of page 126 of the 2002 paperback English edition of "Pity the Nation: The Abduction of Lebanon" by Robert Fisk, I promise that you will find it reads "The casualties were thus almost all civilians." -- Kendrick7 08:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't mind the mention, especially since it has relevance later to the 2006 conflict because of Nasrallah's impudent demands. It's just that I'm trying to keep some sort of temporal flow to the article so things don't jump around too much. Of course it's a challenge to balance temporal flow with thematic flow, which you can see pretty much breaks down in the next-to-last section of the article. Can you just put the mention of Quintar in the right timeframe? -- Kendrick7 06:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't sweat it. I found a spot for his mention circa 1979. -- Kendrick7 05:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
Siniora's position is relayed in the section on "Position of Lebanon," though if the new speech has a significant statement, you should include it. His crying doesn't convey a specific idea, and it is only original research to assign words to it. In any event, whatever he said before/during/after crying is far more enlightening vis-a-vis his position than mentioning his tears. As for the stones, if the event was an attack on IDF vehicles, then you should say so, though the citation you provided doesn't make mention of IDF forces in the area. I incorporated the point about HEzbollah's rejectionism in a smoother manner; a link to the detailed and established subsection in the main Hezbollah article is much more effective than citing an individual piece. In general, WP:WTA says that we shouldn't use words like terrorist, as they are poorly defined and fraught with potential POV issues. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 05:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Renaming Saintly person categories
Hi Amoruso: See Category:Saintly person tombs in Israel; Category:Saintly person tombs by country, and Category:Saintly person tombs in Iraq which have been nominated for renaming. It will help to clarify the categories. Thank you. IZAK 10:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate your support

Fair use rationale for Image:Kippur.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kippur.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 23:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there
Just want to commend for your good work and contributions. keep it up. see you. --Sm8900 02:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi...thanks for your reply. guess I feel that no barnstar could ever measure up to the good old Jewish Star! :-) See you. --Sm8900 03:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

MA, Markovitch, and Hatzne'ah Leches
Amaruso, regardless of your opinion as to Markovitch's edits/opinions/etc. and his of yours it would likely be better overall if the both of you were able to focus more on content and edits than the person themselves. If you believe he has stated something that is inaccurate, in general, it is better to point out the edit and ask for clarification than to label him a prevaricator. WP:AGF is an important part of wikipedia, and one that should be followed until there is near certainty that edits are being made in bad faith. Thanks. -- Avi 13:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit to The Third Temple
The information you cited involves a synagogue on the Temple Mount. A claim that it relates to a Third Temple would appear to be Original Research. He may have it in mind, but the link needs to be explicit, and reliably sourced, to be included. If you have a reliable source indicating the proposal is a precursor to a Third Temple etc., please summarize and cite it. It's clearly relevant to the Temple Mount article, what I'm questioning is its relevance to the Third Temple article. Thanks, --Shirahadasha 15:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly relevant to Temple Mount, but doesn't seem to be relevant to Third Temple unless an external source makes a connection. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Eichmann
Just a quick word -- Keltik is looking for reaction on the page. I'm not saying don't respond, because it is hard not to, but if you kick up the rhetoric he will too, and we actually lose, spending time dueling when it would be better spent on making improvements to articles. Cantankrus 19:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi,

Thanks for the bat, you're pretty cool yourself... :-)

(Oh, and you forgot to list my name on the award page...)

okedem 22:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Israel
Hi,

You reverted an edit by User:Jpgordon, calling it "apparent vandalism". This user is an administrator, and one of the "good guys", definitely not a vandal.

My suggestion is - let's finish the argument in the talk page before making any more changes. okedem 15:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question:
You ask why I am so interested in the Arab Israeli conflict.

Well I have always been very interested in Israel and have always had Jewish friends (have never visited Israel though). I consider myself a friend of Israel and even though I recognize the intrinsic unfairness to the Arabs I have always supported the right of Israel to exist in this region and of Jews to live in peace and security there. But when I started reading Israel related pages in Wikipedia I found them not to be neutral.

Israelis do not live in peace and security 60 years after the creation of Israel. Why is that? Surely there are many reasons and I think both sides of the conflict make their best to polarize matters and to demonize the other side. Indeed an important reason (I believe) is the deafening propaganda that obscures the issues. It does not help peace when the truth is not known and when both sides of the conflict honestly believe in their respective nationalist mythologies. So I thought I could help peace if I worked towards more neutral articles in Wikipedia. I am a religious person and really believe that peace is what God wants too. I also really believe that this continuous conflict does not serve Israel's interests. There is no doubt that Israelis (not to mention Palestinians) would have a much better quality of life if this conflict were over. What's happening is stupid; there must be a better way. Incidentally, have you ever considered that maybe this continuous war-like situation is making the Israeli military a self-perpetuating institution? That the military service in the occupied territories is not really what's best for the soul and character of young Israelis?

Well, that's about it. As you can see I never answer a question with two sentences when I can come up with twenty :-( Dianelos 08:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Amoruso, if you think BEFORE, BEFORE you will go back to Adam and Eve :-) What we need here is to think about the future. As a really great Jew said long ago, God wants us to forgive others. I know that keeping a grudge is part of Middle Eastern culture (and Greeks are very close to that culture), but to achieve peace one must transcend that. I agree with you of course that the point is not to achieve any peace but a long term solution.


 * BTW thanks for inviting me to explain my idea in my talk page, I was itching to do that. I just posted it there. I am really curious what you think about it. Has such an idea been considered before? Dianelos 10:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I just answered your comments in my talk page. Dianelos 15:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Again I answered your comments in my talk page. Cheers. Dianelos 09:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand Jewish sentiments towards the Arabs; terrible thing have happened - this is a war after all. But I have not looked at the photo you pointed at; such things are bad for the soul. Muslims too have many pictures of children torn in pieces by Israeli bombs. Please do not live under the impression that such helps Israel: There are more, maybe many more, innocent Muslims killed, maimed, and abused by Jews than the other way around - many more Muslim families sunk into grief by loss, or their homes destroyed, or their property taken away- than the other way around. After 60 years of war the region is charged with propaganda and myth-making, but numbers count for something. Of course the two peoples' deeply dislike each other. The question is which is the best way to the future?

Yesterday I saw Spielberg's "Munich" and then read some newspaper clips from back 1972 - 25 years ago. After bombing in September 9 Palestinian camps in Lebanon in Syria (some say "terrorist training camps" some say "refugee camps"; I think they were probably both and that probably dozens of innocent Palestinians were killed there) here is what the Israeli briefing officer said "Our aim is to hit the terrorists as hard as we can, to cripple them and to make it clear that we mean business. The message is directed not only to the terrorists but also to the countries that harbor them." Sounds familiar? That was 25 years ago.

After decades of killing and suffering both peoples' psyche is getting angrier and uglier. Do you wish more decades of the same? Is this the Israel that Jews have dreamed of? If not then you must stop thinking about the bitter past and concentrate in working towards a peaceful future. And Palestinians must do the same. You don't make peace with your partners whom you respect; you make peace with your enemies whom you hate. I have no doubt that both peoples have enough heart to achieve this, and that what stops them is the insistent warmongering noise that comes from the extremists from both sides and that indeed polarizes both majorities.

You express outrage that Palestinians have voted for Hamas, but have you ever considered how Israelis voting for Sharon must have looked to them? You won’t achieve peace with your enemy if you don’t make an effort to understand them. If you were a Palestinian refugee what would you have done to gain a nation? Ehud Barak did not mince his words when he said in 1998 that "If I were a Palestinian youth I would have joined a terrorist organization"

Anyway I just posted in my talk page my response to your criticisms about the proposal being utopian. I would like to thank you BTW about your comments, they were quite stimulating. Dianelos 08:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

your page
I just want to say I like your page and I appreciate your comments on Jerusalem and such. Keep fighting the good fight. Chag Sameach. Valley2city 19:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT
Please do not disrupt wikipedia to illustrate a point. I am not exactly sure what the problem is but I presume it has something to do with "Palestine". -- Cat out 22:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * it's not WP:POINT, it's WP:NPOV. Iraqi Kurdistan is too an autonomy. Amoruso 22:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Iraqi Kurdistan does not claim to be an independent country now do they? I can list several hundered autonomous regions in europe and amercias alone. We only list countries (defacto or not) in nav templates.
 * -- Cat out 23:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR claim
Those were my first edits to the article in over 6 months so I haven't really violated anything. Please discuss your objections on the talkpage. Yuber(talk) 23:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What other additions have I made in the past? Prove it if you wish but I'd rather have you discuss your objections in the talkpage instead of going about this in a warlike fashion.Yuber(talk) 23:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Editor Review
Hey, I've recently put myself up for the Editor Review process. With the (seeming) end of the Vaughan-gate mess, I've been back to normal editing for the last while and wanted some outside opinions as to what kind of job I'm doing; if I'm on the right track, if there's anything I can do to improve, etc. If you have some free time, I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look and leave me some feedback! Thanks. --Chabuk 03:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Al Juwana Mosque
On Third holiest site in Islam, it seems that Thestick (did you ever see Top Gear?!) has managed to redirect or renew the PDF file which states that the Al Juwana Mosque is the third holiest site! Luckily I thought someone might be crafty enough to do this and downloaded the original version to my PC. However, not being a computer whizz or having any web space to post it on the net, I was wondering if you could help out in some way so we can re-add to the list? Chesdovi 11:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have now rectified the problem, but still have to fix the problem below! Chesdovi 08:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Rawze-e-Sharif, Afghanistan

Some one has disabled the link. I did copy and paste the original page. Is there anythig we can do about this one?!! Chesdovi 11:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Nielswik
no, not all of them count as revertNielswik(talk) 03:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

adore your new articles
high i'm really apreciat you cotributions to wikeapeadia thay are verry inportent maby you could exand on the article about the golen hights and how it is a pernement part of israel, agoan i just love you contrebutions, a Zionist American, consevitive Jew. --J intela 06:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC) PS maby you could work on the Articles of Arial, Male Adumen, and the west bank secruty fence.

Yom Kippur War
Re:this edit - if that is true, then by all means, cite a source. Otherwise, it needs to come out. Raul654 18:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
This page is being vandalized.


 * They're not giving up... Isarig 01:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

regarding the infobox / league goals
About the infobox, I'm not the one making the template, the template is there when I joined wiki, I just followed the stats. However, league statistic is always better and easier to track. You need to remember that full statistics will include also domestics cups, which pretty hard to track.Martin tamb 00:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, for Del Piero it is true that it is very details statistics from juventus.com, but not the case for several other players. If you want to change it, you just need to somehow manage to change the football infobox template. As for now, I think it is better to follow what has been there. Anyway, the 200 goals is also listed on the article. Martin tamb 01:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries, but I'm afraid I still may be wrong, from the juventus.com website I counted a total of 482 apps and 194 goals. And I have his statistics from current season is 7 apps 3 goals in Serie A and 2 apps 3 goals in Coppa Italia. If I am wrong please correct me. Anyway great job on the new template, will you start implementing this on other players? Martin tamb 01:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

infidel
yup. Elizmr 00:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Help?
Hello. I have taken some photos of abandoned Jewish cemetery in my town. Can you help with translating some of the inscriptions? - Darwinek 18:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello. They can be found here, under the first subsection. - Darwinek 21:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. You know, our city was multicultural 100 years ago. Poles, Germans, Czechs and Jews lived together without any tensions. Jews were murdered by the Nazis and Germans were later expelled. That abandoned cemetery is a part of our history and a sad reminder of things that happened. - Darwinek 13:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Prague is a nice city but there are far more beauty places in our country. Come and visit us! - Darwinek 14:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA == ==

Carbonate posted an RfA here Requests_for_arbitration but for some reason "forgot" to list you as an involved party Isarig 16:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image use
Re : First, if you don't understand, ask! :) I'll be happy to answer. Second, the images that were removed are used here on Wikipedia under terms of fair use. They are tagged with non-free license tags. For example, have a look at Image:Dflplogo.JPG. It is tagged with logo. Wikipedia policy does not permit the use of fair use images on templates, or anywhere else outside of the main article namespace. See Fair use policy item #9. As a result, the images that are fair use were removed from the template. Does that help to clarify the situation? --Durin 21:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

your input?
Hi Amoruso,

I plan to add a new article/ or expand the article regarding the complete issues related to Masjid al-Aqsa proper, or Noble Sancturary. Are you aware of any article of that sort on Wikipedia. I see most stuff redirected to the Temple Mount page. I prefer to have the Temple mount page mainly to address the Jewish religious/historical info because that is really what Har Habayt is about with a cross link to the Noble Sanctuary page. Similarly, the Noble Sanctuary article have most Islamic architectural/religious issues with a link that cross links with the Temple Mount page. What do you think? I do not want to start on something and really get in a conflict and really waste your time and mine. So it would be nice if we agree on that beforehand. There should be no POV problems with this I believe. I need time of course to do that, I need to collect some more references, I do have some already but it needs more time for a professional look. For example, I would like to discuss minarets, gates, clocks, Imams, etc pertaining to this subject. Please note that there are two sections in al-Aqsa mosque page namely the meaning of the "Farthest mosque" and the "Third Holiest" thing all of which are not really related to the congregational Aqsa mosque but to the Aqsa compound as a whole. It may be better to have all this compound related issues in the same existing article of Aqsa mosque articulating of course the terminological differences. This might be better idea than really creating a new page, I mean article. This will probably take me two weeks or so because I am quite busy these days on other issues. Any suggestions? Thanks. Almaqdisi talk to me 06:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I will think about it. I am editing some other articles related to the same issue like this one Isra and Mi'raj. What seems puzzling is that the word Masjid al-Aqsa that is used there takes us to the Page of al-Aqsa mosque. These do not really have the same exact meaning specially in this context since the congregational mosque did not even exist when these terms were coined. Apparently this confusion keeps coming due to the non exact overlapping between masjid/mosque. Masjid may refer to spot or a building. Jami or "congregation mosque" is the true Arabic equivalent of the English understanding of the word Mosque. It sounds to me as if there should be an article with the title Masjid al-Aqsa, explaining this Quranic term which does not necessarily refer to a building but rather to a blessed spot of prostration and worship as mentioned in 17:1. But again, it sounds to me that this may better correlate with the existing Aqsa mosque article. Additionaly, talking about the minarets of the Aqsa mosque seems more appropriate in the Aqsa page and not in the Temple mount page. Again, I am not saying that info in both articles should be mutually exclusive. But rather really more accounted for in the given pretext. Anyway, I will think of what you have said regarding the Temple mount page. I prefer maybe to share this info at the Talk page of the Aqsa page before moving ahead and adding it to any existing article, or creating a new article. Thanks. Almaqdisi talk to me 07:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Shmuel Katz
His quote is being removed from Palestinian refugee under specious reasoning. You might be interested.

Indeed
It's not that difficult to understand, really. The 'problem' is that my somewhat extreme thoughts on both sides make my view pretty unique. I'm one of Israel's most fanatical defenders to the outside and one of its most extreme attackers on the inside. To a limited level, of course; I do explain Jewish opposition to Zionism to people such as User:PalestineRemembered, who are normal people. I would not bother talking to neo-Nazis and Ahmedinejad, like some NK people have done. They are real anti-Semites. People like PalestineRemembered and Tiamut here on Wikipedia are the 'real' non-Jewish anti-Zionists: people who are personally involved, who can stay civilized. With such people, I have no problems cooperating. Same thing on our side: we also have Kachnikim, people like that Lance guy on Talk:Zionism, and User:Yossiea, who is waging a personal crusade against me in order to get me blocked from Wikipedia because he disagrees with my views on Zionism (just check his contribs - half his recent contribs are attacks on me, attacking my edits, complaining about me etc). --Daniel575 | (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Third holiest site in Islam
Please refrain from removing requests for verification without reason. --Ezeu 11:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary... I had many reasons to remove spam placing of tags. Amoruso 11:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please put all the tags back that you have removed AGAIN. Otherwise I will report you. --- ابراهيم 11:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. Amoruso 11:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't conduct your arguments with User:ALM scientist(ابراهيم) on my talk page. Thanks. --Ezeu 12:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK amoruso, I've been thinking, we've been in disagreement on this for about 2 months. Shall we discuss a solution without editing the article (I mean, dont let the communication be in edit summaries)? thestick 11:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Re your invitation
Hi Amoruso, My apologies not to acknowledge the above sooner. I see that no consensus emerged and reckon any contribution I might've made would've been unlikely to alter that outcome; religious issues are something I know I know little about (to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld!). Thanks nonetheless for your invitation, David Kernow (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Third holiest site Dead links
OK, now why do insist on keeping non-existing sources in the article? Is it because it will lose 1/4th of it's content? thestick 10:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

But the sources are websites which dont exist anymore, which means they cannot be clicked and/or verified and hence this warrants their exclusion in accordance with WP policies. Also, you can reply here, it will be much more convenient. thestick 11:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have concerns, you can detail them in discussion, you don't remove the whole paragraphs. Cheers. Amoruso 11:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * yeah but the result of a such a discussion would be the deletion of the unsourced content anyway, wouldnt it ? thestick 11:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not unsourced, it's based on content perhaps not accessible on the web at the moment but which exists. There's no requirement for every source to be accessed on the webpages for various reasons.Amoruso 13:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Deir Yassin massacre
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Joelito (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"rv to Isarig.... this is ridicilous."
When you jump headlong into an edit war, could you please participate in the ongoing discussion about it? I have shown in talk why Isarig's edit was incorrect, and he filed an RfC on the page in order to get other voices involved. I am happy to see other voices involved, but your edit came without explanation. Please explain it. Thanks.--csloat 22:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please join us ...
--GHcool 07:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Haredim and Zionism
Your help would be appreciated on the Haredim and Zionism article.--Meshulam 22:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Brit Hanoun Incident - reactions
Why did you remove the reaction of the Gush Shalom representative to this incident? It was referenced and fitted perfectly under this heading.Puddleman 22:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Vote request
Please Vote, as per wiktionary the correct spelling is anti-Semitic NOT Antisemitic. 67.70.68.51 12:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

military action name
Hi,

could you please write the translation for the name Operation Noah’s Ark in Hebrew. So, Mivtza...

cheers, -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 23:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Third holiest site in Islam (expression)
It has been brought to my attention that you have been striking out the opinion of an anonymous IP editor at Articles for deletion/Third holiest site in Islam (expression). Could I ask you not to do this? Anon IPs have as much right to express their opinions in AfD discussions as registered users do. Striking out their opinions is not appropriate. The closing administrator will take into account the quality of the opinion expressed - in this case it will carry very little weight since it includes no reasoning for the opinion. However we should encourage all users to participate in Wikipedia's processes and try to avoid biting the newbies. Thanks, Gwernol 13:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry that would be a different matter, of course. Good luck, Gwernol 13:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ac.zionistposter.jpg
Greetings Amoruso, this image was called to my attention when User:OrphanBot commented it out on the Zionism article. I noticed that it was tagged for deletion because there's no license detail for the image. You removed the deletion notice and added a fair use tag but no license detail. Would you kindly provide the license detail as was. Thanks. (→ Netscott ) 15:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Copyright details would be something like: "© 1935, Name of poster publishing company, et al.". That is a normal part of fair use requirements on Wikipedia for that type of media. (→ Netscott ) 18:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand, I'm going to restore the tag then as well as add a tag since there are no source details either (ie: where was the image downloaded or who scanned it). (→ Netscott ) 18:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ian Pitchford violated 3RR clearly
You can see the removal of same sections 4 times. Thanks. Amoruso 21:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ,, ; which one is the fourth? His other edits to the page don't appear to be reverts. --  tariq abjotu  21:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I replied on your talk page. Amoruso 21:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This edit is another revert. You can see he reverted back to the version of User:Zero0000  even if he added some (which is why he said +). He removed the same blocks of material. Amoruso 21:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a significant difference between Ian's version and Zero's version. That's certainly not a revert. Regardless, I posted a message on his page regarding the imminent 3RR violation and the misuse of VandalProof. --  tariq abjotu  21:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Partial reverts are counted too per WP:3RR and this isn't a partial revert - it's a full revert where he removed MORE material. How is it not a revert. Cheers. Amoruso 21:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Amoruso, I improved the Jewish Supremacy article. I didn't add sources or references, but I feel as it sounds more encyclopedia-ic and lenghthy-er. If you wish to change it back to your original one, then be my guest. I just didn't want bias on wikipedia. Please remember, the original article was written by a Stormfront member. In case you didn't know, Stormfront is a pro white, anti-semetic organization that uses terms like "Jewish Supremacy" to justify their hate speech. Thank you and good night.

Lehi
I think solving this problem might take a little longer than expected. I'm trying to get a hold of some of the sources used in writing that section. It might take about a week. In the meanwhile I'll try to rewrite some parts of the section to make a more neutral. We will see. Taxico 21:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah I don't see much of a problem either, but it doesn't hurt to go that extra mile (kilometer) to make sure everyone is happy. Usually having firm sources for your claims doesn't leave any room for arguments. Taxico 22:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Zero gave an indication that he/she finds the book by Amichal Yevin a lot more acceptable. So you might want to use that more often. Also, maybe you should try to talk to Zero directly? My Hebrew is not that good, so I can't really comment on Hebrew texts without reading them first. But I'll try to get a copy of the book by Keller and maybe that would help. Taxico 08:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Moshe Levinger
Dear Amo; I´m afraid I will report you for breaking 3RR on Levinger unless you self-revert (in the very near future). Regards, Huldra 02:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid 3RR doesn't apply here because of WP:BLP you accused him of underground status with no refs. Amoruso 02:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I´m sorry, I don´t agree with you, se here: . I think we better continue the discussion there. Regards, Huldra 03:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Protected Articles
Hi Amoruso, I'm sorry I posted on your 3RR thing, I just stumbled upon it when I came to write this. Anyway now that the Aqsa Mosque and THS articles are fully protected, maybe we should discuss them and set aside any differences and reach a consensus. What do you say? thestick 18:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If it's possible sure. As for THS, I want the article not to be vandalised and the intro to be kept NPOV. As for Al Aqsa, I want the article only to focus on the actual mosque on the southern temple mount (or heavy tagging to stay) and also add all sourced materials as with Twain etc. Amoruso 18:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your cooperation, OK, how about you create your ideal page in a sandbox or something, and we'll discuss it. I'd like to state now itself that we should be ready to make compromises. I think we'll start with the Al-Aqsa Mosque article. thestick 12:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with congregation? It's an english word, if that's what you're doubting. thestick 12:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, so do you suggest that it be changed to "commonly referred to the building in the southern part of a complex..." . thestick 13:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but don't you think it should discuss the usage of the site as a mosque? The old Muslim mosques were nothing but open fields, and there are some mosques too with small buldings but large courtyards and loudspeakers.Also don't you feel the Temple mount article is too long already? thestick 13:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * then perhaps it should link from there to another article called the sanctuary or compound etc... Amoruso 13:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

BC-vs-BCE
Hello.

As regards your edit to Masada, I would like to inform you that moving articles from one era style to another (that is, from AD/BC to CE/BCE or the opposite) is forbidden. Reason his at WP:DATE.

Best regards, Panarjedde 14:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 04:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC).

Hmm
Sorry about that, I guess I misread the history. I thought I was removing the vandalism and "allegedly," but I guess I got it backwards. Thanks for fixing it. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 16:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Women of the Wall
Hello, I reversed your recent edits because I believe them to have introduced factual errors. In particular:


 * 1) The Temple, not the Temple Mount, is Judaism's holiest site. It is a holy site for Judaism, not necessarily Jews. Many Jews don't believe in holy sites.


 * 1) The rabbi responsible for the Kotel is a Haredi rabbi and his opinions Haredi opinions. There are Modern Orthodox authorities who permit women's prayer groups, so it would be incorrect and POV to say that Orthodox Judaism as a whole prohibits them.

I discussed these issues on the article talk page, Talk:Women of the Wall. Please reply there.

Best, --Shirahadasha 00:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Israeli official historiography
Post-Zionist and palestinian historians claim the "traditional Israeli historiography" didn't explain the events the way they happen. "Official Israeli historians" (who were maybe more propagandists than historians) would have built an history for these events. Right. Noted. They are many references for this in first quality (undiscussed) scholar's works. As a consequence, isn't their point of view an important information to add to an article. Not to claim that what they say is (or may be) true but only to underline what they say and permits he readers to understand precisely the "size of their (alleged) lie"... (if any) I think Katz, Schechtman and other pov would deserve a place in all these controversed articles but in a special section : "Israeli official history". Their Pov could be given and critics of their pov from other historians (if any) too. As I think I wrote some months ago (you were not there yet but this received no echo) :
 * if what they claim is (maybe) not true, it is true that it is what they claim.

This information deserves numerous lines in the articles because this is what all Israeli citizens and most western people learned unless they studied the matter deeply. Any comment ? Alithien 09:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Benny Morris and Gelber are also Israelis... so it that propoganda as well ? This is of course not true per Katz, Schechtman and the others. What they say is historical study based on facts and witness reports and news reports and protocols, it's not propaganidst. But yes in Palestinian exodus we only inserted this material in the appropriate section of the so called "theory" (which is actually a fact but we didn't push this) that Arab leaders pushed the exodus to happen. It should go back to that section I agree... Israeli official history of course doesn't make much sense for these things, it's of course not Israel's official history at all but historical studies of the events. Cheers. Amoruso 02:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Eichmann article
Hey, I noticed you from the Eichmann discussion page. I've got myself in a bit of a war with someone over the whole kidnap vs. capture issue. I know it was resolved through the previous discussion, but this person keeps changing the article and I've used up my 3 revert rule options. Just requesting a bit of help. Thanks. Freshacconci 22:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again
Let me know whats in the works and how we can collabrt! Chavatshimshon 06:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Masada
Your last revert has "it was eloquently explained in talk that it's not clear enough not to have a suffix at all." as edit summary. I did not find any reference in the talk page, could you kindly tell me where it was discussed? Thanks.--RedMC 10:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * here Amoruso 00:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your link has no reference about removing CEs, it is a discussion about the use of BC or BCE. Where is the reference for not removing redundant CEs?--RedMC 01:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * see the reply after I removed them myself. Amoruso 05:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The bagel of prestige
BTW, this page needs archiving. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why remove a name?
Please see my question at Talk:Palestinian territories. - Jmabel | Talk 02:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)