User talk:Amoruso/Archive 3

You reverts on 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
I'd like to discuss your recent revision of my reverts to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. I'll try to go point by point. I'm reverting your revert of my revert. If you'd like to discuss this further, please do as on the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict talk page. Thanks. — George Saliba[ talk ] 07:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) You removed the flag of Lebanon. The title of the article is 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, so it seems fully justified to me to retain it. I did not add it, I simply reverted the removal of it.
 * 2) You reverted three points in the article where I clarified that the New York Times was reporting on an Israeli research group report that was released. Please refer to the article itself, which was already references in the article, which states "In a new report, an Israeli research group says Hezbollah stored weapons in mosques, battled Israelis from inside empty schools, flew white flags while transporting missiles and launched rockets near United Nations monitoring posts. The detailed report on the war was produced by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies, a private research group headed by Reuven Erlich, a retired colonel in military intelligence, who worked closely with the Israeli military."
 * 3) You reverted the inaccurate figures of 20,000 to 30,000 tons of oil, where if you look at the article already cited, these numbers are effectively made up. The article lists 12,000 tons, and the other article I added lists 15,000.
 * 4) I added that 25,000 tons of oil had burned at the facility, in the attempt to explain why the numbers may have been skewed (together these are the size of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, which was inaccurate prior to and after your revert).

Blocked
I see that you committed your fourth revert at 24 hours and four minutes. How fortuitous! I have asked Dmcdevit what incivility he spoke of. Stay tuned. - crz crztalk 23:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I read the 3RR noticeboard and saw Dmcdevit's statement as to what incivility is alleged. - crz crztalk 23:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I support the unblock. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * With a heavy heart, I have restored the balance of Dmcdevit's original block in order to seek consensus for an unblock at WP:ANI. My apologies. - crz crztalk 21:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm disappointed by the POV of some users concerned in their remarks. User:Patstuart's claims for "warrior and single purpose" for example are completely false. While I was blocked once for 3RR it was controversial since I saw that as a serious infringement of WP:BLP. At this time I was involved in the edit-war and accidentally reverted 4 times against someone working against consensus. There was no incivility and I believe you were right in cutting the ban to essentially 12 hours. 48 hours was inappropriate especially since I contacted user:Dmcdevit personally and also apologisied for reverting 4 times and agreed not to revert the article ever again - this even though I never violated WP:3RR. Amoruso 22:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I humbly apologise and apologised to user:El_C for deleting his comment back then here, it was not intentional and it got jumbled up with the request for unblock at the time (I did delete his recent comment over a dispute after he removed my NPOV tag which I found also quite offensive, but I feel we started on the wrong foot there). I find it really problematic that people with whom I engaged with content disputes like user:Palmiro and user:Steve Hart try to gang up on me, I guess it can't be avoided in wikipedia because of its nature but their comments should be taken with a pinch of salt. Steve Hart has made very offensive and incivil remarks against me also in a content dispute regarding Palestinian exodus: His grudge is derived from the content dispute at that article which he spent a long time reverting - I see it as a gross violation of WP:CIVIL, and Palmiro has a personal grudge from many articles since I do no represent the Pro-Palestinian view with my contributions as in here  (you'd notice there's a group who believes any sourced information not abiding by their beliefs is not WP:RS which is a shame this is exploited). Other Pro-Paletistinian posters will obviously agree with them, while many users and adminstrators can show that I've contributed to wikipedia positively, created many articles (many of which had nothing to do with the conflict) and was/is a good editor. Amoruso 23:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Unblock request
{unblock reviewed|1=I am sorry it seemed that I was gaming the system, but it was not my intention, I was trying to revert a user who was acting against clear consensus removing dates which resulted in confusion in the article and was wrong. He was blindingly reverting the page after it was made clear to him that it's not possible not to place dates to numbers. It was never my intention to be incivil of course. Since I didn't violate WP:3RR in 24HRS I believe a 48HR block is uncalled for and that the block should be unblocked. I won't edit war over the article again.|With the request reviewed in WP:ANI and the unanimous endorsement I have to decline this unblock request. --WinHunter (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)}

{unblock|1=I'm respectfully asking to be un-blocked again per confirmation that the user I engaged with is now a confirmed sock-puppet of a banned user. see details at ANI here where my unblocking or not is discussed and here about the banned user. The reason I want the unblock is not because of the time served I don't mind a break and I admit I was wrong in my behaviour, but I want the un-block to be registered because I WAS battling with a banned user and technically also didn't violate the WP:3RR and it's only right. Thank you.}


 * Removed your unblock requests, as the block should be expired by now. Mango juice talk 17:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Steve Hart now said this - this I don't understand. He's quoting a user saying "I'm not particularly interested in staring into Amoruso's soul. I'm interested in understanding the purported reason for the removal of material" - not sure why. In fact, what happened there was a user who was confused by the WP:AGF and what is almost a Personal attack of user:Zero0000 against me which is exactly what user:Steve Hart is doing right now. In fact, I replied to the user several times and explained the content dispute. I didn't revert either for a long time until I found another verifiable source for something in the issue, posted it, and there was a consencus about it and no wars or any problem. In fact, what Steve Hart quoted is an example of how things should probably work in wikipedia as they were discussed and explained and used sources and civil language (from me) and admitting of one's possible error etc. Strange - here are the replies. I It's also troubling that HE is accusing others (some of the most respected good standing wikipedians and adminstrators of wikipedia) of bias when he was involved in the edit-war I posted above and which constituted 90% or so from his edits in the last months before he seemingly took a break from wikipedia... Amoruso 09:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Huldra, sorry you read it that way, I did not talk about the first 3RR. When I said consencus etc I was talking about this 3RR. Cheers. Amoruso 09:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Alessandro Del Piero and the Catholic footballers category
he make The Sign of the Cross when he return from injury and also in the 2002 World Cup and many times after he scoring so please stop deleting from the Catholic footballers page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.139.194.147 (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

One by one respones to allegations of Steve Hart
I will reply one by one to the allegations made by user:Steve Hart here.


 * removing the flag of Lebanon from the article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Too bad Steve Hart didn't (hmm.) go a bit further and saw that the user who placed the Lebanon flag admitted he was mistaken. Lebanon wasn't a combatant in the conflict and therefore the flag was out of place. The editor who placed the flag removed it himself. 


 * page move, moving Sirhan Sirhan (militant) to Sirhan Sirhan (murderer)

Yes, I did. Murder is NOT WP:WTA as far as I know concerning someone who murdered a whole family. Perhaps Steve Hart can explain us how is such a person a militant ? A militant could belong to an organization like HAMAS or Islamic Jihad MAYBE but this person was acting SOLO. So perhaps Steve Hart wants us to change the definitons of Criminal Law ? This page was not a page in contention and no edit war or reverts took place.


 * deleting material properly sourced to BBC: [134], ABC News: [135], PBS, others; blanking text in references: [136]

Did I ? I would like to remind Steve Hart that Blanking = vandalism and that's harsh accusation incivil one and he should avoid that ASAP. This was according to policy, another banned user pushing this, not Timshifter apparently possibly (who got 3RR for this) but BlueDome (actually another sock-puppet of the banned user in question ) and policy explained here and here  by many users. User was acting against consensus of atleast 4 users in good standing.

none of the two example seem to be incivil. Actually, the Paranoia remark seems very light-hearted and a WP:LOVE behaviour if anything, just jokingly. If someone got offended by it, I'd apologise of course. In fact, like Steve Hart said I (wrongly it seems) was particulary civil to him too even though he deleted material of mine. Seems strange allegation. 
 * a tendency of being uncivil on talk pages, e.g. [139] [140]


 * consistently removing warnings on own talk page, e.g: [141] [142], including removing an olive branch response by one editor addressed not to him, but to a third editor.

Ah, the ol' "don't remove from your page" think. Have you looked on other user talk pages at any chance ? Are you seriously pushing this allegation ? Note that the alleged olive branch response was made by user:PalestineRemembered a user now banned for 1 month for disruptive behavoiour on people's user pages. Seems Hart is missing a whole lot of information here. The timeshifter allegation was addressed already above - it was completely inappropriate and therefore removed.


 * and finally, what I read, perhaps wrongfully...

Yes, you read that wrongfully. The topic on hand was how leads should be written for country articles. I suggested we try to reinstate some format into this in the name of WP:NPOV. I feel it's my right to discuss such issues with my fellow wikipedians at the project page ? There was no malice or ill-intent there, just concern to make Israel on par with other country articles.

Steve Hart notes that he was involved in a dispute with me back in August. That's true. In fact, this seems to be what it's all about. Steve Hart not just disputed but edit-warred over that page and reverted constantly and was also warned about it. He also wanted to ban me from the head-start which was almost a threat and perhaps a violation of WP:BITE - "Frankly, I'm not sure you will be allowed to edit for much longer if you are to go on like this" and didn't seem to be concerned of WP:NPOV issues. He says he already mentioned something bad about me in August right when I was a newbie but forgot to say I refuted his claims. Finally, his repeated violations of WP:AGF saying that other users are biased towards me for political reasons even though this has just been contradicted by a good faith editor who disagrees with my political opinions completely and utterly. Another proof of Steve Hart's agenda which revolved again over his war edit in August can be found again on this noticeboard. Steve Hart violated WP:CIVIL (I shall file him a complaint over that because it seems repetitve) by saying "Let me be perfectly clear: There's no reasoning with these guys. You will have better luck convincing a priest that God doesn't exist" and making sure we all realise his crusade "One day someone's going to write him up and report him, and he'll be gone. Not even WP's forgiving policy enforcement is going to save him" (see same edit). . Amoruso 11:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have pasted a copy of this reply on AN/I. If you object, please drop me a note and I'll remove it. -- Steve Hart 13:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. user:Patstuart, if you're reading this, I suggest you look at some of the articles I created which had nothing to do with the conflict and had to do with places in Israel or footballers and other issues. A single purpose account is offensive and in contradiction to about a dozen comments on that page who seem to think very differnetly from you. Amoruso 18:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

re: David's Tomb copyedit
Yeah, I did what I could with what was there. I don't have access to much in the way of citable documentation with which to expand the article, but I'm more than happy to help out with touchups whenever possible. כול טוב, Tom e rtalk 08:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome template
, feel free to improve. FrummerThanThou 02:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Massacres commited by Israli Forces
I reverted your redirect on this article since someone will just come along and revert it again and you've had enough trouble with 3RR. I've listed it for deletion, and hopefully it will be prevented from recreation. If you would still rather see it redirected, leave your comments at the deletion entry. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 19:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"You totally misread that"
Eh? Sorry, but I do not follow you here.. ...just which discussion(s)/comments are you talking about? (A few diffs would be a great help...) Regards, Huldra 20:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

re: Per my talk
I'm sorry you felt that way and I hope you change your opinion in the future. While a lot of my edits have involved support of Israel of course in conflict related articles, I feel that I also contributed in many non conflict articles about Israel and other issues like footballers and it's not just "one purpose" which sounds offensive to me. Anyway, I hope you'll feel better of me at some point or another. Cheers, Amoruso 11:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thanks for your response. You are completely correct; I pushed too hard in this situation, and I should have, at least, said something to your talk page first. I am sorry, I was too quick to judge; I can only ask your forgiveness for this offense. I hope you can continue to be a good editor for Wikipedia. Patstuarttalk 18:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein
Have your say on Fink's say about Joan Peter's say! Ta! frummer 08:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades suicide attacks
In case you hadn't noticed, List of Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades suicide attacks (and several articles on related topics) has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 00:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

deletion alert
The page you have edited  List of Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades suicide attacks, and some related pages,  has been listed for proposed deletion. I have removed the deletion tag in order that there can be a full discussion., It will undoubtedly be listed on AfD within the next day or two. I take no position on the issue; I de-prod any page where I think may involve religious or political controversy to avoid possible bias by having a fuller discussion.DGG 01:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Birthright Israel

 * Hey, I thought I has posted here to ask for your help, but I guess not. Anyways, there's an anon user at the Birthright page adding an extremely PoV "Controversy" section making totally outlandish claims. I came up with a compromise section, but the anon refuses to budget. Would you please weigh in on the issue? Thanks. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 21:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Synagogues by country
Hi Amoruso: I noticed you created Category:Synagogues in Australia that does not have any articles put into the category. The basic rule is that categories should not be created if there are no articles that go into them. Empty categories are frequently put up for deletion as "empty or orphaned categories" so not only only are you wasting your efforts but you creating false impressions by creating "ghost categories" that should not exist. IZAK 07:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This seems to be from August but my guess is that it wasn't empty before, i probably stumbled upon an article about an Australian synagogue and created the list, then that article was removed from the category/deleted. Amoruso 20:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is OR
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_exodus&diff=97293686&oldid=96850465 see talk. Zeq 08:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments" - ya right. 89.1.181.22 07:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Kavod HaBriyot#Requesting Comments
See: Talk:Kavod HaBriyot. Thanks, IZAK 02:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration
Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 03:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Operation Wooden Leg
since i do not really edit here, please feel free to fix the last edit of Operation Wooden Leg which is anti israel. thanks.Tushyk 21:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In Jerusalem and into Fort Minor?
So you live in Jerusalem and you're a fan to Fort Minor? Nice :) - Qasamaan 00:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR on Bernadotte
Amoruso, I've reported you for 3RR on the Bernadotte article Administrators' noticeboard/3RR While you have not violated the letter of the rule, the rule does not grant 3 reverts every 24 hours, which is what you appear to be doing.

Discussion is more than putting a message on the talk page showing why you think you are correct, and following that with a revert. My sense is that if you revert yourself and come to the talk page to actually talk (not just to provide cover for a revert) a block will be less likely. Jd2718 15:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * you have been "guilty" of many reverts on this page  . I find your behaviour strange. It does not look well on you. You seem not to have acted in good faith here and you may deserve a ban or atleast a warning for this report IMO. Cheers, Amoruso 16:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Amoruso, I see on Dmcdevit's talk page that you will be leaving the article alone for a bit. I will too, though I may continue on the talk page. I hope you join me there, so we can improve this article.


 * In the meantime, I do have a request. In the heat of the argument you seem to have connected me to bad faith and to slander. Those are fairly serious things to say. In the future can I ask you to be careful about using them? Jd2718 17:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting, are you suggesting that you and Mackan79 are the same person ? Because I was replying to him that it's a possible slander to call Regev what he did. And no, reporting like you did + the fact you got the warning proves unforuntately that it wasn't a good faith report, I hope you refrain from that in the future. Cheers, Amoruso 17:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You know full well that we received identical warnings for edit-warring, not for anything else. Yet I note that again you have accused me of bad faith (you claim that it is proved!) (immediately above), and again I'd ask you to be careful about throwing around accusations of bad faith. Jd2718 17:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So you find it acceptable behavior to report something and then get warned for the same thing you reported ? Please don't accuse me of throwing around accusations. Amoruso 17:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to ask you not to accuse me of bad faith. I reported what I thought was correct, an admin disagreed, and instead warned all of us equally. I'd ask you to review WP:Civil and look over the examples of petty incivility. Jd2718 18:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I find it uncivil actually to accuse me of incivility when I was being very polite actually. I hope you follow your own advice of AGF. Amoruso 18:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring
You've made 3 reverts in 24 hours at Folke Bernadotte. I know that you are an experienced editor and you know that edit warring is unacceptable. It fosters bad feelings and prevents proper resolution. You ought to be using dispute resolution like mediation when in a conflict, not aggressively edit warring. Dmcdevit·t 17:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If I want your opinion, I will ask for it. The request was not for you in the first place, but for Dmcdevit.  Don't try to act innocent as from what I saw, you were just as guilty of edit warring. MetsFan76 18:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I don't need your permission MetsFan76 to comment on what I like. Cheers, Amoruso 19:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And with all due respect, don't add more fuel to the fire. I'm trying to help out Mackan79 and your comments are not necessary.  Considering that you were guilty of edit warring as well, maybe the best things for you to do is simmer down. MetsFan76 19:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I find it odd you're trying to help someone who violated a direct warning though. Amoruso 19:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I help friends out when I can, though I know I'm limited in what I can do. But what pissed me off is that you saw I'm trying to help him out and you added your two cents.  Don't you think this is childish? MetsFan76 19:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, and please refrain from using those words in my discussion page or I'll remove them. Recruiting people to influence an adminstrator because you're "his friend" is disturbing. Amoruso 19:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove what you want. And who did I recruit??  Mackan79 asked me to inform one person about what occurred.  I didn't ask that person to respond to the admin.  Watch the allegations ok? MetsFan76 19:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop adding this kind of material to my discussion page, i'm not interested. Amoruso 19:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Swastik removal
Hi, you stated that Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hinduism only dealt with the welcome template. You are right in that now everyone is only trying acheive consensus on the welcome template, because it is much more difficult to reach consensus on the others at the moment. If you look in the archives, you will realise that the first part of the discussion dealt with all them and many of the Hindu editors objected strongly on the article templates but compromised with those sympathetic with the Jews etc. that an explanation of the Swastik can be given to prevent further misunderstandings. Also, it has been shown again and again that the most holy symbol in Hinduism is the Swastik and not the Aum which is a syllable. The reverse is actually true, more people are supprting the removal of the Swastik on the welcome template than the article templates. Please read the entire discussion (I know its long!) to get a solid understanding of the situation. Thank you GizzaChat  &#169; 02:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

FCBJ.jpg removed from your user page
An image or media file, Image:FCBJ.jpg, has been removed from your userpage or user talk page because it was licensed as fair use. Wikipedia's fair use policy states that fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. As a result, although users are often given a great amount of latitude in the type of content that is allowed on their user pages, it is requested that you abide by this policy. Feel free, however, to add images and media files licensed under other terms. For more information, see Wikipedia's fair use policy and an accompanying essay on the removal of fair use images. Thank you for your cooperation.

Two other fair-use images were removed as well. --  tariq abjotu  23:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your input is requested at Israeli-Palestinian conflict
As you have helpfully improved this article in the past, I'd like your input in the debate at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict. User:Benjiwolf claims that the following assertions should be in the main article: --GHcool 06:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The Israelis and Palestinians "share much in common." I think this is misleading since they have two completely distinct cultures.
 * 2) "The conflict has complicated ancient roots." I think the statement is misleading and suggests that there was an Israeli-Palestinian (or Jewish-Arab) conflict over land in ancient times.
 * 3) The early Zionists "expressed their desire to re-create a state for the Jewish people." I think the word "create" was more accurate.

My RfA
Just a quick note to say thanks for your support in my RfA. I've withdrawn, as I want to pay attention to some of the advice I received. Thanks again. Jakew 19:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Kippur.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Kippur.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 12:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dflplogo.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dflplogo.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 00:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You recent edits to Shebaa farms
Hi Amoruso. I noticed that you changed the introduction sentence of this article to include Israel: "The Shebaa Farms is a small area of disputed ownership located at the border of Israel, Syria and Lebanon." My question is whether this is accurate. The reason I ask is because the map on the articles page doesn't show the region extending to the Israeli border. Thoughts? — George Saliba[ talk ] 03:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again Amoruso. I'm guessing you're out. What do you think of changing this to "The Shebaa Farms is a small area of disputed ownership located at the border between Lebanon and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights."? Is that neutral and accurate do you think? Cheers. — George Saliba[ talk ] 09:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again. Since I didn't hear back from you in the last three days, I've gone ahead and made this change. I also added Syria at the end, producing what I believe is an accurate representation of the dispute while including all three countries (which I think was your intended meaning). The new sentence reads: "The Shebaa Farms is a small area of disputed ownership located at the border between Lebanon and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights in Syria." If you have any concerns with this wording, please feel free to drop by my Talk page. Cheers. — George Saliba[ talk ] 07:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries. Zeq was unhappy with this wording (specifically the "in Syria" part is disputed I guess), but was also ok with the vaguer wording currently in the page, which works for me as well. Cheers. — George Saliba[ talk ] 01:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

in what way did I misunderstand the policy?
Abu ali 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * in the way that it's of no way disproportionate nor is it defaming the figures in any way. Amoruso 00:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that, you will have to do better than that. Abu ali 00:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You haven't provided any argument on how this is a malicious content. It is relevant factual information. Please don't remove it again. Cheers, Amoruso 00:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it relevant factual information, but this association has been noted by many reliable sources, which are themselves cited in the article. Jayjg (talk) 06:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew-English translation request
Shalom aleichem... I'm doing some work on the Jerusalem article in the hopes of bringing it up the featured status. Although I've been taking a break from the article in the past couple weeks, I went to continue where I left off. In particular, I reached a roadblock at the Demographics section of the article because a major source (a document from the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics) is entirely in Hebrew. I have searched for an English translation and have yet to find one. However, I see, according to your user page, that you are fluent in Hebrew and decently-skilled in English. So, I was wondering if you could translate the document or, if that's too time-consuming (I have a feeling it might be), just pick out the important facts and add them to the Jerusalem article as well as confirm the figures already mentioned in the article. If you don't have the time to do that, that is perfectly fine; just let me know. Thanks in advance. --  tariq abjotu  07:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Request
Shalom. Can you please translate copyright tag from HE Wikipedia regarding image of Rehavam Zeevi ? Image:Zeevi rehavam.jpg So it can be saved from deletion. Thank you. - Darwinek 09:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

WP Israel Rating System/Template
Hi Amoruso, I want to put together an article improvement drive, but don't know the technical stuff behind updating the template to allow for imputs (ie rating, importance.) If you are able, could you put that together? If not, your imput is appreciated on the subpage, it is linked from the top of the project talk page. Thanks. --יהושועEric 16:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Is-map.PNG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Is-map.PNG, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ChrisO 19:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind - turns out the image was transferred to the Wikimedia Commons yesterday, so our local copy was just a duplicate. It's been speedily deleted now (but please note that the image hasn't gone away - there's now just one master copy of it available to all Wikipedias). -- ChrisO 22:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Question
What is the Hebrew name for Israeli salad and what does it mean in English? I'm trying to make a 'general' article for this type of salad by centralizing Salad Shirazi and Choban salad. I'm not sure if 'Israeli salad' is really the most common name for this type of salad; while the other two definitely aren't more common, I think I've seen something like "village salad" at Lebanese restaurants for this kind of salad, so that may be its standard English name. Maybe I'm just confused. Thanks in advance for any help. The Behnam 20:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

land day
According to the history of this page you were the one who added the fact that people used molotov cocktails. I wonder if you have a source for this fact.Histolo2 11:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 19:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Revision in Palestinian exodus
I removed the recently introduced subsection because the first quote had nothing to do with the section topic (2.1 The "Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" Theory) and because the second quote refers to information already present in other parts of the article and also has nothing to do with the section topic. If you have a good reason for including this material, please either state it in your edit summary or post it on the talk page. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 14:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring
Amoruso, please read WP:CON carefully. You are constantly adding material and when it is disputed and removed, you consistently re-add it. New material that is disputed should be discussed and a consensus should be reached before you can add it again. This constant edit-warring is disrupting the work on Wikipedia's Middle East articles and I urge you to abide by the policy and patiently build consensus. Everything you revert can be reverted back until the article gets blocked or the people involved may find themsleves being scrutinized.--Doron 16:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely you don't expect that everything you add to an article would automatically be accepted by the entire community, do you? I mean, half of what gets reverted on Wikipedia is sheer vandalism (which, of course, does not refer to your contributions), so it is very often necessary to revert edits that are not acceptable, and I'm sorry to say that I often find your contributions inappropriate. Anyway, whenever an edit gets reverted, the next step is to discuss it in the talk page, not restore it. In the talk page you can find out what exactly is so objectable in your edit and try to convince the other party why it is appropriate and perhaps build a compromise. I've seen it work hundreds of times in Wikipedia, this is the Wikipedia way. By re-adding the material without building consensus around it you are only preparing the ground for yet another revert and an edit war commences. Ultimately, the page gets blocked. This whole process is very disruptive to Wikipedia's stability and to other editors' work, not to mention that it is futile. My suggestions are not just a recommendation, they are binding Wikipedia policy.
 * I have never claimed I own an article, I would revert an edit that I find objectable anywhere on Wikipedia just as I'm sure you would. As we shall discuss in the appropriate talk pages, what you consider "sourced material" is not necessarily what other people consider it to be.--Doron 05:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not familar with the specifics here, but I do wonder if this might be a helpful reminder regarding material added by an editor? -Doright 06:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
 * Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
 * If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
 * If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.
 * Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
 * Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Assume_good_faith.
 * Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
 * There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Neutral point of view/FAQ
 * Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.


 * Indeed these guidelines are correct. I hope Doron realises that he should stop reverting. Doron, I'm not interested in playing games with you. You obviously depsite denying it feel ownership of articles like Golan Heights even though your contributions to these articles have been minimal. Other than reverting, you should follow guidelines set above by Doright. Thank you very much for that Doright. Amoruso 13:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Gideo Levy
May I draw your attention to WP:BLP. According to this policy: Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception. Please stop adding the link to hirhome.com.--Doron 13:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal threat?
Please don't make phony accusations. A personal threat is a threat to one's person. No-one is threatening your person.

I'm simply putting you on notice that I would regard your proposed page move as yet another episode in a pattern of disruption and would seek to have you disciplined for it. Here we are supposedly trying to resolve a dispute and your response is to announce an intention to escalate it. That is anything but helpful.

While I've seen little evidence up to now of a willingness to compromise on your part, I feel obliged to ask you to at least try to work productively with other editors in seeking a resolution of this dispute. Thanks, Gatoclass 01:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong to propose name changes - talking the way you did about it is inappropriate and constitues a bad faith threat, which is empty of course. Amoruso 15:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply re Mandate
Thanks, I replied on my talk page and email. Did you get it? -Doright 19:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please:
Could you decipher what reads the hebrew script on this Qassam rocket. The information could be used on the article. Thanks, -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 21:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Palestine
There seem to be an anti-israeli group of users, who put WikiProject Palestine infobox at the top of every Talk page of every place in Israel, creating a false impression of "palestinian" identity and possible arab "connection" to these places. Funny I don't see WikiProject Israel infobox on the extremely biased pages describing arab settlements (take a look at Ramallah:). I've erased this infobox in 2 places (talk pages of Talk:Giv'at Ze'ev and Talk:Matte Binyamin Regional Council), which of course was reverted almost immediately by the venerable User:Ian Pitchford (Does this guy ever work? If I had over 20K wikipedia edits I would probably be fired). I see you've had some history fighting arab nationalism on wikipedia, what would be the most effective strategy on this? Ivan Pitchfork 12:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Convoy of 35
Amoruso, I have come up with new information about the Convoy of 35 (see Talk:Convoy_of_35). I would like to know your opinion before my next steps towards resolving this dispute. Thanks, --Doron 19:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Alaqsalogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Alaqsalogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 21:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC concerning my conduct related to Gary Weiss issues
Hi Amoruso! I've just opened an RfC on myself for my conduct in a dispute that you were involved with concerning the Gary Weiss article. The RfC is located here and I welcome your comments or questions. CLA 21:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pflp-gc-logo.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Pflp-gc-logo.JPG. I notice the image 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. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 06:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning
Thanks for the warning. May I remind you again that building consensus about article contents is required by official Wikipedia policy. The relevancy of this newly added material is disputed, and we should build consensus before we can accept any part of it into the article. Why don't you contribute to the discussion rather than revert? You know, anyone can revert back, this only leads to more and more reverts and ultimately to edit wars. Your approach is futile, why not try discussing for a change?--Doron 14:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources is not the only criterion for inclusion of Wikipedia contents. There is no rule against removing material, even if it is well-sourced, and if there is such a rule, please point it out.--Doron 15:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you can't find such a rule?--Doron 16:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI Alithien 19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

wlcome back
FYI: Zeq 16:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Paper-clip-book.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Paper-clip-book.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note
Happy to oblige; I try to do my part. Appreciate hearing from you. Kol tuv, Hertz1888 17:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Article edits
Hi. I'd appreciate it if you could please go to Talk:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict, and leave your comments there, hopefully in support of my comments towards restoring an NPOV. This article is currently edit-protected due to edit warring. We would appreciate your help. thanks. --Sm8900 20:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian Arabs versus Palestinian People
I need your help. I renamed the "Palestinian people" page to "Palestinian Arabs" to remove an injustice of having the article named with a POV. Those that are interested in keeping that POV reverted my change. I want to do this the correct way and I need your help. Thank you. Itzse 20:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please move your vote, also to the support paragraph so that I shouldn’t be accused of moving someone else's comments out of context. Thanks, it's greatly appreciated. Itzse 16:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD
Following your recent participation in Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian right of return
Happy to be of service. Also nice to get a note thanking rather than criticizing or soliciting. The intro has bounced back and forth a few more times since my first revert, and I just made some further changes to the intro, both to try to compromise the language and improve the wording. I suspect there may be some objections. :) 6SJ7 17:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote on Talk:Jerusalem
A statement has been made that you apparently intentionally misquoted a UK government position statement in the course of an argument on Talk:Jerusalem. This was raised on the Administrators Noticeboard for Incidents, though it's not clear that an actual policy issue is pending.

However, there is a valid question here as to whether you were aware that your quote there was accurate or not. You should respond on Talk:Jerusalem and explain your source for the quote, where the additional verbage came from in your version.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 19:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The quote was accurate. Amoruso 21:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Amoruso - I didn't know you were faced with an AN/I, but I did have some concerns about what happened at Patria, as a result of which I took "Should integrity be a key attribute in an editor?" to RfC. PalestineRemembered 21:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That made me laugh, thanks. Amoruso 21:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)