User talk:Canadian Monkey

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! - Darwinek (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Elmasry
Uttering threats is a criminal code offence and we can't casually be accusing people of that since it's a violation of BLP. The "death threat" accusation is not a generally held view as is suggested by the sentence in question but a view expressed by Tarek Fatah who said that being declared anti-Islam is "tanatamount" to a death threat. Not quite the same thing. Taken out of context misrepresents the issue. As for supporting Hamas I don't see any sources for that in the article. Please read WP:BLP, we need to err on the side of caution and not engage in hyperbole or use biographical articles as attack pieces. Reggie Perrin (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have clarified who is making that accusation, so it doesn't appear that it is "we". I'll add sources for his support of Hamas shortly. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address this problem - there was an authoritative rebuttal to Fatah's claim that was parsed out. The news source for that also had this quotation from Professor Leonard Librande, professor of religion at Carleton University, in regards to Elmasry's comments and Fatah's characterization of them as a "death threat": "There's nothing particularly Islamic in this... There are differences of opinion frequently in the community. It doesn't mean somebody is going to kill you." I've added this to the section on Tarek Fatah - we cannot parse this out and use it to accuse Elmasry of uttering death threats (particularly when his comment was not "I'm going to kill you" or "someone should kill you" or "you should die" but simply a comment that Fatah is in opposition to Islam.) Saying that is a death threat is pure interpretation and there's no reason to have this information twice - once in the opening section and again in the section on Fatah. If there were multiple accusations or an authoritative source, ok, but Fatah's interpretation is not sufficient, particularly when once considers the subjective relationship between the two men.
 * fair enough. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Or rather, welcome back. May I ask, what was the username of your first account? Do you still use it? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 05:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been editing for a while without a named account. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are clearly not a newbie. Might I ask what articles you edited before getting an account?  T i a m u t talk 03:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I worked on the CISCO Certis article, as well as Turducken, among others. Why? Canadian Monkey (talk)
 * I'm just curious actually, since I noticed you editing many Palestine/Arab-related articles, such as Shuafat, Palestinian archaeology, and Mohamed Elmasry. I was wondering if we had crossed paths at those kinds of articles before. Or is your interest in this subject matter new?  T i a m u t talk 09:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I edit a few Arab-related articles, as well as a few Gaelic sports articles, and a few airport related articles. I don't believe our paths have crossed before. Canadian Monkey (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean of course, with the exception of our interaction at Shuafat where you deleted information on the psychological effects of settler violence on the children there, citing it as anecdotal. Our only two interactions so far have been you seeking to delete things I add, and I trying to defend their inclusion. (No offense.) Here's hoping that one day our soon our editing relationship will acutally involve building upon one another's edits, rather than trying to cancel each other out. :)  T i a m u t talk 12:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Our interaction at Shuafat involved me educating you about some very basic historical facts about the region (that Jordan annexed all of the West Bank after it occupied it in 1948). I hope you can indeed build upon this new knowledge. Canadian Monkey (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then, thank you very much for the education and happy happy editing!  T i a m u t talk 13:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Ouze Merham
Please join in the discussion there and lets try to develop a consensus on how to handle the text. Right now, you're using highly partisan unreliable sources which is clearly at odds with WP:BLP. Shell babelfish 18:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have participated on talk, addressed your concerns, and my comment there predates your message above. It seems you did not bother to read my talk comment before posting to my talk page and blindly deleting sourced material for the article. please don't do that again. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Unit 101
Hey, thanks for the rewrite to Unit 101. The NPoV is doing better now =) Jacotto (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Let me know if there are other articles I can improve. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey, thanks for taking the time to source my recent contributions to the Cyberstalking article, that were deleted by User:Calton. I don't think the irony of his deletions on that article, in particular, is lost on anyone! Lol! Anyway, thanks for your help. It is much appreciated. MegaMom (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The actual irony is that User:MegaMom is clearly a sockpuppet of User:Wyatt Ehrenfels, a crank psychologist who calls himself "Wyatt Ehrenfels", who spams the Web trying to sell his vanity-press book about with his crackpot theories regarding "cyberstalking", and who apparently feels it's okay to engage in a bit of it himself by blindly reverting my edits. --Calton | Talk 05:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What "proof" are you looking for regarding User:MegaMom and Wyatt Ehrenfels, fingerprints and DNA? It's called "circumstantial evidence"; namely User:MegaMom's sudden unsolicited appearance in an unrelated dispute on WP:AN/I repeating Wyatt's original nutty paranoia and adding some bizarre claims about how I mistreated "her" child.


 * For some nutty paranoid goodness so you can compare, see this bizarre page of Wyatt's.


 * As far as I'm concerned, this passes the duck test, and I will continue to treat this character like the obvious sockpuppet/meatpuppet he/she is. --Calton | Talk 17:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wyatt Ehrenfels reality check
Since I already dumped this on someone else's talk page:


 * As for the history of Wyatt's SEO campaign on Wikipedia, some pointers:


 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive80 - a brief wrap-up of his activities -- including his attempts to out my personal identity
 * Articles for deletion/Gang stalking - One of Wyatt's pet theories.
 * Articles for deletion/Sci.psychology.psychotherapy and the talk page- attempts to hijack this title for his theories (This newsgroup has no FAQ on faqs.org, and I cannot find any other secondary source material apart from material which is from the same single author (User:Wyatt Ehrenfels (talk · contribs), see above) as this article is. Delete. User:Uncle G)
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tai Streets/Gang stalking - attempts to hide his article in User space.
 * Articles for deletion/Alt.usenet.kooks - attempts to get Alt.usenet.kooks deleted as "libel". Note anon IP article edits around the time of the AFD such as this and this
 * Talk:Dream/Archive 1 - Wyatt tries to shoehorn in his crackpot theories into Dream. Includes some classic Ehrenfels paranoia and details of his vanity-press publications (...it's not only a vanity press, it's a vanity press with a bad reputation even among other vanity presses [as even a cursory search would turn up]).
 * Talk:Cyberstalking - attempts to hijack this article. Note especially the contributions of sockpuppet
 * User:MegaMom had -- what? -- less than 350 edits over those nine months before popping up at AN/I to start retailing, verbatim, Wyatt's bizarre little conspiracy theories about me, along with some bogus -- and completely evidence-free, of course -- nonsense about how I was harassing "her" "son" on Wikipedia. The duck test applies, in spades: User:MegaMom is a User:Wyatt Ehrenfels sockpuppet or, at best, meatpuppet, and I'm not going to start pretending the sky is green when it clearly isn't. --Calton | Talk 17:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * User:MegaMom had -- what? -- less than 350 edits over those nine months before popping up at AN/I to start retailing, verbatim, Wyatt's bizarre little conspiracy theories about me, along with some bogus -- and completely evidence-free, of course -- nonsense about how I was harassing "her" "son" on Wikipedia. The duck test applies, in spades: User:MegaMom is a User:Wyatt Ehrenfels sockpuppet or, at best, meatpuppet, and I'm not going to start pretending the sky is green when it clearly isn't. --Calton | Talk 17:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Demon Strings
A tag has been placed on Demon Strings requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please take no offense. Basketball one ten  17:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Wyatt Ehrenfels
Hiya - I see you've reverted Calton's re-insertion of the page. He and I had discussed it on his talk page and reached what I think was a bit of a compromise. I have reinserted the tag, but amended the wording slightly - could you confirm you're okay with how the page stands now? Thanks! Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 21:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge tag
Hi there. You placed a merge tag on Palestinian archaeology, suggesting it be incorporated into Biblical archaeology. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the fields, but many would object to viewing them as one in the same. Further, those who do view them as part of the same continuum would argue that Biblical archaeology ceased to exist and has been replaced by "Palestnian archaeology" or what some scholars call "Syro-Palestinian archaeology". I'd like to ask you to remove the merge tag, or at the very least append it to the Biblical archaeology article, suggesting its merger into the newer article; that is, if you insist on viewing the two concept as related, since most researchers in the field today reject being called Biblical archaeologists. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 21:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm waiting for you replies at the talk page.  T i a m u t talk 21:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And I've replied there - which is the logical place to continue this discussion. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, except that I've replied to your reply, expanded the article with more reliable sources attesting to the distinction between Biblical archaeology and Palestinian archaeology, and removed the merge tag, which you now (immediately, I might add) restored, without responding (immediately) to my talk comments. What gives?  T i a m u t talk 02:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * After feedback from the RfC, I've changed the article title to Syro-Palestinian archaeology and reworked the introduction to reflect that. I'm waiting for you to agree that the merger tag can now be removed so that the article can be nominated for a DYK. Your prompt response would be appreciated, given the 5-day limit for new articles to be nominated.  T i a m u t talk 14:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think with that title it could work. The article still seems unbalanced - with a very strong emphasis on work by Palestinian archaeologists and minimal details about biblical and Israeli archeology, but that can be fixed. I'll remove the tag. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny you would mention that ... I purposely avoided adding material on Biblical archaeology and Archaeology of Israel because of your request for a merger. I was trying to avoid overlap. Now that you've withdrawn the request, I will quite happily add more information, particularly on the latter which is covered only sparsely. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Monkey, this edit was very poor form on your part. Not only did you make a wholesale revert to your version of this section, but you ignored my previous request to paste any sourced material that you think should be deleted from the article on the talk page for discussion before engaging in deletions. You deleted all the information I added about the Palestinian POV and the POVs of other Israeli archaeologists, and you did so while the article was being featured on the main page, without regard to the work I did trying to incorporate the material you added with scholarly material I found that provides better context. I am deeply disappointed and have expressed that disappointment on the talk page, where I am waiting for a detailed explanation of your actions. I must say that this, combined with your attempts to undermine this article from the outset (by placing an inappropriate merge tag on its first day in existence) make it very hard for me to assume good faith.  T i a m u t talk 21:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice of editing restriction
As a result of an Arbitration case, Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, all articles related to Israel and Palestine and related disputes are placed under broad discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. At this stage, you are only being informed of the existence of the arbitration case and that sanctions could be applied. Addhoc (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

article note
Good to have your input at the new archaeology article. i haven;t followed this in depth, but please keep me posted on the discussion as it progresses. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Syro-Palestinian archaeology
I'd like to hear your response to this, among other points I have raised on the talk page. Consistency in the application of criteria is important to ensuring WP:NPOV. The inconsistencies apparent in your application of WP:RS, among other things, lead me to wonder if your objections to the inclusion of certain material rests solely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Accordingly, I've restored some of the material in question and ask that you do not delete it again without detailing how it is unacceptable and/or differs from the other material of the same type that you insist on including. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 16:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have notified you on the talk that I will be reporting you to WP:AE, unless you self-revert the changes you made to the section on "Challenges posed by the Arab-Israeli conflict" . Considering my good faith effort to meet your concerns on the talk page and my removal of the information regarding the status of the Golan Heights as occupied, all of which met with no response from you, this edit is totally unacceptable.  T i a m u t talk 16:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This comment on my talk page where you refer to above comment as a "threat" is uncalled for. I am giving you a fair warning that I view your editing at that page to be disruptive. It was good of you to re-add the Golan Heights as you did in this edit just now. Clearly, that is an acknowledgement that your edit removing that information was inappropriate. I am still waiting for a response to a number of other issues on the talk page and would to like to discuss that issue with you further, since it's still not clear to me that the site is in indeed inside Israel proper and that suggestion remains at the top of that section, per your previous edit. I do understand however that you have to go to work. So I'll be expecting to hear from you later. Do be aware however, that I am very serious about this warning, and I expect that when you return to editing, you will give plenty of consideration to the unanswered issues I have raised regarding your edits on the talk page there before continuing to make edits without regard to discussion. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 17:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: World Heritage
CM, I already explained this in detail on Talk:List of World Heritage Sites in the Arab States, but I'm dropping you this note to ask that you please not remove cited content without carefully reading the references. Absolutely everything about the way I've listed "Jerusalem" is 100% in line with the UNESCO listing. I would really rather be improving WP with new content than cleaning up after these pointless drive-by reverts. This isn't a case of my-POV-versus-yours, or a matter of opinion, but simply presenting the UNESCO information in the way it's given to us. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 03:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Please stop making threats against other editors or I will report you at WP:ANI. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Canadian Monkey, your conduct on Talk:Joseph Massad has recently been poor. If you include content, and this content is removed, because of concerns about neutrality or sourcing, then you should attempt to find a compromise. If you call editors vandals, who have removed content using an edit summary, and provided further explanation on the talk page, then you are not assuming good faith. If editors suggest that under these circumstances that you should assume good faith, then you can't dismiss these comments as personal attacks. Editors who are being cautious about allowing what they view as excessive criticism in a biography of a living person should be treated with respect, even if you strongly disagree. Also, remember that you have been notified of article probation that covers articles related to the Israel - Palestinian conflict. Addhoc (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Please try not to bite the newbies.  These edits to Indira Naidoo certainly weren't "vandalism" as you said in your edit summary. FiggyBee (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

pcca
Were having a major vandalism problem over there. Would you mind posting a request for partial protection, I tried but did it wrong. Thanks. Saksjn (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on things. We've had several users banned in the past, but they keep popping up as new names. The only way to completely stop it would be a IP block for PCCA, where most of the edits come from. But I really don't want that to happen because that would block me as well. Saksjn (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes
I have commented on your revert of my edit on the talk page. I have not restored it - I'll be cautious given that this is a BLP - but I do believe "controversial" is well justified both by the source I cited and other information in the article.

I've done a great deal of work on the article over the last couple of days. It had a bad problem with quasi-plagiaristic failure to include quotation marks, and a messy coatrack-y "praise, criticism, & controversies" section. I've attempted to improve it both stylistically and content-wise. If you have an interest in the subject, perhaps you could take a look beyond the intro and let me know what else you think needs doing.

Kalkin (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Pallywood
I think you are partly correct on the page, however, the circumstances made it so that I am uncertain if I wish to post any further on it's talk page at present time. I don't think you should remove 'conservative' though until you list down some basic non-conservatives who use the term on the talk page. Cheers,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  17:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Operation Defensive Shield

 * Just to clarify, in adding that heading I was not myself intending to imply that attacks on cafes in Israel are attacks on military targets. Though I can see how it could come across that way. As I am sure you know, just as some people consider all Israeli civilians killed over the Green Line military targets due to universal conscription, so too others consider all Palestinian civilians killed over the green line potential terrorists. But perhaps just labelling this "violence" is a less loaded way to go.
 * I still think a solution needs to be found for the heading - a solid paragraph on violence, solely against Israeli civilians, under the heading "Background" is also misleading and needs to be balanced. If only the violence were all one-way...but it has not been, and to present it as such is to offer the public an inaccurate entry. I was expecting that those who had inserted old info on attacks on Palestinian towns would step up to the plate, but they didn't. I may have to go in and find deleted info in the archives.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Little Green Footballs
Just so you know, I've written Eleland and Timeshifter up at AN/I. McJeff (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * He actually did accuse you of being a sockpuppet, specifically one that was "previously banned from Wikiproject Palestine". I added that diff to the AN/I, as well as a bit in regards to his trying to force inclusion of that "Johnson's views are disputed" line. McJeff (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

have you read the verdict ? The court did examine the facts + heard evidence on the case. It was not just a "freedom of speech" issue. To claim what he claimed Karsenty had to pass beyond "conspiracy theory" and present a credible challenge to the "facts" as presented by France-2. France 2 tried (and failed) to prove that what it showed is the truth. Karsenty words are indeed very negative to the reputation of France-2 – the court would not allow that if it was without merit and based on facts. --Julia1987 (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to tell you -- nice job collecting material on the various mainstream media that said that Al-Dura was a hoax. Excellent. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
As a result of the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to Israel, Palestine, and related conflicts. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described below.


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

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

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

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Demographics of Israel
As I've set out in talk there, I think the proposed text should be reinstated, because as far as I can see
 * 1) The text you removed is, as far as I can see, entirely factually uncontroversial.  I am at a loss to see what it is you assert to be incorrect.
 * 2) The proposed alternative is not neutral, but is worded in a way expressed to further a particular point of view.

If there are specific issues you do identify, please cite them in talk. But for the moment, I think it's appropriate to revert it back to its state as left it before today (bar a couple of typos). Jheald (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested
in what seems to me to be one admin trolling for another uninvolved admin to impose sanctions on us in connection with the above warning.  Note the prejudicial manner in which we are being characterised. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO's notifications
The notifications are indeed disturbing - the fact that, as a highly involved admin, he made them in the first place, his one-sided application of the warnings, and his choice of wording which appears to frame legitimate content disputes as behavioral issues. That said, tit-for-tat notifications aren't the way to go here; I've challenged his notifications on the appropriate page, and I've let the others know that, as an involved admin, he cannot take action against them. Jayjg (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Other POV editing of interest
Hi Canadian Monkey,

I realise you're not an admin or anything, but you seem to be dealing with some of the same bias issues I've been seeing I thought I'd draw your attention to this just in case you hadn't seen it. I'm still trying to work out how to do something about it. I spent 13 hours putting together the documentation, but now can't seem to get anyone to tell me how I get it considered and action taken. It's all rather frustrating. Anyway, keep up the good work you do, and I hope you at least find this interesting. Oboler (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. Given what I added in evidence was doen at the end of the case and not directly related to it... perhaps that was the wrong place for it to be considered. In any event it is not related to the amnesty in this case (which is limited to members of the group) so it could be investiagted seperately. I just don't know how to make that happen. Thanks for reading through it all though, and for your fast reply. :) Lets hope someone takes it up. If not wikipedia will be left the poorer. Oboler (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Request
Can you enable your email? Or send me one? There is something of a delicate nature I'd like to communicate with you about. No worries if you don't feel comfortable doing that. IronDuke 23:43, 6  June 2008 (UTC)

Israel Article
We both can't fix that, so you fix it. Thanks Beam 02:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The footnote beside the "capital" line clearly says that the status of Jerusalem as Israel's capital is disputed so how can you claim that saying this explicitly is "original research" or "POV"? Pretending that there is no dispute over Jerusalem's status is biased. Strongbrow (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tone
Hiya, as I'm trying to help out as an uninvolved admin at the al-Durrah article, one of my priorities is to de-escalate the tension on the talkpage. As such, I am asking all participants to avoid use of the words "you" and "your". Could you please try, even as just an intellectual exercise, to do this? I really think it would help to stabilize things, if everyone were as civil as possible. Thanks, Elonka 23:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nudge #2: Please avoid comments like this, saying "you're a little confused".  These kinds of comments tend to just escalate things on the talkpage. Please, I'm not saying whether the statement is right or wrong, but please try to change how things are said. Thanks, Elonka 00:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Good job
I've been seeing your comments on various talk pages and wanted to tell you that reading them is a breath of fresh air. Finally someone with a brain in his/her head. You should be cloned. --Gilabrand (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Your note
Thank you for the heads-up. For the record, I am not an administrator, though I'll take it as a compliment. IronDuke 03:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
CM, while I was trying to work up my response on the Appeals page, I discovered that I had not taken down most of my diffs properly and had to rush around trying to find them again. As you know this is not easy, in particular for archived material. Anyway, when I got back to the page, I see where you had the thing neatly together. I appreciate all the hard work you have done on the Al-Durrah Talk:Page and elsewhere in regard to all the arbitration and such that has been going on. I think you have been meticulous and fair. Please accept my heartfelt thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom case
Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the chivalrous move
It's appreciated. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Communication
BTW, since it sounds like you have other questions, feel free to contact me off-wiki. I'm pretty easy to find via IMs, do you use those? --Elonka 01:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hiya, I get a sense that you're feeling fairly frustrated with IP, but could I please ask you to try just a bit harder to discuss things? For example, here you reverted, saying "POV edits" in the edit summary, but with no discussion at talk.  Please, when you do something like this, especially when you're dealing with an established editor, it's very important that you try to engage in a civil discussion at the talkpage, and explain the reasoning for your reverts.  Thanks, Elonka 22:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-17 Muhammad al-Durrah
Hello. I'm going to take over this MedCab case and try to work this stuff out. I posted in the talk page what I would like all participants to do to start. Hopefully this all works out well, I have zero intention of leaning towards any one side in this dispute, and I only care about getting it taken care of. Wizardman 18:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * My pleasure, and welcome back. Jayjg (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Religious segregation
Recently you reverted on the article Religious segregation, but did not address the talk page concersn (before or after) doing so. I would like to ask you to next time use the talk page for discussion either before or after reverting. Such drive by reverting is neither acceptable, nor will resolve any of the issues. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Question re biased reporters
CM,I would like your input regarding the section I put up on O'Loughlin. It does strike me that in such a contentious issue as this one, in particular where the heart of the issue has to do with media honesty -- that we should be able to challenge someone's material if that someone has significant bias concerns. You've read what I've written there. Do you think I have a case or is he a RS that can't be contended in this venue - ie wiki? I would appreciate your thoughts. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you said completely and understand it. But can't we ask for someone else as well? That's what I was asking for, I thought. Just some substantiation of his assertions by some less contentious journalist? Not to exclude him entirely, but not as a solo source for a fact that is in itself contentious...? Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Al Dura
You might find you might find this source on Al-Dura helpful. Jayjg (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Barak
I had a go. I saw an old Arab news itema a couple of days ago claiming to show an Israeli officer shooting Mughrabi but it was a pciture taken from an Israeli magazine which said (clearly) in hebrew "an officer removes Mughrabis flak jacket" (Efod). I suspect that is the source of the claim but i couldn't find it.

Telaviv1 (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Negev Bedouins
Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-07-25_Negev_Bedouins. There's a medcab case, although most of it is settled. Guy0307 (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to say thanks for keeping on top of things at Negev Bedouins, fixing what in some cases are my mistakes. Sorry to leave some messes around - guess that's what happens when you edit one article all through the night. The rest of the article should be solid, though. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Elonka
I don't know if this is appropriate but I do know that so often things come up that I am interested in and I just find out late or too late, and purely by accident, as I did this one. : WP:Requests_for_comment/Elonka Thought you might want to know of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy (talk • contribs) 14:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Heyo
Not following on why you removed info regarding Jenin Jenin. There is room for both the general notes about it and also for it's outcome.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  23:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Daily Mirror
There are several items in the Al-Dura article that are sourced only by the Daily Mirror. The Daily Mirror is a tabloid. It's my understanding that a tabloid is not a WP:RS. I would challenge anything on the article page that is supported only with the Daily Mirror. Of course we are supposed to leave in "sourced" material. Would you guide me as to how best to deal with this? I appreciate your good common sense and the mysterious ways of wiki. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See my comments on the article talk page. The newspaper's format is not determinative of its acceptability as a reliable source (even The Times is a tabloid these days). -- ChrisO (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think TB is reffering to the format, but rather to "tabloid" as in "a newspaper that tends to emphasize sensational crime stories, gossip columns repeating scandalous innuendos about the personal lives of celebrities and sports stars, and other so-called "junk food news"". Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks CM for your advice. I did mention it on the Al-Durrah talk page after I spoke to you as there was an opening.  Ok I will try it on the RSN.  I was trying to figure a way to search the RSN as I would  have guessed that over the years someone would have put the question up but really couldn't find anything.  It would be nice if there were some sort of 'list' of previous discussions.  But I guess things change, even newspapers so maybe it isn't really appropriate....  Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason it hasn't been discussed before is probably simply because nobody had previously tried to questioned the reliability of the UK's third-largest newspaper. In a US context, it's as if someone was trying to argue that the New York Times wasn't a reliable source. (We do get that kind of nonsense from time to time, usually from tiresome people who moan about "liberal bias", or would if they could spell it). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A few comments and observations: (1) The question is not "silly", and please don't characterize other people's questions in such a derogatory manner. Even if a paper's size was a factor contributing to its reliablity (which is of course false, see the next point), at worst the question may stem from lack of knowledge with regards to circulation figures for 2nd-tier UK papers. (2) You seem to be mistaking "size" or "circulation" for reliability. To the extent the two are related, it is usually an inverse correlation - sensationalist, unreliable tabloids will have the larger circulation numbers, while high-brow, respectable and reliable papers will have smaller ones. This is nowhere clearer than in the case of the UK, where the largest paper is the News of the World - a rag focused on celebrity gossip and titillating sex scandals, which should not be used anywhere in Wikipedia (followed closely by the The Sun, a paper whoe biggest claim to fame is pictures of topless women on page 3), while a quality paper like The Times, considered by many to be the UK's newspaper of record, has a circulation 5 times smaller. (3) Kindly continue this discussion on the relevant section of WP:RSN, not my Talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hebron Split
I'm seeking agreement on a fork on Hebron to take the Israeli/Palestine conflict part to a separate article...PS "Daily Mirror" in the UK we use the term "red top" (even when they don't have a red banner at the top, Sun, Mail, Mirror, Express etc.) to differentiate between "RS" and "tabloid". The Mirror is left leaning but not as scurrilous as the Mail and Sun, The Mirror is more to my line of Politics but I wouldn't treat it as RS. The reputation of the "Times" as a newspaper of record disappeared after Murdock took over....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Orcus
Greetings, Canadian Monkey. Re this message: just a suggestion: if you would like someone to stop appearing like Orcus in conversations you're involved in, I suggest avoiding mentioning their name. Over a period of time I expect this is likely to have the result you desire. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Middle East Textbooks Invitation
Michael Safyan (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Suratlogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Suratlogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War
Hello CanadianMonkey. You need undeniable, reliable, and unbiased sources that say that the US airlift was in reaction to the Soviet one. Rabinovich is not such a source, especially as Rabinovich is not neutral. I have sources that show that the US airlift was due to Israeli losses on the field: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/octwar-21a.pdf and http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/octwar-21b.pdf. At any rate, it is absurd to say that the US airlift tried to equal the efforts of the Soviet airlift. The Soviets didn't airlift 22,000 tons of materiel to Egypt and Syria! Quite the opposite: the Soviets probably tried to equal the American airlift. Furthermore, the Soviets didn't replace Egypt, or Syria's losses, while the American one has replaced Israel's losses, and to a great extent. I have not seen any Egyptian or Syrian sources that say that the Soviet airlift replenished losses, and I have not seen reliable unbiased statistics anywhere concerning the size of the Soviet airlift. While the Soviet airlift must be mentioned in the article, it is in no way comparable to the American airlift, and in the same way the American airlift was not in answer to the Soviet airlift. I will await your answer before adjusting the article. Sherif9282 (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion belongs on the article's Talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Administrative detention

 * Very nice expansion. Cheers,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  08:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

How perspicacious of you
How perspicacious of you did you drop a note to Nocal100 on the subject of edit warring on Banias?..or maybe you'd like to revert a vandal; which is within the rules or were you thinking otherwise...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You had already placed a warning on the Talk page of Nocal100 - - so what is the point of placing another warning? Please read WP:VANDALISM - what you are doing is clearly not within the scope of reverting vandalism. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Israeli settlement
Canadian Monkey, it's bad enough to be edit-warring at an article, but it's even worse when you are reverting without participating in the discussions at that article's talkpage. As near as I can tell, you haven't posted anything there in weeks. I therefore strongly encourage you to engage in discussions, especially at Talk:Israeli settlement, before performing any other reverts. Thanks, --Elonka 21:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * CM, hi, as I'm looking through your edits at Israeli settlement, I'm seeing a dozen reverts to put the word Samaria into the lead, but no other substantive work. Please, can you stop reverting, and just continue to engage in discussion at the talkpage? I've looked through the discussions thus far, and though there doesn't appear to be a clear consensus either way, the general feeling seems to be leaning towards not including the word in the lead.  So until there is a clear consensus for the change, please stop with the reverts on this one thing?  You are still welcome to make other changes to the article, and to continue to engage at the talkpage of course. Hopefully with additional opinions from uninvolved editors, we'll be able to find a proper consensus, and ensure long-lasting changes to the article. Thanks, --Elonka 19:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * CM, I see that you keep trying to remove the word "biblical" from the "Judea and Samaria" definition. However, the sources do seem to support this definition. You may wish to try further re-wording the definition, but please stop trying to remove the biblical term.  Thanks, --Elonka 19:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've reworded it, keeping the 'biblical' . Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why the new edit-warring? --Elonka 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * have you asked that of User:Meteromaker, seeing as this is a change he has been edit warring into the article against consensus since at least Novemebr 14? Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an  edit war. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.
 * Canadian Monkey, you have been warned before about edit-warring on an article without participating in discussion at that article's talkpage. Even worse, on this one you were repeatedly reverting and posting edit summaries where you were attacking the other editor for not discussing, even though you weren't putting anything on the talkpage either.  This type of behavior is extremely disruptive. --Elonka 01:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Herbert Samuel was not shy about being Jewish
Please see Talk:Herbert_Samuel,_1st_Viscount_Samuel, will appreciate your reply and/or reverting of your edit in question. Thank You. DBWikis (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Zionist political violence
I notice you have warnings for WP:EDITWAR prior to your reverts on the mentioned page. Please note the comments you reverted as so-called POV ``''The execution of two British sergeants who had been taken prisoner, were also subjected to a mock trial. After their death the British sergeants bodies were boobytrapped with explosives and hung from an orange grove.''`` Is fact (not to mention sourced in various publications), and to say anything is definatly a pov agenda. Please leave the facts alone and let the reader decide for themselves. Please note before removing the talk page is always a good idea --Rockybiggs (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On further inspection, i mis-read the revert and now can see you merely added in reprisals etc (not that justifys the attack) apologies anyway. Will add in.--Rockybiggs (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please check this article - it has been heavily edited by one editor.

Email
Hey, can you do me a favor and email me? IronDuke 00:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty International page
Just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't trying to change the bit about dictatorship- I just changed the one spelling so it's English! I have no comment about dictators... KillerKat (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Clach92
This is not my user account. My younger brother uses it. Thanks Sherif9282 (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Do whatever you want Canadian Monkey; run an investigation, block the account, delete it, burn it, I couldn't care less. I can't and don't have to explain each and every one of brother's rather daft actions on the Wikipedia. Heck, I haven't contributed to 332 articles and wasn't planning to write about the German Invasion at Britian and Egypt at the 20th century (what is that anyway?!?!). I've said it before, and I'll say it again, this account  is not a sock puppet in use by me, believe it or not. Sherif9282 (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Terrorism
Please explain, with references, why you believe this refers only to religious terrorism, and why you have removed all the referenced material I added to this article, leaving only unsourced pov material. If you read the talk page, you would discover that there is no source for the idea that "Jewish Terrorism" is restricted to Religion, except unsupported arguemnts on the the talk page. Wikipedia deserved better that that!93.96.148.42 (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Missoula Maulers.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Missoula Maulers.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Vt4.GIF)
Thanks for uploading File:Vt4.GIF. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Jewish terrorism
Hi. An edit of yours is being discussed on two threads in the talk page. Since you've already contributed to the discussion, could you explain why you removed the information and the ref? it is relevant for the Zionist political violence issue. Thanks, Nudve (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provide a reliable source that identifies the existence of "Jewish religious terrorism". Currently the entire article appears to be Original Research. Can you explain why the groups listed cannot be described as Zionist. Based on what sources do you dispute the inclusion of violent Jewish settler movements, described as "Jewish Terrorists" by the Israeli press.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

AE
Rather unsurprisingly, ChrisO decided that the MeteorMaker shouldn't be sanctioned for violating his parole, and PhilKnight showed up to close the thread to that effect. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:RfArb regarding West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria
I have started a Request for Arbitration regarding the use of northern/southern West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria. Since you have been involved in this debate, I have included you in the request.

Cheers,  pedrito  -  talk  - 25.02.2009 09:32

Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Civility
Hi Canadian Monkey.

In the J+S ArbComm case, you have made this allegation : None of these warnings and sanctions seemed to have helped, and the latest ban by Elonka was repeatedly violated by User:MeteorMaker That claim appears to be a rather egregious case of deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. You should either provide factual support for your claim or remove it. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that you have posted recently, I again urge you to remove your false claim that I have violated a ban. Making willfully false claims is a very clear violation of WP:CIV, particularly if they are in order to damage the reputation of another editor and cause sanctions. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Just checking: You haven't responded yet, have you had time to read this? MeteorMaker (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to your query, and provided diffs to support my position. I have nothing to add at this point, and would appreciate it if you stopped hounding me. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * From your reply, I understand you have not bothered to read the refutals of your demonstrably false claims. Your refusal to acknowledge and correct your mistake will be used as evidence of your willful attempt to mislead other editors, admins, and ArbCom members with libelous claims. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I read the reply, and I disagree that you have refuted any of my claims. You've already posted your allegations in the ArbCom case, we'll let the Arbs rule on this. Now, please stop hounding me. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

tags
In August you engaged in a debate on the page "a land without a people for a people without a land" over the appropriateness of the tags that have been hung on it like a Christmas tree. I came recently to the page, and improved it in ways that, I believed met the objections of the tagger. I am not saying that thepage is perfect, only that it is now so heavily sourced from multiple, reliable scholars, that the tags no longer apply. There is a single, adamant editor involved. I recently copied your old artuments, all excellent, to the bottom of the discussion. It would take a few minutes only for you to revisit the issue and arguments. thank you.Historicist (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. If you have a minute, I would appreciate it if you could make another brief visit to A land without a people for a people without a land.Historicist (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for compromise
So… I had an idea (or rather, cribbed an idea from Nishidani). What if, instead of topic-banning some of the most useful, articulate, and involved editors in the IP area (on both sides) for a year, you all got together and worked on Judea, Samaria, and Judea and Samaria with the goal of promoting them into GA status in two months’ time? That way (and given the relatively public nature of the arb case), there would hopefully be wide-ranging and neutral community input – sort of an RfC on steroids. If you all did not succeed, it would be back to the arb case (which would be placed on hiatus pending the outcome). The arbs (some of them anyway) seem to be saying you all can’t work together. I don’t think that’s true, and I also think that to the extent it is true, the possibility of avoiding more unpleasantness in this arb case might lead to extra flexibility and reasonableness. In the interest of full disclosure: I don’t particularly care at all how the ultimate content issue falls out -- Judea, Samaria, West Bank, Elbonia, whatever: I’d just like to avoid a mass-banning that would have a seriously deleterious effect on IP articles. What say? (If you wish to reply, you may do so here) IronDuke  02:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've address all the points raised
On the talk page. If you feel I have not done so to your satisfaction, please join the discussion rather than drive-by tagging, as you did here.  T i a m u t talk 18:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't declare it unilaterally resolved. I answered the concerns raised, after there was no further response, I removed the tag. It was replaced again. I answered all the concerns made again in detail. No one responded. Nableezy came by and removed the tag noting that the arguments amounted to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you have something substantive to add, I'd be happy to hear it. It would be a nice change from your reverting in of weasal words without discussion earlier on in the article's development.  T i a m u t talk 18:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not a personal attack. You did revert weasal words like "speculates" and "alleges" into the article twice. And you did it without discussion. Accurately describing what you do is not a personal attacks. I would note too, in your last edit you use "claims" instead of "writes". Please don't do that. Let the reader decide for themselves.  T i a m u t talk 18:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

RFAR/West Bank - Judea and Samaria
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. ,, , , , , and are prohibited from editing any Arab-Israeli conflict-related article/talk page or discussing on the dispute anywhere else on the project. is also prohibited from editing in the area of conflict, and he is stripped of his status as a functionary and any and all associated privileged access, including the CheckUser and Oversight tools and the checkuser-l, oversight-l, and functionaries-en mailing lists. Jayjg is also thanked for his years of service.

After six months, these editors may individually ask the Arbitration Committee to lift their editing restrictions after demonstrating commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and ability to work constructively with other editors. However, restrictions may be temporarily suspended for the exclusive purpose of participating in the discussion of draft guidelines for this area.

In the meantime, the community is strongly urged to pursue current discussions to come to a definitive consensus on the preferred current and historical names of the region that is the source of conflict in this case. Note that this must be consistent with current Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, a neutral point of view, and naming conventions. This decision will be appended onto this case within two months from the close of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee,  hmwith  τ   17:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

WP:SPI
Please see that I have opened a request here, if you would like to comment. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of David Littman (historian)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is David Littman (historian). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/David Littman (historian). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nahum Shahaf
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Nahum Shahaf. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Nahum Shahaf. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:IceDogs.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:IceDogs.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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)