User talk:Humus sapiens/archive13

Unexplained reversal on Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
What are your reasons for indiscriminately reverting the deletion of a claim by means of WP:RS?   Please note that this behaviour could be assessed as an attempt to abuse adminship. Kosmopolis 12:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is only fair to allow the accused side to defend itself. I don't see how reverting efforts to censor such defense can constitute "an attempt to abuse adminship", but go ahead and report me if you feel that an abuse took place. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006
The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"legal threats"
A legal threat would be "i'm going to sue you", saying that "your behavior should be considered criminal and you should be tried" has the keyword "should" and therefore does not qualify as a threat, it is an opinion. Lordkazan 21:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * disagreeing with your interpretation is neither incivil nor belligerent. Lordkazan 00:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop doing POV edits without reading talk pages
You've reverted multiple pages of my edits without reasoning, Isn't it POV edit? Please read talk pages first, and then start reverting. [Military and economic aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict] Hossein.ir 09:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Please try to comply with WP:NPOV". I always have this in my mind, and I suggest this to me, you, and others. But, please, read talk pages. Have you read my comments? Please tell me your ideas about those, specially about [Military and economic aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict], as it didn't get any reasonable response about them. --Hossein.ir 10:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Engage (organization)
Hi Humus: Could you please look into this at Talk:Engage (organization). Thanks. IZAK 08:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thank you
Many thanks for you appreiation! Can you help me out with Judenfrei, which I want to make a redirect to Judenrein? Beit Or 20:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandals
eh, thats ok -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 21:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You're not as smart as you probably think
Saying: This list does not include the synagogues of alternative movements is not Undue Weight (in fact, it's probably a way for the uninformed reader to know that they actually exist), not in the least. You're using that wooden shield to justify any revert to any edit you don't personally agree with, admit it.

Zorkfan 00:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm
So any opposition to your opinions is considered a personal attack? That seems rather arrogant.

Zorkfan 00:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

K
You've got it, friend. I do indeed use reliable sources (I consider YaShaNet and Rabbiyeshua, as well as UTOMC quite reliable). :)

Zorkfan 01:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Evaluting the reliability of Wikipedia articles.
Dear Humus sapiens, I noticed your praise of Beit Or's excellent edits but you should know that the latter's editing out of a highly doubtful finge view on Pharaohs Ay, Ramesses I and Horemheb and Yuya, Moses, etc have now been reverted back by a user named Therealmikelvee. (see here ) This user follows Ahmed Osman's generally unorthodox and unprovable views on Ramesses I, the Biblical Joseph and Yuya--among others. However, Osman's views are not accepted by mainstream Egyptologists and have not published in reputable journals like JEA, JNES, BAR or BASOR. Most professional scholars including Kenneth Kitchen date Joseph's time to the 20th Century BC based on the price of 20 shekels that was paid for him when he was sold into slavery in modern day Iraq. (see KA Kitchen, 'Genesis 12-50 in the Near Eastern World' in "He Swore an Oath", RS Hess, et al, eds: Cambridge Tyndale House, 1993, pp.67-92.) Somehow, I think that this user will probably revert back all of Beit Or's deletions on the Exodus and complain that it is vandalism just as he called me that when I tried to edit his fringe views here. This is the problem with Wikipedia--anyone can put noncredible or original research here with no academic oversight to evaluate the credibility of the information. Just because a user can cite information from a book doesn't mean the book is mainstream or is published by a respected scholar. In contrast, more weight should be placed on the work of scholars like Frederic Payraudeau who have published in mainstream journals like JEA or BIFAO. Leoboudv 22:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Labeling something "nonsense" is not enough to render it nonsense
You can't just claim that an edit or revision is nonsense without justifying your claim. Use the talkpage to justify your claims. For now, I shall revert your blatantly bias edit. Give me another warning, and I will report you for abusing your powers as administrator.

Thanks for the welcome
It might have been automated, I just wanted to thank you as it is kind of you. There was a lot of advice, I'm hoping it was informational. If not, it'd be cool if you could tell me which specific thing I needed to learn. Thanks again for the welcome and reading material.

YoYoDa1 03:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Therealmikelvee
This user has inserted crackpot theories by certain Ahmed Osman into quite a few articles, including Moses, Joseph (Hebrew Bible), Exodus, The Exodus, Tel Dan Stele, Land of Goshen, and others. The discussion is taking place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ancient_Egypt. Beit Or 19:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes
Agreed.

Mraleph 23:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Humus sapiens, Have you monitored the passionate discussion on Osman's ideas here. Hopefully we won't get into a war of revisions soon. Personally, I don't think its acceptable that anyone can put non-credible/fringe ideas regarding the identity of real people--such as Ay a Pharaoh of the Egyptian 18th Dynasty. No serious scholar equates Ay with the Biblical Efrayim/Ephraim, the son of the Biblical Joseph. Joseph has been dated to the 18th/17th Century BC by Kenneth Kitchen and his son--see my post quoting Kitchen in the discussion--and would have been dead long before Ay took the throne in the 1320's BC. I believe the user User:Therealmikelvee is just pushing his POV here. You can be sure that Encyclopaedia Brittanica wouldn't use Osman's ideas in their articles since this person has never published in an academic journal. Regards, Leoboudv 03:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Double redirects
Please stop creating double redirects like this one. Respond here, I hate split-up discussions. Gene Nygaard 22:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, piping is a proper way to do it, but a redir is better than a redlink. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not talking about "piping". See Double redirects.  You sent a redirect to a redirect, rather than to the article that the redirect redirects to.  If that doesn't make sense, just follow the link.  Gene Nygaard 23:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Discovery
Another discovery! Refer to Talmud, Yoma 39b, where it is said that the Yom Kippur sacrifice was rejected (or changed) by G-d for 40 years before the Temple was destroyed, which, consequently, is exactly when Yeshua passed from this world (a generation before the destruction of the Temple) :)

If you desire
I've basically started my very first article at Wikipedia, Michael Rood. It is still only a stub. I would love it if you went to the talk page and helped me expand and improve the article! Thank you. Luzadi7 23:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping out. Your edit was a definite improvement, although I have added a few more bits of relative information. Come back to the page to see the change and comment in the talk page. Thanks Luzadi7 18:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Killerman2
Hi! Perhaps something has to be done about this - see amount of warnings. . Thank you. Amoruso 14:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm disappointed
You are just sitting by and letting me be repeatedly and unfairly silenced by the likes of Charlottewebb and other unscrupulous individuals that have more desire in keeping comfortable conditions static than they do a more active persute of the truth. I'm tired of having EACH and EVERY one of the changes I have ever made to any article reversed. It's rediculous. Everything I added to the Michael Rood article was factually correct (except for the statement that he lives in Israel, which I THINK I remember that he did, though not entirely sure, so I added a citation). Now, whetehr or not YOU like the truth is not at issue, and will NOT be used to erase factual information from an already tiny, stub-level article. Luzadi7 22:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have provided a citation for every major claim linking to a reliable source under the wiki definition (two of them are in opposition to Rood, btw). Is this sufficient? If you visit some of the citations, you will see that Christians can't stand MR because of his entirely Jewish view of his belief that Y'shua is the Messiah. Luzadii 02:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * By now you should have learned that mainstream Judaism does not view Jesus as the Messiah. Please stop inundating WP with your false claims. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "By now you should have learned that mainstream Judaism does not view Jesus as the Messiah." No s**t, sherlock. Of course, the way some of those articles are written, you would never know MJ exists. For example, it never points out the fact that, currently, MJ is considerably larger than Reconstructionist Judaism (200+ synagogues to less than 100). And his name isn't Jesus, it's YESHUA, not that many Rabbinic Jews prefer to say his actual name because they despise him that much.


 * "Please choose one account you are going to use. Thanks." I CAN'T, because I am now stuck in a permanent cycle of blocking and sockpuppetry that even time cannot erase. Unless I purposely break the system in this way, I may never be able to edit at Wikipedia again. The moderators have shown themselves to be selfish, stiffnecked powermongers. If those fucking CHICKENSHIT FASCISTS have no qualms for the feelings of newbie users whose lives they make a living shithole at Wikipedia, then I can't possibly lay my trust in the rest of their policies or system, because they have proven their due process to be horribly unfair. If you possess a single shred of humanity, you will revert to my latest version of the Michael Rood article, which has received FULL CITATIONS to multiple reliable sources as you requested, and request the article's unprotection. Do this for me, please. Luzadi3 04:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, please define Troll in a way that is somehow consistent with what I am doing. If you, seriously, have no intention of answering a couple of simple questions, then I can only assume that you have no reason whatsoever for RVing the article and letting the pics get taken down (opther than that you don't like me). 12.65.150.63 18:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, you don't even have to answer my questions. But please, for my sake, don't report me any more. My reputation on Wiki is damaged enough at this point. 12.65.150.63 23:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody is after you and nobody but yourself can damage your reputation. I already reported you earlier for evading of the block. Please leave me alone and respect the block imposed on you by other admin. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA: Malber
Thank you for your support in my recent nomination for adminship, even though it was unsuccessful. Thank you for your positive comments. -- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 15:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

User:207.200.116.74
I'd have at posted a warning there, but I didn't see the point. An AOL user can literally be a thousand people. HalfShadow 00:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh. I wish. Short of going to AOL corporate headquarters and hitting people until they get the idea that group IPs are just a bad idea I'm stumped.HalfShadow 00:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, I didn't mean I'd have posted a warning as opposed to blocking him, I meant I didn't see the point to even bothering, since there were so many people who would have ended up seeing it who weren't involved. It would have been a waste of anyone's time but an admin. AOL addresses are just a pain. It wouldn't be so bad if so many people didn't use it...HalfShadow 00:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Josephus
I am really offended by the ex post facto "christianization" of this article. How can this possibly be justified? The article in question is a Jewish history article; and the arguments to remove Jewish references are so weak that an inference of bigotry is manifest. My recent interest in the article is that I had forgotten Josephus' Hebrew name; the current form of the article is not encyclopedic.--Lance talk 09:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have carefully read, and re-read, the discussion page; and, I'm afraid that the only conclusion possible is that the users promulgating "AD" over CE, and relegating the Hebrew name to a footnote, are antisemites pure and simple. If necessary, I will demonstrate this; but I think any reasonable reading of the discussion fails to accept an alternative conclusion. It appears that you have made too many concessions in the past. Generosity is admirable, but not to the point of diminishing logic, well established historical conventions, and Jewish dignity. I am not sure what course of action to take. I have been registered in Wikipedia for just a few weeks.--Lance talk 12:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Almaqdisi
Please note that Almaqdisi repeatedly violates WP:3RR on the article Dome of the Rock and always uses the "minor" for edits, which I find very problematic. I don't know how to deal with this issue since I was involved directly in the issue. I don't want to report 3RR myself right now but he should be made some note of this behaviour by an adminstrator and perhaps be reported. Thank you. Amoruso 16:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Amurosu keeps putting uncited information to the article and undoing work I add with no justification! He cites uncredible sources which makes him convinced with what he is doing. Although my citations are all from books articles and more scientific! Almaqdisi 17:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * these allegtions of yours have nothing to do with your violations. Amoruso 17:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

He has now also blocked out formal warnings from his page, TWICE. Amoruso 17:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Amuroso stop your false allegations. You are treating an Academic issue into a Personal one. Enough is enough! Almaqdisi 17:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Stop being a vandal and stop stalking too. Amoruso 17:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Incivility warning
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!

First, you accused me of whitewashing which is uncalled for and incivil. And even though I asked you to refrain from making such insinuations, you later reverted my edits accusing me of bad faith edits. The policy is (and you're an admin, so you should know this) is to assume good faith and to avoid incivil accusations. Your behavior is not befitting of an administrator, and I'm asking you to stop. --Inahet 02:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Which edit?
You left a comment on my site about a nonsense edit. I don't recall ever doing so. Which edit are you talking about?--MonkBirdDuke 11:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I find it puzzling that someone like you, with so many conflicts and accusations of incivility is still an administrator. Where can I vote on your recall?  --MonkBirdDuke 11:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by User Doc: Josephus
It appears that user Doc removed my/your "tag" to the article. In light of this removal of any edit that doesn't conform to this user's Christian POV; and this user's militant failure to accept any reasonable improvement to the article, while making reference to outrageously lame arguments to effect this aforementioned Christianization of the article; and, his previous misconduct at the Jesus myth article, (that demontrates his motives); I would like you to do something in your administrative capacity about this user.--Lance talk 12:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Nixer
Note that he moved Sanhedrin to Synedrion (Judea) anyway. See talk page there for what I have already done. --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Confused
I am a bit confused about your prutkov article, and I made a note on the discussion page there. --Filll 02:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I am still confused. I have put a note on the prutkov article talk page--Filll 20:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Phil Boswell
I posted this communication for "user: Phil_Boswell," as hereafter set out:


 * "Your treatment of me was horribly unfair, unjust, and contradicted all principles of fair dealing. You have failed to adhere to the principles of Natural Justice; in particular, the principle audi alteram partem.


 * "My reasonable comments, manifestly factual and fair, for which I was preventented by you from providing further justification and explanation, were attacked by you without any, or any reasonable, explanation.


 * "Please provide me with all relevant details so that a full and fair hearing of your actions can be adjudicated forthwith and without delay.--Lance talk 03:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)"

The complained of user's actions were neither constructive nor fair; and totally failed to advance the problems in respect of the "Josephus" article.

I am new to Wikipedia and I don't know what steps to take to:

(1) Redress the injustice complained of; and,

(2) Deal with the ugly problem of antisemitism, that I understand to include Christian chauvinism.

חג שםח וחג שמחת תורה

--Lance talk 04:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I note a personal attack was made.... this is a lose-lose situation, I propose just a wikishake and move on... arbcom and medcom are way too swamped nowadays anyways -- Tawker 21:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Andrei_Sinyavsky.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Andrei_Sinyavsky.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 05:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Lance
Since you are an administrator and have apparently had some interaction with Lance6968, perhaps you will have some insight into the following.

As I document at Talk:Israelite, Lance recently removed a longstanding piece of material from Israelite. His edit summary accuses it of being undercited (in fact, I seem to be the only person who has cited anything in this article) and "evidently to argue an opinion" (which is bizarre, because insofar as it argues an opinion, it is one I do not share). After responding on the talk page, I went to look at who he is, and ran into this very strange setup: the user page User:Lance6968 redirects to User:Lance (similarly for the talk page), but there are no edits by Lance, only by Lance6968. Is this legitimate? It is at least very strange.

Convenience links: - Jmabel | Talk 23:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'd also be interested in your view of the matter at hand in the Israelite article. - Jmabel | Talk 23:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User:ParadoxTom
For the record, I think you behaved very badly towards this user. The user asked some good questions and made some sensible points regarding Jews for Jesus, and you accused him of being anti-Jewish simply for sugesting an alternative viewpoint. I think you owe him an apology. DJ Clayworth 19:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My response: . ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom
Please explain why he is blocked. What specific edits was distruptive? How could you block someone without pin pointing his mistake? --- ابراهيم 09:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding your political POV to the article on Zionism
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) I will not hesitate to report you for abusing your administrator privileges by threatening users who update and remove POV information from articles that you have edited. Thank you.

The Good Book
Do you think it is controversial to claim that Jews call their Tanakh "the Bible?" I don't. Do you think it is controversial to claim that "the Bible" refers only to the combined "Old Testament" and "New Testament," i.e. is a term that refers to the sacred scriptures of Christians (but not Jews)? I do, but this is precisely the claim Home Computer is making on the Bible talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bible#Current_layout

Feel free to weigh in. And please watch out for Home Computer's attempts to change the article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This allegation is untrue.. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slrubenstein Peace --Home Computer 15:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support. Results are at Recently_created_admins. Warmly,  Durova  21:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

How can I report you?
Hello Humus,

Could you please tell me how to report you to wikipedia for abusing your powers as administrator? I decided to play by the rules of the game and seek legitimate authority to help me rather than vandalize. Please reply quickly, I really want to report you for abuse as soon as possible. Thanks. 68.84.56.191 23:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See Administrators' noticeboard and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Zionism Whitewash?
Humus, I noticed that you have twice reverted edits that I made on the Zionism and racism page. The changes explored an extension of the argument that Jews are not a race (which is made to avoid claims of racism as it pertains to Zionism). I pointed out, that if Jews are not a race, then anti-Semitism is not racism. My ultimate aim was to point out that such an argument is -by extension- to argue that being anti-Jewish is not racism. Twice you have deleted this edit and I'm curious why. I see that you are very involved in Jewish wiki pages, and I suspect that personally you are very pro-Israel. Is it this bias the reason for removing my comments? If not, then please tell me how both "Jews are not a race" and "hatred of Jews is racism" can both be true simultaneously. --Joshua242 06:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Jews are not a race" AND "Discrimination against Jews is racism because their race is Jewish." Those two are contradictory statements. --Joshua242 03:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting argument. As an outsider to this, I'd suggest that the Jews are more than just a race, being also an ethinicity, a religion and a culture. However, I think that arguing that anti-Semitism is therefore not racism is the most banal and pointless of subjective semantic arguments. The person who gets smashed over the head with a shovel and called a "dirty Jew" isn't too bothered whether he's just been a target of racism or any other ism. Incidentally, anti-Semitism is considered racism in British law. --Dweller 09:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dweller. I responded at Talk:Zionism and racism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't defend the ugliness of violence against people for any reason, but the fact remains that it is logically inconsistent to say:
 * So we figured out that the Nazis and other antisemites were/are "logically inconsistent". Give yourself a medal for being so logical and consistent. Note that unless you have a WP:RS on that conclusion, it is your own WP:OR. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow. A medal?  Thank you... I... I don't know what to say. *clears throat* Umm.. I'd like to thank my whole family for believing in me and especially to Humus, who nominated me for this rare honor.  Thank you!   I'm so glad you now agree with me! --Joshua242 03:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Returning to the fundamental premise, I see that the Zionism and racism forwards a misleading argument that I believe needs to be examined closely. I'd appreciate further debate on this point, as there are several issues at play. Here are the issues that I feel need to be addressed. --Joshua242 02:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Zionism and racism uses a tailored definition of racism (that is at odds with the definition found on Wikipedia's article on racism) that omits ehnicity as a factor in racism.  The use of this modified definiton creates a logical inconsistency, by which anti-Semitic behavior can not be considered racism without applying blatant double standards.  To leave out ethnicity, Jews are not a race, and therefore can never claim racial bias against them.
 * 2) In the opening exposition of Zionism and racism, there are absolutely no claims made that Zionism is racist, only defense of Zionism from such claims.  The reader is presented exclusively with only one side of the issue.  A more appropriate title for this article would be "Defense of Zionism from claims of racism".
 * 3) A large number of the claims that are made in this article are not referenced, and as such, contain the same WP:OR that would apply to someone articulating a furtherance of an argument.  If pieces of an article are to be removed because they are not referenced, then should not the same rules apply to other pieces in the same article that are similarly not referenced?
 * See WP:SOAPBOX and WP:TROLL. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

RFM
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Jews for Jesus, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Wikipedia: only the facts?
This morning, I came across an image containing a map of the Hasmonean Kingdom set against the background of the so-called present-day borders of Israel. The image is being used in the articles on Jewish history, on Hanukkah, on Maccabees, on Judas Maccabeus, on Hasmonean and on the Golan Heights. But these are not the internationally recognised borders of Israel. The image suggests that the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem are integral parts of the state of Israel, whereas this is subject to international disputes. To present these borders as undisputed facts, is to lessen the quality of information provided by Wikipedia. I therefore decided to remove this image. In your (very swift) reaction, you accuse me of "blatant vandalism". This is absurd. I have the habit of using Wikipedia as a source of factual, unbiased information. Ocasionally, I make a small contribution to try to enhance the factual accuracy of an article. To enhance an article is not vandalism. It is what I thought Wikipedia was all about. There are undoubtedly many images available that could be used in these articles that depict the borders of Israel, while clearly marking the disputed Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights as disputed entities. Why would an unbiased encyclopedia, out of of all the available options, choose an image that is provided by the Israeli Foreign Ministry? If it is Wikipedia's standard policy to discourage user participation in this agressive way, then in my view, it fails in its stated purpose. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.215.24.131 (talk • contribs) 08:55, October 22, 2006 (UTC)
 * a centralized discussion of this topic should take place at Image talk:Hasmonean-map.jpg. Jon513 14:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Beit Or/Barbara Plett
I have started working on the article about that BBC journalist who shed tears when Yasser Arafat was airlifted to hospital. I will appreciate any contributions. Beit Or 18:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:ColumbanAgain
ColumbanAgain 03:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Re. Humus_sapiens' abuse of adminship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars

"Khazar ancestry of Ashkenazim" cited a 2000 paper in the American Journal of Human Genetics to try to substantiate the articles position that Ashkenazim are not decended from the Khazars.

The cited reference has been superceeded by an October 2003 paper in the same journal that supports the opposite conclusion.

Humus_sapiens - Why are you a) removing these edits without reading or commenting in the discussion page and b)why do you respond to every edit with a claim of vandalism? I'm not 'vandalizing'. I'm editing and citing reputable sources. Wikipedia and this article are not your personal property. If you can not maintain a neutral point of view, you should be removed as an administrator.

The article also makes the claim or implies in several places that disputing the origin of the Ashkenazi as being entirely from the Near East amounts to anti-semetism. This is an obvious slur and needs to be removed. Please note that several of the authors of the 2003 paper are from Israel, at Israeli institutions. Note that - I now see that some of these references to anti-semitism have been changed to anti-zionism, which I see as a positive first step in bringing some much needed objectivity to this WP article.

Here's the citation. --> Multiple Origins of Ashkenazi Levites: Y Chromosome Evidence for Both Near Eastern and European Ancestries Doron M. Behar, Mark G. Thomas, Karl Skorecki, Michael F. Hammer, Ekaterina Bulygina, Dror Rosengarten, Abigail L. Jones, Karen Held, Vivian Moses, David Goldstein, Neil Bradman, and Michael E. Weale Am J Hum Genet. October 2003; 73(4): 768–779. Published online September 17, 2003.

Despite the 'Multiple Origins' wording of the title, the body of the article states that nonrecombining region of the Y chromosome (NRY), specificlly the R1a1 NRY is not consistent between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews, indicating the male lines at least derive from different gene pools.

From the cited article --> "... Ashkenazi Levites have a high frequency of a distinctive, non–Near Eastern haplogroup."

From the cited article --> "the haplogroup {R1a1} is extremely rare in other Jewish groups and in non-Jewish groups of Near Eastern origin, but is found at high frequency in populations of eastern European origin."

From the cited article --> "it would be a remarkable coincidence that the geographic origins and demographic expansion of the Ashkenazi are within Northern and Eastern Europe and that this haplogroup is found at very high frequency within neighboring non-Jewish populations of European origin but not at high frequency elsewhere. An alternative explanation, therefore, would postulate a founder(s) of non-Jewish European ancestry, whose descendents were able to assume Levite status.

From the cited article --> "Intriguingly, the Sorbian tongue, relexified with a German vocabulary, has been proposed as the origin of Yiddish, the language of the Ashkenazim, but there has been no suggestion of an association between Ashkenazi Levites in particular and the Sorbian language. One attractive source would be the Khazarian Kingdom, whose ruling class is thought to have converted to Judaism in the 8th or 9th century (Dunlop 1967). This kingdom flourished between the years 700 c.e. and 1016 c.e. It extended from northern Georgia in the south to Bulgar on the Volga River in the north and from the Aral Sea in the east to the Dnieper River in the west—an area that falls within a region in which haplogroup R1a1 NRYs are found at high frequency (Rosser et al. 2000). Archival material also records migration of Khazars into the Hungarian Duchy of Taskony in the 10th century. The break-up of the Khazar Empire following their defeat by invading Rus led to the flight of some Khazars to central and northern Europe."


 * If you think I have abused my power in any way, please follow WP:DR. Discussions about an article's content belong to its respective Talk page. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem
In reference to your recent restoration in this article, I had removed this info, because according to my knowledge (and explained in Judaism), there was no "Judaism" in the 10th century BCE, there was only the story of Abraham. To say that" Jerusalem is the holiest city of Judaism (since the 10th century BCE)" is a bit misleading, is it not? When did the word "Judaism" emerge? And was Jerusalem the holiest city to the Israelites in the 10th or even 5th century BCE? In fact, even Israelites didn't exist in the 10th century BCE. This is why I removed these dates. This is purely a question of historical accuracy, I really don't care about the politics (for a change). What do you think? Stating that Jerusalem being the holiest city in Judaism is enough, I think. Ramallite (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm an idiot - with all my science and math background, I absent mindedly was reading "10th Century BCE" as "10th millenium BCE", as in ~10,000 BCE, and not ~1,000. Sorry Ramallite (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006
The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Renaming per Talk:Antisemitism
I know I know, I did not complete the job - yet: it is more massive than I expected. I would really appreciate some help, especially in the form of a bot/script. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi there. You did a great job on de-hyphenating related articles (or the titles at least!) after the vote went through, thanks a lot! Though I've just now discovered (via a comment on the article's talk page) the Anti-Semitism Category pages which look rather scary... is it possible to just move a whole category page from one to the other and leave a redirect behind? I think that would definitely be the preferred method, if so... The two big ones so far are Anti-Semitism and Anti-Semitic People. I'm certainly willing to help go through and change each of the referring pages, if it comes to that... but if the categories can't be moved, does that mean the histories and talk-pages will be lost? I don't know much about how WP meta-pages like that work. --Arvedui 05:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You can always move the talk page. The fact that it is a category has no bearing on that. And categories themselves don't tend to have much history. The changing of the actual pages should be a bot job. - Jmabel | Talk 02:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have asked the owner of Cydebot for advice/help: User talk:Cyde. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Flag of Israel
Please comment on the Flag of Israel discussion page about my proposed removal of the paragraph about Arabic symbol proposals. And thanks for the welcome note you sent earlier. Samuel Erau 14:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Favor

 * Hi, could you please add the names of J.F.R. Jacob and Nissim Ezekiel in Hebrew (in case you have the fonts/locales etc. set up)?Hkelkar 23:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

India-Israel relations
Hey I just saw that you started the article India-Israel relations. The article does not do justice to the topic as yet and I was wondering if we could work together to add more information to it. I have some refs cited in J.F.R. Jacob that may pertain to the subject (since Raphaelji is a strong supporter of India-Israel relations). Further, I have some op/eds from internationalopinion.com that I put in "External Links" on India-Israel relations on which I would like to expand. I have mainly been focussing on Indian/Indian-American news sources and was wondering if you could focus on Israeli/American news sources (Haaretz/Jerusalem Post etc.) regarding this topic so that they are both equally represented.Specifically, I would like to expand on:


 * 1) RAW-MOSSAD alliance
 * 2) Purchase of military hardware and technologies like newer RADAR technologies, Arrow Missiles etc.
 * 3) Academic/scientific cooperation
 * 4) Increased support for Zionism from the Hindu political parties
 * 5) Support for Israel from sections of the Urban Classes in India
 * 6) Mutual problems with Jihadis
 * 7) The Bnei Menashe issue
 * 8) Visit of Arik Sharon to India
 * 9) Visit of Jaswant Singh to Israel

Hkelkar 03:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Messianic Jewish leaders
I found that article when looking at new articles, and at the time, it wasn't clear whether it was listcruft or something useful. A large fraction of new "List of" articles have low value, or should be categories. So I put it on what appeared to be an appropriate place for new article listings. Since then, it's been improved and linked into other relevant articles, so it's no longer an RC concern. --John Nagle 01:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User:212.85.24.83
Hi there. I just blocked this school IP for a week, and saw that your previous block comment was "Next time it will be indefinite." I don't want to impose an indefinite block, but I figured it would be polite to notify you, in case you want to extend the block beyond a week. FreplySpang 10:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Human rights in Israel
Can you explain why you removed the following cited, relevant information from Human rights in Israel

Rights of Women
In it's 2005 report to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women Comments by Amnesty International on the compliance by Israel with its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Amnesty International notes its concern about agunot (chained women): "Jewish religious divorce laws discriminate against women by making divorce for a woman conditional on her husband’s consent, whereas a man can be "released" from his marriage through the signature of 100 rabbis. Even though religious courts can take certain measures (including imposing fines and even prison sentences) against a husband whose refusal to grant a divorce to his wife is considered unjustified by the competent religious authorities, ultimately a woman whose husband refuses to grant her a get (divorce decree) has no recourse." Amnesty International also criticizes the custom that the illegitimate children of married Jewish women are considered mamzerim who face restrictions and stigma, yet the illegitimate children of married Jewish men are not. According to Amnesty International, "These discriminatory laws prevent women who find themselves in unhappy marriages, or whose husbands beat them up, rape them or otherwise abuse them, to obtain divorce if their husbands refuse. These laws and their implementation violate the right to equality and the right to marry and found a family."

It's clearly about human rights in Israel and it's fulfillments of it's obligations to the CEDAW.

FuManChoo 09:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Content disputes belong to the corresponding article's talk page. No need to crosspost it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not just a content dispute this is a personal issue since you seem to be reverting many of my edits. FuManChoo 10:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Map
Hi Hummus. I can probably make the map sometime next week, although there are some parts of it I don't really understand. Do you have another update of the barrier, preferrably without comparisons to the old route to decrease confusion? Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 18:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverting on Muhammad
Humus sapiens User:Irishpunktom keeps blanking my three-revert rule warning for his revert Muhammad saying hes just putting in an archive. In the archive it says hes on parole for reverting on Muhammad. Do you think thats why hes blanking it?Opiner 20:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Kristallnacht Eberswalde synagogue 55542.jpg
Hello Humus. On de WP we found out that your image "Kristallnacht Eberswalde 55542.jpg" in fact shows the synagogue of Eberswalde but not its burning during the "Kristallnacht". Actually the photo shows how the synagogue was set on fire by lightning in 1931. Therefore of course the description should be changed and in my opinion it is also not suitable to illustrate articles like Kristallnacht (though some in de WP think that it still would be). Could you change the image description accordingly? Thanks. --Proofreader 20:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Kitrus
How long have you been watching my edits and/or keeping contact with Elizmer? --Kitrus 04:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Intimidation? I'm intimidating no one. Both you and Elizmer approached me first. Do you think I have any interest in engaging in little online skirmishes with you two? I suggest you drop the hypocritical and self-righteous attitude.
 * Let's part ways before this gets ugly. --Kitrus 04:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom reverting again
Hes blocked again and again for reverting on Muhammad because of his revert parole:,. Already blocked for three reverting this week when only supposed to one a week.

Now hes doing the revert again of me and User:Aminz never any discussing as usual..Opiner 12:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour on talk pages
This edit seems unnecessarily sarcastic and uncivil, especially for an administrator. And, looking at other comments on your talk page, it's not the first time you've been accused of this sort of behaviour. It's unhelpful and frankly, rude. QmunkE 15:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate constructive criticism, in this case you chose not to criticize the real offender but someone who criticized him. I don't find this either fair or helpful. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

anti-Zionism
comments regarding your recent edits to anti-Zionism are requested here. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 03:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Third holiest site
You reverted to my version but I think you intended to revert to a previous version of mine, the one before. Cheers. Amoruso 06:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, don't you think you reverted a little too far back? thestick 11:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Casimir Pilenas
How are you? I thought that you might be interested in the above extortionist, relevant to the Protocols of Zion. I've just written a STUB on him. I'm going to the relevant archives so I could develop this stub into an article. But I thought you might be interested in this "renegade" anti-Semite.
 * Ludvikus 16:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Victor E. Marsden

 * I've purchased--and now own--the original 1934 edition of the "United We Fall, Divided We Stand" Protocols of Zion, from a Judaica Rare Book dealer. It cost me $181.00 (too much-but it's worth it for the research material it provides).
 * Now I've made a PDF color copy of the Front and Back covers--very "artistic"--useful for us.
 * But I've still not learned how to import images/pictures into a Wikipedia article. Can I send it to you, or someone else, as an Email attachment, so that you, or someone else, could incorporate it into the Victor E. Marsden article?
 * Yours truly, Ludvikus 17:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

MA and Antisemitism
Hi Humus. There is some question on the talk page as to your feelings re the antisemitism category. See here If I have erred in characterizing your views in any way, please come to the talk page and let everyone know. Thanks... IronDuke 01:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Harassment
Kindly refrain from harassing Wikpedia editors and please reveiw WP:NPA. Thanks.Kiyosaki 06:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion
Do you have an opinion on the most recent edits of User:Itsmejudith to the Dalit Voice article ? I think it's a whitewash. I'd like to know your opinion. Shalom Hkelkar 11:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Small Help
Can you keep an eye on the deletion page for that POV fork Striver created? After what Neilswik just pulled I'm wondering what they will come up with next. RunedChozo 16:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Muslim Guild POV-pushers trying to get original article deleted to protect their POV Fork
Striver's POV-pushing cohort User:Burgas00 has, in a fit of his POV-pushing zeal, nominated Beit_Hanoun_November_2006_incident for deletion here. The cowardly bad faith POV-pusher wouldn't even sign his own name to the deletion request either. I thought you should be warned of this. RunedChozo 22:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Cohort... Muslim guild... :-). Sorry about not signing. Must have forgotten!--Burgas00 23:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Your views please
Hi Humus: I have just contacted new User:Chavatshimshon who has made some big moves in long-standing articles about Jewish topics. Please read what I wrote to him and add your expertise and intervention. Thank you. IZAK 08:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * STOP your changes NOW!


 * Dear Chavatshimshon: Welcome, and thank you for contacting me. Regarding your changes @ Chavatshimshon edits Please do not make any more changes or moves to Jewish articles. You are too new to Wikipedia. You are not even reverting articles correctly (by creating multiple double reverts). You are also creating duplicate articles of existing articles, which creates even more problems. The articles you are fiddling around with have been worked on for many years. You cannot move and change these articles without discussing it with the nearly one hundred known members of WikiProject Judaism; WikiProject Jewish history; WikiProject Jewish culture and others. I am going to ask some experienced editors, who are also admins, to examine your recent changes and to revert your moves until we can get some better idea of what it is that you are doing, and if it is going to help the Jewish and Judaism articles on Wikipedia. Stay tuned. This message is being shared with User:Jmabel; User:Jayjg; User:Jfdwolff; User:TShilo12 and User:Humus sapiens. Thank you. IZAK 08:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Jewish Population is certainly is a very well covered area. I am wanting to make these changes after nearly three years of having noticed it, I've not been much of an editor until now. Put it this way, the term is definitely no a good encyclopedic title. I ask you consider your view from a vantage point. I am a native speaker and so are those who craeted the article, I am not belittling the longstanding editors grammatical abilities. Clearly the way things work here on wikipedia permits these blind spots... meaning the way things start is the way things continue and issues such as this stark point aren't even obvious anymore. Think about this, other ethnic groups on wikipedia as 'people/s' such as 'Roma people', which just wouldn't work here; ' 'Jewish People' just wouldn't sound right, so why do we have the current titles we have now? The answer to the JewWatch phenomenon which caused a backlash and thus Jewish people redirects to Jew, where as Roma People does not lead to gypsy etc. World Jewry is the most common term outside of wikipedia to describe jewish population content. Chavatshimshon 23:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Vadalism warning
Another editor, User:Gamaliel, deleted the article, as he explained here. Sorry for your confusion! -- Kendrick7talk 02:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli conflict
- A link to a specific Islamic leader is good, but can a source be found that says the mufti was actually fomenting antisemitism (which is linked to, obscured by a pipe, from the word hatred) among the general Muslim population in Jerusalem at the time? I'd be shocked if anyone claimed he wasn't antisemitic, but I'd like to see a source actually call the anger of the Arab rioters "antisemitism" (as opposed to, say, xenophobia.) Picaroon9288 02:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Host desecration
Hi Humus sapiens,

I need some help at Host desecration in your capacity as an administrator.--Lance talk 10:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see how can I be of any use. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

occupied territory
Dear Humus,
 * I think you might want to get involved in this--at least interesting--article I've just edited.
 * I suspect I might have a problem--since my position appears extremely pro-Israel.
 * Here's an excerpt of my contribution this moment:


 * OCCUPIED TERRITORY

An occupied territory is a region that has been taken over by a sovereign power after a military conquest (see military occupation). In most cases the period of occupation is temporary, pending the signing of a peace treaty, the resolution of specific conditions outlined in a peace treaty, or the formation of a new government.

Examples of occupied territories include Germany and Japan after World War II; the Sinai Peninsula (from 1967 until 1979), and the Golan Heights; Cambodia by Vietnam from 1979 until 1989; and Iraq after the fall of the government of Saddam Hussein.

However, strictly speeking, neither the Gaza Strip (before or until 2005), nor West Bank (since 1967), have ever been "territories" or "regions" "occupied" by Israel, from the standpoint of International Law. And the legal reason is simple: the "boarder" were soverign Israel ends and the alleged occupied regions or territories begin have not been defined.

The mandate of Palestine was created not by the Balfour Declaration but by the League of Nations. And the state of Israel was created, or recognized, by the United Nation. The West Bank had been "occupied"--but only until 1967, when it was "liberated" from Jordan--by Israel.

Jordan had "illegally" occupied the West Bank--and even incoporated the land into its own state. But this was only recognized by two other soveerign states at the time. Jordan was a "soverign power" which, through military conquest and occupation, in 1948/1949, took over and "occupied" the region of the West Bank. But since the borders of Israel (which would separate it from these two regions or territories) have never been defined, Israel was not, and is not, an "occupying power" of Palestinian land--not as far as internation law, defined by the Mandate for Palestine, is concerned.

Accordingly, these two regions where Palestinians live are no more "occupied" than Tel Aviv is. So that when Hamas speaks of "occupied Palestinian land"--it means "all of Israel." And rightly so--for there is no distinction to be made here, at least not until the parties involved come to an peaceful agreement defining where, if anywhere, the international boarder of Israel is.

IP block on 216.221.81.98
Hey there. You recently blocked and we have a collateral damage complaint at the unblock-en-l mailing list; could you switch the block to anonymous-only possibly?

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 03:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Antisemitism
H.S., admins are expected to be nicer. Please join the discussion. Thanks --Aminz 09:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, I can not believe you prefer an unreferenced, OR, POV section over a well-referenced one!! :o --Aminz 09:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder about 3rr in case you have not noticed. --Aminz 11:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't refer to my edits as "whitewash." I sourced the Encyclopedia of Islam, do you think that encyclopedia is whitewashed? BhaiSaab talk 04:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are unfit to be an administrator on Wikipedia. I ask you to justify your revert of my edit and instead you just revert my edit again. BhaiSaab talk 05:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Host desecration
I need the assistance of an administrator at Host desecration; my attempt to edit this article is being reverted resulting in a supression of fact that attempts to whitewash catholic antisemitism. Please read the discussion page and the edit history for the article. Thank you in advance for the assistance.--Lance talk 16:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Islamic extremist violence"
This is an embarassment to Wikipedia. KazakhPol 04:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Citing WP:CIV would have been more appropiate I think Hummus but for the back story you might want to have a look see here. (→ Netscott ) 04:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This little number that involved User:SlimVirgin is telling as well. (→ Netscott ) 04:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

NetScott
Incivility perhaps, personal attack, no. You really arent part of this discussion and your administrative oversight isnt exactly needed here. Please back off. KazakhPol 04:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:Assume good faith

 * ''The other half of this talk: and Talk:Antisemitism.

It is a violation of WP:NPOV to remove scholarly works from wikipedia as you did here. The article on Encyclopedia of Islam is written by Claude Cahen which is for sure one of the most renowned scholars of Islam.

It is a violation of WP:RS to use un-peer reviewed sources written by non-experts on a topic. Being a popular journalist doesn't make one a reliable source.

It is a violation of WP:Assume good faith to persistently and flatly accuse others of misrepresentation of sources when you haven't even read them. You need to make sure you have not misunderstood the case before making any accusations.

I am writing these because I, on one hand, have repented from engaging in edit warring and one the other hand find it impossible to work on this article otherwise. I am also annoyed by your accusation of misrepresentation of the sources.

I request that you retrieve all the sourced material you have removed by now and we can go over them one by one. They might need slight modifications but certainly not harsh removal. --Aminz 04:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikilayering?!!! It is part of my job to bring new users to this article as part of the dispute resolution process. It is not me who is POV pushing but you. Since you are removing well-sourced material. I am removing un-peer-reviewed material or OR material. --Aminz 04:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No, he is NOT. Which university does he teach? Where did he get his PhD degree and what was his thesis about? His work is not passed the blind academic review. --Aminz 04:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Tell me which books on Dhimmi have you studied please? --Aminz 04:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Humus sapiens, just a quick question: Do you really believe that what I am writing is wrong? --Aminz 05:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Challenge
Humus sapiens, here is the Jewish Encyclopedia (1910) online on Anti-Semitism.

If you could show me one place in this article or somewhere else in this encyclopedia which says "Muslims were traditionally antisemitic", then I'll be convinced. But I assure you that you can not find anything. --Aminz 05:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This might be the closest reference to antisemtism (the Anti-Jewish traditions) but still it doesn't say anti-semitism (the article on anti-semitism even doesn't mention Islam) --Aminz 05:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

How much would you pay me :)
If I can show you a quote from Lewis in which he says that in overall, Jews had traditionally accepted their status as a Dhimmi with gratitude? How much would you pay me if I can show that the story of Dhimmitude is a myth? --Aminz 05:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. Arrow740 07:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see that you've eventually used a peer-reviewed sourced. If I couldn't use that source, then how come you use it. Interesting! But this is a progress. :) --Aminz 08:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read that book(just a few sentences). How was that? --Aminz 08:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Page Number
Can you please check the page number. 279? --Aminz 08:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you a relative of Johnson ?
Since when he used a source you accepted it but when I used it, you removed it. Just wondering. --Aminz 09:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, AFAIK. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

So, if it is not pro-Johnsonism, then is it anti-Aminzism? :P --Aminz 10:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you noticed, the 2nd quote is from another page. I found it after some more search. The content should be discussed at the article's talk page. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I used Goitein but you removed it, then how come when the journalist used it you accepted it? Even the journalist says Goitein is a great scholar. --Aminz 05:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Humus sapiens, this is my yet another request of you to remove all unreferenced material from the section; Remove all the quotes from the journalist; And retrieve the scholarly version; And take back all your accusations of misrepresentations of the sources. If you think the section is not neutral, you can go to the library and check out an scholarly book written on anti-semitism. In that case, I would be more than happy to assist you in making the section even more scholarly. --Aminz 05:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The Dearborn Independent

 * I've removed the inside title page of the book as inappropriate--we have it already at the WP article on the book.
 * I'm in the process of having the image of the May 22, 1920 issue converted (by you I hope) to JPEG from WORD for uploading.
 * I noticed you had put the image in--so I sent you by Email the correct image for conversion.
 * Have a nice day! -- Ludvikus 13:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

- Sorry for the bother, but I seem still not to know the SYNTAX for INSERTING an IMAGE. The image information is already there, but the image does not SHOW. Can you please visit the article, just EDIT THIS PAGE, and put in the proper SYNTAX. I'll then look at what you did and hopefully will not need to bother you again on this--I'm still looking for WIKIPEDIA for DUMMIES! Ludvikus 13:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you
I need your help in fixing my userboxes again, I added some in, and it made a mess. I can't figure out why. Could you please help me again? I don't mean to bother you, but you fixed this before.Lan Di 16:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
for your barnstar. Beit Or 06:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Western Stone
Hi, need some help on getting refs for my new article. I was suprised there was nothing on it, but there's no allot on it on the web as a whole. Thanks.

1920 1st American Protocols of Zion - Small, Maynard & Company
Dear Humus Sapiens,
 * I'll probably Get image software today - I will not have to bother you with converting my PDF files into JPEG.
 * Also, I'll get a book, like "Wikipedia for Dummies," so I can Upload images myself.
 * But now, let me tell you I bought for $201 the 1920 edition of "The Protocols" by Small, Maynard & Company, and so I've made copies of the TITLES PAGES in it as follows (which are sent to you as PDF files):
 * 1/3: the 1920 book's title page (in Boston published);
 * 2/3: the "rare" alleged 1917 Serge Nilus Russian language edition of "The Protocols" title page; and
 * 3/3: the "Translation" (printed in this 1920 book) of the 1917 book.

By the way, this 1920 book has been allegedly edited, etc. by Boris Brasol.
 * Please convert these three (3) pages each to a JPEG file & place them on my Talk page.
 * Thanks, & Have a Nice Day, Ludvikus 12:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006
The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianics again
Hi Humus: The Messianic Judaism editors have been busy lately, you may want to know the following. Thanks. IZAK 19:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Inigmatus (contributions), self-described as "A mystery user with a point to be made" (wouldn't that make anything he does as automatically POV?), has added a number of features to Messianic Judaism. A month ago he evidently plagiarized the  Template:Judaism and created Template Messianic Judaism based on it. He also created WikiProject Messianic Judaism also obviously  plagiarizing the WikiProject Judaism page. This may mislead unsuspecting readers and there ought to be some warning or guidance about this.
 * User:Stjamie (contributions) created a new article (yet again) about "Rabbi" Isaac Lichtenstein (did this person even exist or this a hoax?), as well as about Boaz Michael (is this person notable or is this a vanity page?)

Dispute over Category:WikiProject Messianic Judaism
Hi Humus: I am having a difference of opinion with User:Inigmatus who insists that Category:WikiProject Messianic Judaism be a sub-category of Category:WikiProject Judaism. I have tried to edit the page, and have even tried a compromise of having it be part of Category:Christian and Jewish interfaith topics instead which would be perfect for it, but each time he reverts me, claiming "We make that call, not you. We're not part of "normative" Christianity either." and this:" "We" is Messianics. either both Judaism and Christain categories, or none go here. We make the call, because Messianics know best what is Messianic." , and he adds on Category talk:WikiProject Messianic Judaism: "Either Christian and Judaism categories go here, or they both don't. Not one or the other. Messianics do not ascribe to Chrisitanity, and Judaism is an unrelated category. I didn't put either category in, so I request both be removed, but if one is to be listed, then I request both Christianity and Judaism be listed. "We" Messianics have the right to inform the readers who "we" are affiliated with. inigmatus 04:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)" What do you think should be done? Thanks. IZAK 14:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)