User talk:Humus sapiens/archive2

AS discussion moved (IYDM) to User talk:Humus sapiens/AS. -Stevertigo 16:22, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC) PS - New comment on VFD:MCOIATIPC.
 * Thanks!  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 23:10, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hate Speech
You messaged me claiming I am guilty of inciting hate speech? Can I see proof of this? I have provided reputable sources for my quotes, of you are in dis-belief, look them up yourself.


 * I have provided a reputable source, look it up.

DO NOT MOVE PAGES BY COPY AND PASTE
'''DO NOT MOVE PAGES BY COPY AND PASTE. IT DESTROYS THE EDIT HISTORY. USE THE MOVE COMMAND'''. I have repaired the damage. -- Viajero 11:00, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The Move command was unavailable because I am not a sysadmin. I tried to undo the damage done by you earlier and would appreciate you undoing it yourself. No need to yell, thank you.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 23:10, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed your vote in the previous VfD on Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies and wanted to let you know that I have reopened the issue and wish for you to please cast your vote at VfD--naryathegreat 23:51, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Re:Hebrew language vs. "Canaanite language"
Hi, please see:

Request for assistance in a conflict between users regarding Canaanite and Hebrew linguistics articles

Your input and interest would be appreciated. Thank you. IZAK 09:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Update: The above discussion was moved to Talk:Hebrew languages. Thanks for having gotten back to me. Your input would still be appreciated. Thanks again. IZAK 07:04, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

From my talk page:Sorry for the delay. Okay, it's not really of use here to go back into the history with too much detail: Suffice it to say that you both represent poles in the spectrum, and that what you both produce will likely be considered by the other to be prejudiced or otherwise as biased... contd. -Stevertigo 21:56, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Response at my talk. Stevertigo 01:49, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism
As you have been involved in the debate before, I though you might be interested in knowing that it has heated up again. Jayjg 23:13, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

About Simonides and straw-man arguments against Jews
I am becoming very concerned about the behaviour of Simonides; he has already declared himself an enemy of "Zionist" contributions to Wikipedia, (although he has little idea of what this word really means; he uses this word as slur word.) Simonides's distortion of the content of the anti-Zionism article (and others), and his distortion of the views of Jewish groups, are straw-man attacks. As you know, no mainstream Jewish denomination, organization or group has ever claimed that a criticism of an Israeli policy or government is anti-Semitism; no on here on Wikipedia here is saying that either. Simonides' repeated claims to the contrary are Jew-baiting strawman attacks. They are not only factually false (and thus have no place in an encyclopedia), but will only serve to encourage open anti-Semitism. This isn't about a disagreement on how to phrase facts; this is about his manufactoring of false "facts" in order to hurt others whom he disagrees with. Simonides' behaviour is out of line, and if he continues, we may need to bring this up on the Wiki-En list. RK 13:42, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

E-mail address
You mentioned your e-mail address was here, but I couldn't find it. Where is it? Jayjg 15:27, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

UNRWA
I've reworded yet again. Care to take another look? Ambivalenthysteria 08:15, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mediation
Hello. Simonides has requested mediation concerning, amongst others, the following articles, some of which you may have been involved with: Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Modern anti-Semitism, PLO, Hamas, and Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Would you agree to discuss these issues with Simonides with the help of a mediator? If so, please respond at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation or on my talk page. If there are any mediators you would rather not handle this case, please say so. There is a list of them at Mediation Committee.

Angela, member of the Mediation Committee, 05:53, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hebrew languages
Wikipedia:WikiProject Hebrew languages. Please join WikiProject Hebrew languages Your input will be crucial. IZAK 08:28, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You're quite welcome
I didn't feel I was doing anything deserving of thanks, but it's appreciated anyway! :) -- Cecropia | Talk 06:46, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Image:Menorah7a.png
--Diberri | Talk 23:18, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Done.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 06:27, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Diberri | Talk 06:28, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Is anti-Semitism actually real?
Are Nazi's and the KKK really anti-Semitic, or is that just a Zionist/Jew claim? Once again we have someone making the outrageous claim that any use of the word "anti-Semitic" is a POV violation, and that the Nazis and KKK are not really anti-Semitic. For some time we have had trouble with articles on the Anti-Defamation League, Jew and Holocaust denial, with people repeatedly rewriting these articles to make proven instances of anti-Semitism out to be merely Jew accusations. Fortunately these edits have been fought back each time. But we again have a problem with someone damaging the Anti-Defamation League article. I thought that this might be of some interest. As far as I can tell, this is not about NPOV policy; this is about someone trying to whitewash Nazis, the KKK, people who spread the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, etc. This is about someone's agenda to whitewash anti-Semitism, and make it look like those silly Jews are just whining about things which probably aren't real. RK 02:57, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Trash comment in Talk page of article
What should I do with that kind of a reply in the Talk page? Should I answer it seriously? delete it? or just ignore? MathKnight 18:49, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You might be interested in this discussion on article deletion
Votes_for_deletion/Occupation_of_Palestine Jayjg 05:38, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hero of Socialist Labor
Hi, Humus! I completely rewrote your stub on the Hero of Socialist Labor title, I hope you like it. KNewman 18:08, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

please
I just finished reading the article on the 6-day war and i found it to be very subtly pro-israel. I am not accusing you of academic favoritism, just questioning that perhaps your personal views may have influenced some of your wording and choice of pertinent history. While i am not persoanally anti-israel or pr-israel (or anti/pro anyone in the middle east, for that matter), i find that the disadvantage is to everyone when the reporting of history is colored with an individual's biases.

Some Requests for this article: •go over the wording and be sure that it is neutral •go deeper into the military roles of the arab states in the war •include more specific military information on israel and some arab states -some of the states' military information regarding number and deployment of troops and units prior to the conflict were given but israel's information was vague, as well as syria's etc. (specifically, air force statistics). •Go deeper into the roles of international powers. -i know you said there was no military assistance, but a conflict of this magnitude does not escape the notice of the international community.

thank you very much. i enjoyed reading your article.


 * Dear anon, thanks for your feedback. There's no "my" articles in WP. As for that particular one, I almost didn't touch it, check the article's history. I'll try to get more educated on the points you've mentioned.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 05:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your uploaded image
Thanks for uploading Image:Tishreen-Apr-30-2000.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know whether it's released under the GFDL, whether fair use is claimed, or what? Thanks,   – Quadell (talk) (help)   18:33, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Done.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 05:07, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Early Zionism
Thanks for all the new entries around the Hovevei Zion /Pinsker topic. Doug
 * Making WP better is so much fun. YAW.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 05:41, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis
See Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis. Thank you. IZAK 09:27, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Need for support
See Requests for comment/IZAK. Thank you. IZAK 02:58, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Image
Hi!!! Thanks for adding image to my article about Levitan. It was very nice to you. Thanks.--Debora 16:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Sam Spade
Requests for adminship/Sam Spade

Vote "NO". Opposed to SamSpade's unfriendly views in the Jew article. IZAK 08:46, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"(Israel) in contravention of the Partition plan, began killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinian Arab population. Palestine's five neighbour states then.."
Please see History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where User:HistoryBuffer insists on inserting: that Israel "in contravention of the Partition plan, began killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinian Arab population. Palestine's five neighbour states then attacked Israel."...When no-one but he says this, and refuses to accept anything else. He also isnsists on editing-away lots of NPOV's that don't suit him, take a look at please. IZAK 08:33, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

moved from Votes for deletion/Occupied Palestinian Territories (look there for the context)
At least you are honest about your pro-Israel Wikipedia editing. That's refreshing. And our communication on the Jewish refugees Talk page was civil, wasn't it? You accepted my minor NPOV edits in an open-minded manner despite the very deep-seated pro-Israel POV throughout your subject matter. So if there is nothing wrong with being a Zionist propagandist, then why is pointing out pro-Isreali bias considered hate speech? Regarding your kind thoughts for the surviving Palestinians in diaspora and, I'm sure also those who have been killed (some today!) to make living space for the more important refugees, the circle closes as I'm reminded of similar cheery advice from a bygone era; "werk macht frei". Alberuni 06:05, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * If you insist on bringing it here then no I don't find your comment : "The Jews living in Arab countries were Arabs... The Jews are not a nation..." particularly civilized.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 08:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I see. You consider my pointing out the difference between Judaism the religion and Zionism the nationalist political ideology as "uncivilized". I think this says more about you and your work on manipulating content in Wikipedia than it does about me. Alberuni 14:00, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By using the disgusting "werk macht frei" (actually it was "arbeit macht frei") Alberuni is inverting reality and turning the PLO terrorists into "victims". Don't you have something better to do today hon..? IZAK 06:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) Hello! Now we are getting to the crux of the problem. You, and you are not alone, see all Palestinians as "terrorists" and so, of course, it is acceptable to gun them all down in self-defense. That's the logic that makes possible Jenin, Jabalia, Auschwitz and Buchenwald. Alberuni 06:24, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) "...Jenin, Jabalia" and "Auschwitz and Buchenwald" all in one breath? Gosh, this is dizzying...IZAK 06:38, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:GeneralPatton suggests that HistoryBuffer be taken to Arbitration
From User:IZAK: See Requests for comment/IZAK

''':Izak, from my own experience, I suggest you now take HistoryBuffEr straight to Arbitration, and demand he be banned from all articles concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You have a great and compelling body of evidence against him. GeneralPatton 19:36, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)'''

Users are asked to please help set this in motion.

Pathetically, HistoryBuffer is now antagonizing more people at Holocaust denial examined, see the "history" of that page and the "revert wars" and other stuff at Talk:Holocaust denial examined IZAK 02:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC):


 * "This article contains an unsubstantiated assertion about the use of term "Zionist" by Holocaust deniers. The Zionist extremist and Palestine denier Jayjg keeps reverting any attempt to correct the false implication that anyone using the term "Zionist" is/could be a Holocaust denier, without supplying any evidence for the assertion. HistoryBuffEr 07:48, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)"

Days of Penitence (Request protection)
Please protect the page. User:HistoryBuffEr is keep vandlizing the page with Hamas-sponsered propoganda. If HistBuffer vandlize it again, please revert and then protect. MathKnight 19:44, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the "welcome back" message. I'm really not sure yet if I'm here to stay. I'm trying to take it easy this time and avoid wikistress. Given that I haven't contributed much lately, I feel reluctant to participate in any any votes right now. Perhaps later.

Anyway, I'm not sure that fighting over pages which were clearly created as anti-Israeli propaganda (such as Occupation of Palestine and Operation Days of Penitence Fatalities) is the best use we can put to our time and energy. People who get to these pages are not many, and usually already have a firm opinion on the subject.

So I think spending time on more visible pages like Palestine, Israel, Jerusalem, etc., making sure they are NPOV, is a better use for my (very limited) time.

Nevertheless, I wish you good luck in all your battles, and I might join some of them at some point :-)

-- uriber 17:08, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Zionist_Revisionism
Votes_for_deletion/Zionist_Revisionism--Josiah 00:25, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV on Talk:Jew
I'm sorry if my comment was offensive. I was trying to maintain a distinction between _Jews_ and _Israel_. They are not the same thing, as far as I can see. I said that "Israel" was tending to repond to every Palestinian suicide bomber (these are wrong, unjustifiable, etc.) by killing even larger numbers of suspected terrorists (which is wrong, unjustifiable, etc.) This has, as far as I can see, absolutely NOTHING to do with the "Jews" or "Palestinians" as peoples. That is, a comment (unfortunately true) that Hitler had Catholic schooling and did horrible things is not an anti-Catholic statement, and similarly, that Sharon happens to be a Jew and does horrible things is not an anti-Jewish statement. I don't think that what Sharon does should reflect on Jews as a people. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Mpolo 10:00, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * I realize that Sharon is democratically elected. And actually, it seems like he is trying to do the right thing. It just always seems like overreaction occurs -- on both sides. There was an editorial cartoon in the Economist a couple of weeks ago that had the whole cycle pretty well "down pat". The cycle has to be broken somewhere. "Turning the other cheek" doesn't always work on an international scale (and we Christians have not given a very good example of it either -- see Northern Ireland or Catholic-Orthodox relations), but somehow the cycle has to be stopped -- the razing of Palestinian refugee camps has always only lead to increase hatred (just as the terrorist acts themselves serve no purpose other than to spread hatred). There's not an easy solution, but I do believe that peace is possible... Mpolo 10:57, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr's RFC against Proteus
You might be interested in this: Requests_for_comment/Proteus. Regards, Jayjg 21:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Terrorist categories
Categories for deletion has two lists of categories related to terrorists up for deletion. Jayjg 20:49, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion
See these six categories up for "votes of deletion":

Categories_for_deletion and Categories_for_deletion and Categories_for_deletion and Categories_for_deletion and Categories_for_deletion and this one too: Categories_for_deletion

IZAK 10:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opinion for IZAK
Please see Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence. Thank you. IZAK 07:04, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

whoops
I was actually responding to JFW's bit about the medline listings having POV titles. It was just above your name, and below JFW's initial comment, causing my confusion. Removed your name from my comment. Should have looked more closely, my apologies. Wolfman 15:06, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) No prob, take it easy. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 02:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Advocacy
Please vote on Category:Advocacy. HistoryBuffEr created this category as a duplicate of Category:Activism, and fabricated a negative definition associating Advocacy with propaganda -- a definition that cannot be found in any dictionary. Then, he replaced Category:Activism with his new Category:Advocacy on Hasbara and Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Advocacy groups are already categorized under Activism so HistoryBuffEr's new category is essentially a duplicate, and contains a false definition. --Viriditas 10:17, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yellow Badge
I read your article, Yellow badge and was amazed and impressed. I know you didn't write it all, but still, I thought I'd drop by with a thank you for your contributions. Thank you. Pedant 22:31, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

Forum for Encyclopedic Standards
I have drafted a proposal for a new voluntary association on Wikipedia (joining groups like the The Business and Economics Forum and the Harmonious editing club) to promote discussion of a sort of system of expert review on Wiki. Please take a look and add your ideas. 172 02:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Wonderful idea! I have joined. I will let some others know. Thank you. IZAK 03:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Disagreement?
I have answered your question on my talk page. We doubtless do disagree on this issue. I believe states and their servants use methods that are calculated to cause fear in civilian populations. I cannot see that shooting indiscriminately at a school can be anything else than a means of doing so. I do not distinguish between sides in an asymmetric war and I equally deplore terrorism from both sides. I hope that this is satisfactory to you.Dr Zen 10:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * To "not distinguish between sides in an asymmetric war" - sorry, I must note that I consider this position morally blind. Do you distinguish between the immorality of a criminal who intentionally murders and terrorizes people and the morality of police forces who act to stop further attacks (such operations sometimes end up in a unintended loss of innocent life, unfortunately). Of course, the loss of life must be avoided, but not at the cost of allowing more murders to continue. Here, one side intentionally bombs discos, buses and restaurants (see Passover Massacre) and in response, the IDF has to act to stop further atrocities (because the PA does not). No army/police force on the planet is able to completely avoid killing bystanders. Israel is a signatory of Geneva convention. You say "shooting indiscriminately" but it is untrue and against the policy (IDF explicitly prohibits targeting non-combatants) and each incident is officially investigated. If the IDF's goal would be simply to "cause fear in civilian populations", as you say, they have big bombs. Instead, Israelis are in the avantgarde of developing precision weapons. They send their infantrymen (23 died in Jenin battle alone), instead of bombing the "refugee camp" rigged with explosives and ambushes. FYI, a facility that shelters militants loses its status of being "civilian". HTH.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 11:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in discussing your opinion of my morality. I do not equate Palestinians with "criminals" and the IDF with the "police". I would strenuously oppose the police in my nation if they shot children without the due process of the law. When we bomb a street with an airplane, this is policing? And when we do it personally, with the bombs strapped to us, that is murder? Sorry, man, either way the street gets bombed and people die. You are not in the right simply because your method of murdering your political opponents is more tasteful.Dr Zen 11:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * What matters is the difference between one side intentionally maximizing the loss of civilian life, and another intentionally minimizing it. The more civilians are killed on either side, the more it works for extremists. And you provide them with conventient cover to go on. BTW, I don't equate all the Palestinians with criminals, you must stop that sillyness. Of course Iraelis are no angels and it it wrong to expect them to be. Just as any people they are entitled to defending themselves. Do they indiscriminantly "bomb a street with an airplane"? No they do not, it is HAMAS & Co who launch Kassam rockets into Israeli towns. The term "political opponents" is misleading: HAMAS, Hizballah, PIJ etc. are bent on making the land of Israel Judenrein. If the next thing you were going to write is something like "stop the occupation", don't bother: the Arab-on-Jew atrocities began much earlier thatn 1948 and 1967: see Jerusalem pogrom of April, 1920, Riots in Palestine of May, 1921, Hebron massacre, etc.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 21:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The criminal analogy was better than you thought. If someone burgles my house, I don't get a bulldozer and destroy the street he lives in. I'm sorry, but *you* provide the extremists on both sides with "cover" to go on. We are always going to disagree on this subject. There's no point to rehearsing the same old arguments over and over.Dr Zen 22:42, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * They repeatedly murder civilians, the more the merrier. Don't you agree that if destroying their empty houses helps stop further atrocities, it is the most humane thing to do? The nature of violent extremists is that they don't need a legitimate reason, and will always find some pretext. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" (Edmund Burke)  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 23:21, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I answered your original comment. Humus, this suggests that the "extremists" are a priori violent men, who are using this conflict as a reason for killing people. I don't like this argument for two reasons: one, you do not apply it to your own side (not only would you not so describe Sharon but I am sure you would not so describe Begin -- do you agree? The cause makes it okay for your guys but not for theirs!) and two, it is so limited a view of how people rationalise what they do as not to be creditable. Are some guys readier to sign up for a cause than others? Yes. Some are more likely to volunteer as soldiers too. We don't generally think of them as "violent extremists". Don't get me wrong. I'm no sympathiser with terrorists. I believe men on both sides justify wrongdoing with spurious reasoning. I don't doubt, either, that each side would quote me Burke as part of their reasoning without the slightest understanding of the irony of it.Dr Zen 23:26, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Do I think destroying the houses of everyone in their neighbourhood is the "humane" thing to do? No. I think it is designed precisely to terrorise the militants' neighbours and to undermine their popular support. I believe the same idea motivates the public slaying of militants in high streets and markets. The notion conveyed to the general public is "if you support them, and allow them to live and shop among you unmolested, we don't mind making you 'collateral damage'". Nothing "moral" there.Dr Zen 23:26, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * A house can be restored, unlike a human life. The Israelis denounced terrorism in the late 1940s and it was M. Begin who signed the Camp-David accord and it was Sharon who signed the RMP and offers to give up Gaza. Oh and BTW the PA signed it too, therefore committing itself to curb the violence and dismantle terrorist organizations. But with your help, they have perfect excuse: "Jews made them do it". Israelis are not angels and it is wrong to expect them to be. Of course it is moral to defend one's country, minimizing civilian casualties. Where would you be without the army and police, under the Nazis, Commies or thugs? I am afraid you prefer others to do the dirty job for you, but instead of supporting and praising for good job, you denigrate them for not being ideally perfect.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 23:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I simply do not believe that the Palestinians are "Nazis, Commies or thugs" in need of killing, and I do not in fact thank Israel for doing that "dirty job". I say again, I deplore the violence on both sides and excuse neither.Dr Zen 00:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I deplore how you twist my words around. Nowhere did I say that they are. I guess it is your way of evading the serious issues.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 00:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello Humus sapiens, and thanks for the welcome and the info, which is much appreciated. I'm glad to hear that most people are friendly. :-)  Slim 08:34, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

A friendly warning returned
You have to cease your rampage of ad hominem attacks and revert wars. This is an encyclopedia project built on collaboration, not a hate forum. You have yet to learn to live with neutral facts that differ from your pro-Israeli opinion. You are one of the most egregious partisan POV pushers. You are in no position to lecture anyone about NPOV. Clean your own house before telling anyone else what to do. --Alberuni 00:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Humus
Well, it means "earth" in Latin :P

But still I guess Hummus Sapiens would have been tasty...

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Join RWNB!
Hello, Humus sapiens! Thought you might be interested in the Russian wikipedians' notice board. Come check it out! KNewman 04:44, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Image copyrights
Thanks for uploading Image:Pamyat-eagle-swastika-150.png. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much,   &mdash; Edwin Stearns | Talk 22:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks for pointing out. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 08:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi, Hum[m]us. Could you also tag Image:Weizmann and feisal 1918.jpg? I'm not sure if it is in the public domain in the EU, because the photographer must have died <= 1934. It's public domain in the US. -- hike395 14:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry for missing that one too. I marked it GFDL, but feel free to change that if you know something I don't.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 10:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hypocrites
I have told you before that I consider the intifada to be an asymmetric war. I do not believe every action of the Palestinians to be terrorism, although some, I agree, are. I have been absolutely consistent in my belief that civilians are not legitimate targets of war, regardless of who is fighting it or why. Please don't bore me by yet again citing the IDF code of conduct. Actions have always spoken louder than words. I thought I was clear that I believe both sides have carried out acts of terrorism. I believe shooting at a school is an act designed to cause terror in the civilian population and is indefensible. I believe attacking buses and discos are also acts of terror and also indefensible.

I don't think, though, that those who do the latter can be labelled "terrorists" and those who do the former not. As it happens, Humus, I would not support an article on the IDF's being labelled with the terrorism category, even though I do strongly believe the IDF has carried out acts of terror.

As for Israel's actions' all being in its defence, I do not believe that to be true, and I'm not going to start believing it because you harass me. As is so often the case in conflict, there is merit on both sides and bad on both sides. A due recognition of that on your part would not go amiss. Dr Zen 23:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You keep bringing the same straw man argument. I am tired of repeating that yes, sometimes Israelis are wrong and sometimes they make tragic mistakes. Show me any war without mistakes, i.e. unintentional casualties. Why keep them to a different standard than other armies/nations? Here is your chance to show your evenhandedness.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 09:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Unintentional casualties"? You shell a refugee camp, you know people will die. You shoot at a market or a school, you know people, including children will die. I'm not hypocrite enough to hide behind semantics. Seems you are. Dr Zen 22:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Input needed
Hi Humus: See the discussions taking place at Template talk:Jew. Please provide your views. Thank you. IZAK 08:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism
You should know that User:Molloy has marked you as a vandal, citing conflicts on the Zionism article. I am not sure that this was a wise move on his part.--Pharos 12:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

project: The new antisemitism
I took the liberty to help a little with the project cleanup of the new antisemitism. I fixed an headline typo, added sub-headlines to "manifestions of new antisemitism" (content should be added) and reorganized the links section - adding Simon Wiesenthal center and the US state department July 1, 2003- Dec 15, 2004 report. Feel free to contact me on the talk page, I will be happy to help you with the project. MathKnight 13:33, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: about the part of antisemitic cartoons - I seek info about the British's "The Independent" cartoon presenting Sharon eating a baby's head and about a New-Zealander cartoonist who was fired after a series of antisemitic cartoons he drew in the paper. MathKnight 13:33, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Archived discussion with User:Blankfaze
... before he blanked the page: