User talk:Humus sapiens/archive9

Portal:Judaism/New article announcements
That's a good idea! I will make sure to add new articles to the announcement page. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Saints Wikiproject
I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page:

Thanks! --evrik 18:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

AFAIR
what does it mean? elizmr 20:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes they are nice colors. I stole them from you!  (THANKS) elizmr 20:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Jewish history portal
''Still there are some articles that belong neither to Israel nor Judaism, e.g. Shanghai ghetto. Do you think we need Portal:Jewish history and Portal:Jewish history/New article announcements?''


 * Yeah, I think that would be a good idea. Some articles (such as a bio of a famous rabbi) might fall under "Judaism" and "Jewish history" but they could easily be listed under both categories (by the same token, an article could fall under "Judaism" and "Israel" or "Israel" and "Jewish history" Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I made a couple of adjustments (added a "Members" section, a couple of new articles, and a few sample categories). Should we a do an "Article of the week/month" section? I'd be happy to help with updating it but I'm not an expert on formatting. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

bloger
Sorry if I offended you as I looked at your profile I see that you are a religious Jew and I understand that you are a Zionist supporter and you have all rights to be defended.

The group True Torah Jews is a completely independent group and with no affiliation to any other anti-Zionist group

I will put the info in the page True Torah Jews but I will take the word fringe out because the group is far from fringe. Bloger 23:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please practice what you preach!!

If my or your beliefs do not matter why did you conclude without having any knowledge that this is a fringe group??

The only reason I can think you did so is because you did put your personal belief into it.

The article I wrote is neutral because it gives facts, and doesn’t take sides like if they are right or not.

Please define what you mean by fringe if you want me to show you why I think its not fringe Bloger 00:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You’re right on that point I really don’t know I just assumed because you sounded offended Bloger 00:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

True Torah Jews
How can you ask me to be neutral (which I am B.T.W. at least in my writing) when you are so obviously the apposite.

You edited the page to True Torah Jews and slanted the info so that the group looks bad.

Firstly, you probably looked at there web site, and all you found is that they claim the holocaust is the fault of the Zionists?!

The sites # 1 goal obviously is to educate the public that authentic rabbis that were world-renowned and universally accepted to be the biggest torah scholars among the orthodox Jewish leadership were apposed to Zionism.

The sites # 2 goal is to educate people that support Zionism out of concern for the safety of the Jewish people that not only has it not made the Jewish people safer, but to the contrary, it made the Jewish people less safe in Israel and around the world.

The # 3 goal is to educate people why Zionism is against the torah.

And yes it also clams that the Zionist ambushed the rescue efforts made by some during the holocaust, thinking that the brutality of the holocaust would help them in there course of establishing a Jewish state which it did.

Those are the facts that everyone with an open mind – no mater what your feelings are towards Zionism - sees when he looks at the site. Nevertheless, all you found was that they say the holocaust is the fault of the Zionists and that they participate in anti Israel public campaigns, isn’t that being biased?? Moreover, you edit pages in the wikipidia according to your biased holdings, only to bash me for not being even handed, when all I reported were only the facts??

Secondly, the group was not severely criticized as you claim, the reference you site, is against the Neturei Karta group, although they used the name True Torah Nazis changing it from True Torah Jews that’s probably because just like you they can’t - or don’t want - to differentiate between the two groups, that aren’t affiliated in any way.

Thirdly, as I said the group is not fringe in any way, one small proof to that is that I know for a fact that in the satmar synagogues a fundraising appeal is made each and every year for True Torah Jews ,I think that a group like satmar with its 100,000 members participating in its financial well being gives legitimacy to a group, at least to the extend not to be called fringe

Bloger 20:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. I will put a copy of this post on the discussion page for people to decide for themselves


 * You are an administrator and stronger than me in that respect so I guess you don’t have to comply with rule WP:3RR since you overruled it today


 * Bloger 23:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn’t going to put the entire page back I was going to correct your page instead but someone redirected it to Neturei Karta and since I don’t have any other version I put mine back


 * Bloger 17:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * True Torah Jews is non profit as you can verify here


 * Your acusation than “The group blames the Holocaust on Zionism and Zionist leadership” is false, it instead it claims that the Zionist leadership “ambushed rescue efforts” made by some during the holocaust, thinking that the more brutal the holocaust was going to be the more it would help them in there course of establishing a Jewish state, which is completely different from “blaming the Holocaust” on Zionism and Zionist leadership.


 * The group was never severely criticized, as were other anti Zionist groups.


 * The group does not participate in protest together with Arab’s like the Neturei Karta, it only participates in protest backed by there rabbis.


 * And as I said before I think that a group with support of 100,000 people sarmar isn’t fringe


 * Bloger 18:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ten Commandments
The "Ten Commandments Spoiler" is still adding his tag. Since it runs a fine line between vandalism and content dispute I can no longer correct the article as I will go 3RR in doing so. As it is, the anon with the "spoiled" agenda has now gone 5RR trying to prove his point. Any thoughts? Thanks and take care! Anger22 23:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Image:Coolness.jpg
Hi Humus sapiens. On May 10, 2006 you deleted Image:Coolness.jpg, providing "obscene image" as the deletion comment. The criteria for speedy image deletion say nothing of an image's content. I would like to know why you did not follow procedure and tag the image with nsd or list it at IfD. Thanks. ~MDD4696 14:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew spelling, other stuff
Hi, while you have not been involved in Naming conventions (Hebrew), you did edit many Israel-related articles and seem to be interested in it, so please check out Talk:List of Egged bus lines. We are having a dispute over 2 issues: Hebrew transliateration/interpretation of Wikipedia policy regarding it, and something that relates to the subject of the article (if you know about it, feel free to comment as well). Thanks. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Makhir
made a small adjustment. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

True Torah Jews
Hi, I posted a defense of the article True Torah Jews, I would like to ask you to be so kind and read it, and than rethink your position on deletion.

Bloger 00:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

White Supremacy
I disagree that what I did on the "White Supremacy" page is vandalism. What I added is a FACT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.200.89 (talk • contribs)

Palestine Children's Relief Fund
Let me preface this by the fact that I have no interest in this article one way or another. We have received a complaint at the Wikimedia foundation (see OTRS regarding certain POV pushing of this article and accusations of ownership. I reviewed the article and could see no relevant reason to include Charities accused of ties to terrorism, regardless of the information in the prior paragraph.

The inclusion of this link appears to be specifically designed to lead the reader to a preordained conclusion, and should be considered POV. Please reconsider your revert of this. I have no desire to become embroiled in an article dispute about this, or bring this up for RFC. Wikipedia is not a forum for making points. Bastique &#09660; parlervoir 19:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your attention. This, as you know, is a sensitive issue with very strong viewpoints on both sides.  Because of the email we recieved, I have brought this to the attention of the OTRS committee and we'll be working to try to help bring this article to a healthy medium.   Topics involving ongoing conflicts require objective viewpoints.  Bastique &#09660; parlervoir 20:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

User Threatens Over Removal of link to Porn
Would you take a look at the postings at the end of my home page by user User:Gooverup? He placed a link on the Maria Sharapova page to supposedly nude pictures of her. I removed it and placed a level one vandalism note on his talk page. I'm not sure but it looks like a physical threat to me. User:Rekalov has just reverted it, after he restored it.

I'd appreciate some intervention, if you feel it's warrented, or if another admin doesn't get there first. --CTSWyneken 16:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See my talk page. --CTSWyneken 16:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not threatening anyone, guys
Read Ignore all rules. So if you can't read you should think. Gooverup

The Hamas aritcle: Amibidhrohi
Could you please offer your opinion on Amibidhrohi's behavior either in the corresponding conversation on the Hamas talk page, or elsewhere if you feel it more appropriate? Thanks. s  &raquo;  abhorreo  &raquo; i 18:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

answer to your question "who says 'territorial' conflict."
your request for citation is in general legitimate, but in the case of Israeli-Palestinian conflict unnecessary, since the rest of the article makes the issue clear. The summary of the kind of conflict does belong in the first sentence. For reference, here is how the article summarizes the issues. (My comments are in brackets.) If you have issues with the article's "summary of issues", please edit the body of the article, request citations where appropriate, etc. I think you will agree it makes sense to summarize the issues of conflict as present in the article, and that the word "territorial" does this.

The article's summary of issues: Since the Oslo Accords, the government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) have been officially committed to an eventual two-state solution [Comment: territorial description, although aspects of the solution other than its two-statedness are not necessarily territorial.]. The main unresolved issues between these two bodies are:


 * 1) The status and future of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem which comprise the areas for the proposed State of Palestine. [Comment: territorial.]
 * 2) Israeli security, including the Israeli West Bank barrier. [Comment: not territorial, from a NPOV.]
 * 3) Palestinian security. [Comment: not territorial, from a NPOV.]
 * 4) The nature of a future Palestinian state. [Comment: territorial. To see why just look at the first sentences of Palestinian state, which explicitly use the word "territories".]
 * 5) The fate of the Palestinian refugees. [Comment: territorial, again look at the first sentences of Palestinian refugees, which explicitly use the word "territories".]
 * 6) The settlement policies of Israel, and the ultimate fate of settlements. [Comment: territorial.]
 * 7) Sovereignty over Jerusalem's holy sites, including the Temple Mount and Western Wall (Wailing Wall) complex. [Comment: territorial.]

If you object to this summary of issues, please edit the article, or, for the bullet points in which I link to another article, please edit those articles. I'm not saying the article is necessarily accurate in its summary of issues! Please help make it more accurate if you feel it doesn't show issues accurately.

Thank you.

Yours,

81.182.76.142 22:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. By that logic, everyting remotely close to history/politics is territorial. Emi/immigration, all kinds of conflicts (we humans are territorial, right?), agriculture, tourism, real estate... Seriuosly, we should not engage in WP:NOR. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I accept your position and, especially in light of WP:NOR I withdrew the suggestion to qualify the broad term "conflict" to one of mere "territorial conflict", which might, however, be appropriate in one of the more specific articles. (We often hear "disputed territories", but the article title "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" I accept refers to a broader conflict.) In your revision summary you suggest "the conflict has many dimensions", and indeed, this is reflected in the points from the article which I quoted above.  However, I suggest that a number of adjectives before the word "conflict" would be appropriate, to differentiate this conflict from other historical and contemporary conflicts.  You can add "mostly", "largely", "essentially", etc, before a number of adjectives.  For example (this is a wild guess), the first sentence could read:


 * "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a part of the greater Arab-Israeli conflict, is an ongoing political, ideological, sometimes ethnic, [etc, etc] conflict between Israel and Palestinians." (or for ideological->religious). Qualifying the main dimensions of a conflict is hardly original research, and I respectfully submit that territorial dispute is an important dimension of this conflict.  To give a completely non-political example: the entry for Wikipedia opens by referring to Wikipedia not just as an "Encyclopedia" but an "international Web-based free-content encyclopedia", thereby establishing the entry along certain dimensions.  Likewise, the opening sentence to the article we're talking about already qualfies "conflict" with an adjective -- ongoing.  This separates the conflict from past conflicts, and, it establishes that one of the more important or significant aspects of the conflict is that it's happening now.  I invite you to qualify conflict with a number of adjectives, or else please reply here with a reason why you think the single adjective "ongoing" is most important.


 * Thank you.


 * 81.182.76.142 23:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being reasonable. I'll take another look, right now I am disinclined to restrict the characterization of this complex conflict to a few adjectives in the intro. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Mosaic
Since you appear to be Jewish and perhaps Israeli, and therefor should deal with particular sensitivity with issues involving the Jewish people, I have no idea why you reverted my edits regarding the anti semitic show Mosaic - the anti semitic bile that comes from that show would do Hitler proud. And if you read the Wikipedia rules, opinions may be expressed so long as they are indicated to be opinions: e.g. many think that, some believe that, etc., probably the majority of articles out there have such phrases that are unsourced - so why did you take that out? Incorrect 13:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)  (and by the way, I intend to continue to edit that article when ever legally allowed to indicate Mosaic is a major antisemitic outlet)

Deletionism facing (Judaism) articles
Hi Humus: I have just placed the following on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Shabbat Shalom, IZAK 09:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Shalom to everyone: There is presently a very serious phenomenon on Wikipedia that effects all articles. Let's call it "The New Deletionism". There are editors on Wikipedia who want to cut back the number of "low quality" articles EVEN IF THEY ARE ABOUT NOTABLE TOPICS AND SUBJECTS by skipping the normal procedures of placing or  tags on the articles' pages and instead wish to skip that process altogether and nominate the articles for a vote for deletion (VfD). This can be done by any editor, even one not familiar with the subject. The implication/s for all articles related to Jews, Judaism, and Israel are very serious because many of these articles are of a specilaized nature that may or may not be poorly written yet have important connections to the general subjects of Jews, Judaism, and Israel, as any expert in that subject would know.


 * Two recent examples will illustrate this problem:


 * 1) See Articles for deletion/Zichron Kedoshim, Congregation where a notable Orthodox synagogue was deleted from Wikipedia. The nominator gave as his reason: "Scarce material available on Google, nor any evidence in those results of notability nor any notable size." Very few people voted and only one person objected correctly that: "I've visited this synagogue, know members, and know that it is a well established institution" which was ignored and the article was deleted. (I was unaware of the vote).


 * 2) See Articles for deletion/Berel Wein where the nominator sought to delete the article about Rabbi Berel Wein because: "It looks like a vanity project to me. While he does come up with many Google hits, they are all commercial in nature. The article is poorly written and reads like a commercial to me." In the course of a strong debate the nominator defended his METHOD: "... what better way to do that than put it on an AfD where people who might know more about the subject might actually see it and comment rather than slapping a and  template on and waiting for someone to perhaps come across it." But what if no-one noticed it in time and it would have gone the same way as "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim"? Fortunately, people noticed it, no-one agreed with the nominator and the article was kept.


 * As we all know Googling for/about a subject can determine its fate as an article, but this too is not always a clear-cut solution. Thus for example, in the first case, the nominator saw almost nothing about "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim" on Google (and assumed it was unimportant) whereas in the second case the nominator admitted that Berel Wein "does come up with many Google hits" but dismissed them as "all commercial in nature". So in one case too few Google hits was the rationale for wanting to delete it and in the other it was too many hits (which were dismissed as "too commercial" and interpreted as insignificant), all depending on the nominators' POV of course.


 * This problem is compounded because when nominators don't know Hebrew or know nothing about Judaism and its rituals then they are at a loss, they don't know variant transliterated spellings, and compounding the problem even more Google may not have any good material or sources on many subjects important to Jewish, Judaic, and Israeli subjects. Often Judaica stores may be cluttering up the search with their tactics to sell products or non-Jewish sites decide to link up to Biblical topics that appear "Jewish" but are actually missionary sites luring people into misinformation about the Torah and the Tanakh, so while Googling may yield lots of hits they may mostly be Christian-oriented and even be hostile to the Judaic perspective.


 * Therefore, all editors and contributors are requested to be aware of any such attempts to delete articles that have a genuine connection to any aspect of Jews, Judaism and Israel, and to notify other editors.


 * Please, most importantly, place alerts here in particular so that other editors can be notified.


 * Thank you for all your help and awareness. IZAK 08:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Baruch ben Neriah
Nice job with the citation format! Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

European Union of Jewish Students
Hello H. S., I have noticed that you were quite active in articles related to Judaism and this is why I am asking for some help. Somebody wants to erase European Union of Jewish Students. I would like you to give your opinion in the case Articles for deletion/European Union of Jewish Students. Thanks. Gadig 06:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Violations of WP:Civil on Talk:Evolution
Hi Humus

I have recently been trying to participate in a discussion on the Evolution talk page. It seems, hoever, that my views are in contradiction to the beliefs of some of the editors there, and they have repeatdly tried to silence me by resorting to personal attacks. Examples:

User:Slrubenstein
 * maybe do not understand science in general
 * think there is still value to being able to tell ignorant dogmatics like Sangil that their points are addressed in the article
 * Now, Sangil may never be educated by the article, but smarter or less dogmatic readers who listen to creationist (or "ID") arguments because they are very open-minded or naive may indeed be educated by our article

User:WAS 4.250
 * You display no such knowledge. You display gross ignorance. Who gave you the degree? Genesisversity

User:Plumbago
 * he was countering your ridiculous statement

thx1138
 * That's complete BS
 * You posted a blatant lie. What kind of response did you expect?

User:Graft
 * Arguing with you is like trying to hit a puppy by throwing a live bee at it
 * I was going to do what WAS did and insult Sangil's education, but no need

These edits are taken from Talk:evolution and Talk:evolution

My request is that being an administrator, you step in to stop this rather crude bullying, ans allow all views to be expressed equally (as long as they are expressed in a civil manner). i don't know what form of intervention would be preferable, but i feel that the current situation is not acceptable. I also beleive that User:Slrubenstein's attempt to "educate" users is rather problematic, and is in violation of What Wikipedia is not in regard to WP not being a soapbox.

I have posted a warning to these users regarding WP:Civil, which has been ignored.

Note: I have also posted this message on User:Jayjg's and User:SlimVirgin's talk pages. It seems they are rather busy, however, and so i thought maybe you could take a look at it Thanks

-Sangil 17:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Humus
 * Yes I am aware of WP:DR - you can consider this post as a requset for "Informal Mediation".
 * I don't think formal mediation would help, since they are extremely backlogged and anyways the approval of all involved parties is required - I doubt the "involved parties" in my case would consent of their own free will to mediation regarding their own rude behaviour. A survey is also not relevant since it is not the contents of an article which is the cause of this dispute, but rather a violation of WP policy.
 * I would be grateful if you could advise me regarding a course of action.
 * Many Thanks
 * -Sangil 17:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Bermuda Conference
How come you reverted my edits to this article? The Conference was not a response to the Jewish Holocaust but rather a conference convened to create a contingency plan for how to deal with the German Jewish population once the Allied force invasion of Germany commenced. There was no concept at the time of the size of atrocities against the Jewish population thus no recognition that any holocaust existed. The conference therefore is not directly related to the Jewish Holocaust or the international response to it. The international response to the Jewish Holocaust came after the Holocaust had been recognized, hence the term "response." The Conference occured before this point and thus was not a response. --Strothra 22:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * PS, I would like some explanation for your action on this article as I have given you reason for removing the information it seems only fair that you give me some reason for reverting that. --Strothra 23:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK
Suggesyion over 5 days old will not appear in the template. Did you read the rules?--Peta 01:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have reinstated because they are not 5 days old until about 17-19:00 today. You are an admin, you can put them up yourself. Why not?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 01:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Blnguyen, I am still learning the ropes. I'd like to make a proposal at Talk:DYK to create a box for the next DYK. Since it won't directly affect the Main Page, its contents won't be as sensitive so there is no need to protect it. We could start populating it earlier and more people would be able to collaborate. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, go to Wikipedia talk:Did you know to try and instigate new policies and procedure. Hopefully, this time next week, I can help to keep DYK running smoothly. I think the more articles which get a run on DYK the better, as it keeps up community morale, which is vital to the ongoing success of the project.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 03:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK!
Thanks for your efforts! Great Nom!  + + Lar: t/c 03:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Block of Spiny Norman
Why did you block me? I don't make "disruptive" edits and I did not violate the 3RR despite an apparent claim to the contrary. Also, according to wiki policy, it is customary to warn someone before blocking them for disrupive edits. Why did you not do this? --SpinyNorman 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Your name came up
...in a post at the Village Pump, about an edit you made using the word "kill", at which one user took offense. Many other Wikipedians have encouraged the user to contact you, but I see that s/he has not, so I thought I'd give you a heads-up. Cheers, Her Pegship 23:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Humus sapiens, it was wrong to talk about you, without contacting you directly. So, I will say this to you directly: your use of the word "kill" in that context was cruel and insensitive.  A real live human being was shot, and you say "kill"?  Please consider the possibility that anybody can read what we write, including the subject of the article, and those close to them.  This kind of thing is what makes people think ill of Wikipedia. --Rob 01:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I respect your feelings (days after the discussion took place behind my back). Let's keep in mind that the vote was about the article, not the person. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you look at this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amin_al-Husayni#AFP_report and everything below it. Tnx. Zeq 20:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

grossmufti
There is finally agreemnt on the facts. now the issue is how to write it (the details in the article and the summary+ why is it important) in the WP:lead - can you help? Zeq 10:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Gooverup
Dear Humus: Please take a look at Gooverup's talk page. He keeps on inserting a link to porn on Maria Sharapova. Several editors have removed it. He keeps reverting it. Last time, he went over 3 reverts. I warned him. His answer wasn't exactly repentant. He could use a warning from an actual admin. I'm also going to revert his brand new insert of this link. Shalom, I think... 8-) --CTSWyneken 14:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Borrowing formats
Dear Humus, I hope you do not mind, but I borrowed your format for my talk page. I guess that it is OK. If not, I can change it back to the drab way it was. I love your format.--Drboisclair 15:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Mazel Tov on becoming an admin!
Dear Humus: Please accept my belated Mazal Tov upon winning the overwhelming vote that has honored you with becoming an admin! I just came across the fact when I was browsing GidonB's talk page and I noticed it there. I am really happy for you, and May You Blessed and Go From Strength to Strength! All the best, IZAK 19:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Mention of your kind permission at the top of the user page
Dear Humus, I have placed in bold at the top of my talk page: The format of this page is used by kind permission of its inventor Humus sapiens. Thank you for your kind permission, shalom--Drboisclair 20:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)