User talk:Lance6Wins

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck! ` Yes, the Reuters article is POV, or just hastily written - without explanations of this and that. We have no such excuse here. refer to other sources, and say the Qurei is also one of the critics, but explain what he said - dont claim to interpret what he thinks... -SV 19:54, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Much better. Notes:
 * "Qurei retracted his resignation on July 27, 2004, after Yasser Arafat granted him control over parts of a security apparatus. (Named?, what does it do?), its control was one of Qurei's conditions for the retraction; among other concerns he listed as necessary for carrying out reforms. Arafat has retained control over the bulk of a dozen security services. Qurei among the critics of who claim that the security appartus shows signs of internal corruption and lawlessness; United States-led mediators have blamed (members of? the existence of?) for preventing the advance of the current Road Map, put forth by the so-called "Quartet." Arafat acted after unprecedented public unrest in the Gaza Strip; protesters calling for reforms, including elections.

The quote adds much. "organization exhibits" should be "organizations exhibit" -SV The organizations given to Qurei's control are not named in the reports that I have seen so far....there are between 12-17 or so different ones.
 * OK - as it stands, its very good, and now were both on the same page as far as what can be plugged in, and where. Good news articles are modular: they are separated in distinct blocks, by order of relevance. Encyclopedias can be a little flowery on more general topics, but for articles about, or sections about current events - modularity, terseness, and NPOV are essential.

"Yasser Arafat's leadership" is fine. "running of" carries connotations of dicatatorship, which we should avoid. Just attribute the criticism to those with the authority to say something, and let them sort of talk at each other in counterpoint, like a dialogue. 'He said this... but she said that...' I added the comment here just before you did the quote. Its an absolutely relevant qutote, and here we should use lots more quotes - in the context of bios and current events sections. Good work. -SV

Go with it. Avoid confrontation with Viajero and Zero, unless its in the context of mediation. Dont revert - make comment/criticism. Im done for today (sorry-longer text got lost -shortened version) -SV 21:46, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

for the questions and the discussion. Glad to see your still around. If you plan on changing your name, please be overt about it - ie make it known.-SV

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lance6wins
The Lance6wins arbitration case is open. Please place evidence at Requests for arbitration/Lance6wins/Evidence. --mav 10:38, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

blocking
Response on my talk. &mdash;No-One Jones (m) 21:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Copied from &mdash;No-One Jones (m)


 * Maybe. Zero may or may not be able to argue that you were inserting misinformation, which is a type of Vandalism. If he did make the case, then the block would be technically improper but would probably be upheld as doing the right thing in the wrong way; if he didn't, then he would probably be reprimanded for abuse of administrator powers. &mdash;No-One Jones (m) 21:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't think that I unblocked you because I agree with what you're dong. I'm only doing it because Zero, as a participant in the discussion, was wrong to be the one to block you. There was nothing wrong with his asking somebody else to block you. RickK 00:18, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * You mentioned "Don't think that I unblocked you because I agree with what you're dong."


 * Removing Wikipedia content because it does not fit a POV is damage to Wikipedia. That is exactly NOT what I am doing.  What I am doing is adding material that expands the point of view of Wikipedia by including information is that some would rather see deleted.  One example is the current FBI investigation of Yasser Arafat for ordering the murders of two US diplomats and a Belgian in March 1973.  There are those who wish to bury or ignore this.  The FBI may drop its investigation, it may not.  The decision will have a political component.  Wikipedia should be able to report the investigation and its results without malice or predjudice (sp?).   Similarly for the statements of HaAretz reporter Amos Harel that Hamas members have told him (Harel) that division with Israeli society, as shown by the pilots letter, provided support and incentive to Hamas to continue its campaign of suicide bombing.


 * Do you disagree with these additions? We could discuss the matter. Discussion is something that Zero0000 has never entered into, preferring to revert, protect, go to ArbCom and block.  I would like to discuss the matter with you and any other person here at Wikipedia. Lance6Wins 14:17, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User:209.135.35.83
What is your relationship, if any, with User:209.135.35.83? Fred Bauder 16:51, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

209.135.35.83 is an NAT IP address. All individuals within this site appear as this site's NAT IP addresses. I am not responsible for the actions or writings of all individuals within this site. Lance6Wins 17:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer my question though. In the arbitration case certain edits by that ip are attributed to you. Are they your edits? Fred Bauder 18:35, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

For example, these: Fred Bauder 18:37, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

(Citation immediately above copied to here.)
 * 13:37
 * Yes, I added to the list of participants to reflect all parties involved. Zero0000 and Viajero appear to want to hide their joint action.  Both are deeply involved in this matter.


 * 13:39
 * No.


 * 13:44
 * No.


 * 13:56
 * No....what was this one about even? How is it related?  Guanaco? Raul654?  I am not aware of these two or their activities.

As to where to reply, either here or on my talk page is fine. In regard to the edits above, if you were the one who made the edit at 13:37 it is hard to see how you did not make the next two which concern the same people. Fred Bauder 19:19, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

For example, is this your edit: ? Fred Bauder 19:22, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I would be hard to believe but for the fact that there are hundreds of people behind the NAT IP addresses. I do not know your level of familiarity with TCP/IP protocols. Its not an area that lawyers venture into much...at least that is true of the ones that I have spoken with. You may be quite informed in this area. I have been using and programming them for quite some years. Some of whom sympathize with my situation and edit Wikipedia without logging in. Given the level of Ad hominem attacks against me by Viajero and Zero0000. Indeed, why should they subject themselves to same treatment?

I do not remember if that was my edit or not. I can state with perfect certainly that Zero0000, Viajero and I have disagreed about the content of Daniel Pipes. Zero0000 and Viajero delete any and all material that reflects well on the individual, even to the point of which journals had published his writings. Daniel Pipes view on Islamic terrorism is very unpopular with those two individuals, unpopular to point of vilification.

Certainly, at times I have made edits from this site without logging in first. Logging is not something that I always remember to do. I do hope that we will not be going edit by edit.

Have you read Jimbo Wales most recent statements? (newlines removed so that it displays better in Wikipedia.) Lance6Wins 19:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Rick wrote:
 * > Zero's problem with you is that he claims that you are misrepresenting these people as being not who you say they are. I disagree with his blocking you because he was involved in a dispute with you, but if it's true that you are not correctly identifying your sources, then blocking is a valid option.


 * Absolutely it is not a valid option for someone who is involved in editing the article. The first and foremost cardinal rule of ethics for sysop powers is that you must never ever use them to win a dispute about content.  If we allowed that, it would be the end of NPOV and the beginning of SPOV  sysop point of view).


 * --Jimbo

and


 * Harry Smith wrote:
 * > Thank you for your support in this matter. I have asked the ArbCom to examine they matter and take appropriate action.


 * I take no position at the moment on whether or not you should have been blocked -- it does not sound like it to me, but I have not investigated. What I think it is safe to say is that anyone who is involved in an edit dispute on an article must _never_ use sysop powers to win that argument.


 * A safe course of action for Zero would have been to consult with other sysops, and have someone else do it if it was within the rules of blocking.


 * --Jimbo

and


 * Rick wrote:
 * > Jimmy, you need to know the whole history of the case.


 * In order to know if Lance should have been blocked by someone, yes, I would need to know the full history of the case. But we have a cardinal rule, that goes all the way back to the existence of sysop powers in the first place, that they must never be used in a dispute over content that we are personally involved in.


 * If you think we get silly complaints now about sysop abuse, just imagine what it would be like if we let sysops win arguments over content by blocking people who disagree.

--Jimbo

His position on the matter of Zero0000 abusing his sysop privileges seems quite clear. Lance6Wins 19:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Those mailing list posts got me started on working on the case. At this point I am just investigating what the issues are. Fred Bauder 21:00, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

68.163.19.83
How about this edit by User:68.163.19.83? What do you think about the Daniel Pipes article now. What would you put into it if you could? Fred Bauder 21:29, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I do not recognize that IP address. I will have to read the article to see what it now contains. Will do that later. Some of the edit was where he went to school and degrees received. Such things can not be agreed upon? Lance6Wins 15:32, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Violence in 2004
As I said, the tolls should be monthly, not comulative. I know that each month, Haaretz publish the monthly death toll of Palestinians killed, unsuprisingly, most of the deads are terrorists. MathKnight 21:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can you provide pointers to those pages in Hebrew or in English. Either language is fine. Lance6Wins 15:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your point of view
I have now examined a few of your edits and note that they seem to take what might be characterized as a right-wing or extreme Zionist point of view. How would you characterize the point of view expressed by your edits? I am thinking that you might be required to more accurately express the point of view in the edits you make. Like, for example, "From a right-wing Zionist perspective it appears that Refusal to serve in the Israeli military has resulted in increased terrorism by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations." Could you live with this? Anyway how would you characterize these points of view? Fred Bauder 15:29, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

I believe that my point of view is fair, as I suspect, certainly hope, all editors of Wikipedia so believe regarding their own points of view.

Ed Poor has repeatedly stated that the only way to handle multiple viewpoint is to present and credit. That seems a reasonable way to proceed. Indeed, you may notice that I do not remove other points of view from articles, that I use citations frequently, and that I prefer direct quotes over presentations or interpretations of people's statements. Amos Harel of Haaretz and Yisacharov (sp?) of the Israel Broadcasting Authority are not right-wing and both work for organizations considered rather to very left wing. Some would say that this adds to the credibility of their statements. Furthermore they quote Hamas directly....Hamas does not speak "From a right-wing Zionist perspective". Indeed to so qualify the Hamas quotes is....inaccurate. The quote states that Hamas suicide bombing policy was affected by the Pilot's Letter. "When we heard about the 'Pilots' Letter' [written and publicized last year by 27 Israel Air Force pilots who refused to take part in bombing missions against terrorist leaders in Arab towns], and the elite soldiers who refused to serve [in Judea, Samaria and Gaza], it strengthened those in our camp who promoted the idea of suicide bombers..." Why should we dispute that with Hamas? Who are we to speak on the decision process within Hamas. A direct quote is quite suitable.

Is allowing Hamas to speak for itself "a right-wing or extreme Zionist point of view"? This is precisely the main activity of MEMRI and IMRA. It is also an the objection that some in the "left wing/liberal" section of the population have regarding translations of Arabic news into English by MEMRI and IMRA. Accuracy is not disputed. Sources are not disputed. Rather its "why do you do this? why choose such upsetting material?" Lance6Wins 15:57, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Obviously there are two points of view, that of Hamas but reported at second hand through an Israeli viewpoint. Fred Bauder 16:46, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Left wing extremist, Yisacharov journalist for the Israeli Broadcasting Authority interviews Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip who say "When we heard about the 'Pilots' Letter' [written and publicized last year by 27 Israel Air Force pilots who refused to take part in bombing missions against terrorist leaders in Arab towns], and the elite soldiers who refused to serve [in Judea, Samaria and Gaza], it strengthened those in our camp who promoted the idea of suicide bombers..."

The Grey Lady of American print journalism, The New York Times, reputed to part of the Jewish Liberal media monopoly reports "Iraqi Officials Say Female Inmate Is to Be Released".

Rather silly. Who will keep the list of required tag lines for each news source? Lance6Wins 17:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Right wing or Left ?
"In elections in Baltimore in 2002 and in Georgia last year, black voters were sent fliers saying anyone who hadn't paid utility bills or had outstanding parking tickets or were behind on their rent would be arrested at polling stations. It happens in every election cycle,".

Feeling outrage at this practice defines one as right wing or left?

In the context of American politics left wing. It's not terribly ambigous. Fred Bauder 16:46, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

These labels are not (very) useful, I have found that they hide more than they reveal. An example: some prefer stronger law enforcement despite the additional innocents that will be arrested. some prefer that there be fewer errors in law enforcement even if fewer criminals are apprehended. Hopefully everyone wants the crooks caught and the innocent free. Does right and left or liberal and conservative reveal anything to us regarding this issue. One of the great strengths of the ACLU is that it defends civil liberties, those of the popular and the unpopular. This commitment to the law to the liberties of human beings is sorely missing from human rights groups such as B'tzelem, which does not object to administrative detention of "right wingers" but files suit regarding dministrative  detention of "left wingers", ISM, and PCHR which countance violence/terrorism against Israelis without objection.

I expect that John Kerry will lose the election in part because he will not submit to the right/left distinction....saying that the US should not have invaded Iraq, but having done so will have to work to make the best of it for Iraqis...does not please anyone. No addition voters for taking a responsible stand on the issue. Lance6Wins 16:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some pretty fancy footwork there Lance6win but the point is: Could you live with a decree that required you to clearly identify the point of view of the controversial edits you make or would you prefer a ban from editing Israeli related articles? Fred Bauder 16:46, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

"Some pretty fancy footwork there" ????....sorry, I was sincerely answering you. Perhaps I have misunderstood you. Have I? Lance6Wins 17:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are being evasive about the question I am posing. Fred Bauder 17:51, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

"clearly identify the point of view of the controversial edits" there are numerous definitional problems here that need to be answered. Zero0000 objects seems to object to any and all material that does not either castigate Israel/Jews/Judaism or laud Arabs/Muslims/Islam. Are you accepting his definition of "controversial edits"? I can not accept that definition of controversial.


 * I doubt I accept Zero0000's viewpoint. I'm looking for a way the point of view you insert can be identified, not excluded. That can be expressed in terms of source, if the source is usually identified with a point of view, or by characterization of point of view. Characterization of point of view is more difficult, but it is ultimately your responsibility. So long as you simply say it is so rather than attribute the assertion you misrepresent the information. Fred Bauder 20:17, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

I clearly identify the source of every citation...indeed the citation (hyperlink/URL) does not work without that. I do not seek to add non-functional citations to Wikipedia. The crux of the matter is not that Yischarov reported it on television, or that INN quoted it. The crux of the matter is that leaders of Hamas said it. I have reported it clearly, inescapably clearly, as being related by to Yisacharov during his conversations with Hamas leaders.

Part of the problem here is that we do not have any Hamas leader saying anything; we have an Israeli saying, here is what they say, but there is no way of checking. So it can't be attributted to Hamas or any Hamas leader, but to a summary of interviews. I note this report was carried on very few sites, all with a similar viewpoint. Again, how would you characterize that viewpoint, in your words, not how I might? Fred Bauder 20:17, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Stardard format is second hand reporting, as evidenced here: "Kassim Daoud said 'Iraqi judges decided to release them because they didn't have any evidence. The judges decided on a conditional release. It will not happen today, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow,'.

I have gone beyond this standard, in this one matter, to identify the journalists and their employers. Haaretz is considered to be solidly left wing. Many consider the IBA to be so as well. I did not add that editorializing to the citation.


 * Rather misleading in this case.

In this matter I have already exceeded your request. I request a policy of equal treatment. For all points of view. Citations. Quotes. Accurate translations of materials in other languages. Lance6Wins 18:10, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ed Poor suggests that an article be written about Arutz Sheva. Then you could attribute in this way, "Arutz Sheva reported on September 12 that..." How does that sound? Fred Bauder 20:17, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000 conflates the Radio Station Arutz-7 and Israel National News (INN). Arutz Sheva, the radio station, has been shutdown under court order due to licensing issues. They simply did not have one and so broadcast from a vessel at sea....hence the appelation "pirate radio". A phenomenon in Israel begun (? not sure) by Abie Natan and his Voice of Peace (which broadcast from the dock). The Voice of Peace shutdown a number of years ago. INN is up an running.

This procedure would be fine, so long as we apply it to all sources. I addressed this above citing the NYT. The citation itself contains the source. Why should we strive to preset people's ability to accept data. Let them decide for themselves without Wikipedia prejudging the matter. This appear to be a different method of using scare quotes.

The issue is this. Wikipedia should present information, not editorialize on the sources. Calls for examples of imaginary/fabricated/false/uncorrected news articles that Zero0000 claims exist have gone unanswered. From what I can see, the Zero0000 claims are baseless. Still, I stand ready, indeed invite Zero0000 to present, information to the contrary. But information, not hearsay...not on his personal authority. So many of us are anonymous here...we should back up our statements with examples. Rather simple request. Lance6Wins 21:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I take that as no. Fred Bauder 23:17, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

The answer is clearly not a simple "no". You are not asking if I would like cream in my coffee. The question is one of how Wikipedia will handle significant points of view (the INN POV is clearly significant to the Israel articles) that do not accord well with the currently fashionable POV among the majority of Wikipedia contributors. This currently fashionable POV behavior appears to be basic human nature. Jack Straw, UK Foreign Ministers today referred to Tawhid and Jihad as terrorists. Today the life of a Briton in threatened. When Tali Hatuel was murdered, the act was deplorable, but the perpretators were not called terrorists. Same with John Howard, PM of Australia, after the most recent attack in Indonesia in front of the Australian embassy. Similar change of heart in the United States executive after 9/11.

People and human interactions are infrequently binary (yes/no).

Fair, consistent, that I what I am seeking.

Please see the very different reporting of this incident involving NYT, APF, BBC, INN, HaAretz   Lance6Wins 13:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How can neutrality be achieved?
Talking with other contributors is a great way to find out why there is a dispute over an article's neutrality. Ideas and POV's can be shared and ultimately the disputed fact or point can be fixed if it is incorrect or, when dealing with a controversial issue, various legitimate sources can be cited in the article.

Historians commonly cite many sources in books because there is and will always be disputes over history. Contributors on Wikipedia can do the same thing, thus giving readers a broad spectrum of POVs and opinions.. copied here from WP:NPOVD by Lance6Wins 21:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

RfC
I have opened a RfC concerning Alberuni. If you feel you can comment on this, please view Requests for comment/Alberuni Jayjg 14:42, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Operation Defensive Shield
Notes for you on Talk:Operation_Defensive_Shield#Jenin_false_allegations_of_massacre Lance6Wins 17:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) thanks for the heads up. still needs work, please, I left some notes on the discuss page.Pedant 01:00, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

I like your timeline proposal, it absolutely works for me... are you ready to write it? I left a response there on the Talk:Operation Defensive Shield page. If you need help with it or just need me to nit-pick your version before posting, or anything I can do, just ask. Talk to you later...Pedant 01:02, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Two-state solution
I agree it's an inappropriate redirect. Why don't you just put content into the two state page, though? You don't need to delete a redir to change it to content. Noel 13:00, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PS: Wikipedia style is that people generally reply on the User_Talk: page of the person who wrote a message to them - that way, someone doesn't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages (one for each person whom they are having a "conversation" with).


 * Hi, not having heard from you (or seen the page done), I took a first crack. Feel free to upgrade it, but I managed to get past 'stub' stage already. Noel (talk)

Yasser Arafat article
Please keep an eye on the Yasser Arafat article if you can, as a concerted POV attack was made on it last night. I've done my best to retain any good edits while restoring NPOV, but I expect the vandalism to resume soon. Jayjg 16:55, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat article
Hi Harry. On the Yasser Arafat article please work with the editors trying to create and agreed to version in Talk: It's bad enough with HistoryBuffEr trying to continually revert to his own unique anti-Israel version filled with nonsense and error. Just helping control his vandalism would be enough. Jayjg 18:40, 1 Nov 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 06:58, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your case is finished
The arbitration committee has ruled on your case. You may read the ruling at Requests for arbitration/Lance6wins →Raul654 03:16, Nov 13, 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 10:23, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Restriction
Lance, I have no idea how you got yourself restricted from editing a certain range of articles. Too bad you didn't come to me for advice sooner. Your private e-mail asking for comments was a day late and a dollar short, I'm sorry to say.

Ironically, I am even more partisan than you. But you don't see me tangling with the committees. Even my ever-simmering dispute with William Connolley has never boiled over into legalisms. Look at my talk page. See how I handled the thing with user:Xed. Try to be Mr. Suave and Joe Good Guy. Meditate on Cooperation. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 23:58, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Evading restriction
Lance, Mustafaa says you've been editing articles that the arbcom restricted you from. You better not be doing that, or some admin -- ANY admin -- may give you a "time out".

Don't get me wrong, I like your cool username, and I appreciate our private e-mail dialogue, and I'm an official "Mediator" and all that, but: you gotta listen to the committee.

Maintain a low profile until you work this out, or Nice Uncle Ed will turn into Sheriff Ed and give you a 5 minute time out. After that, longer periods I guess... --user:Ed Poor (talk) 19:35, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Two state solution
Ah, sorry, I was completely unaware of all that. I don't normally edit in the Palestinian/Israeli area - don't need the stress! I only did that article because it popped up on WP:RfD, which I keep an eye on. I will make the changes you suggest (after appropriate research) when I have the time - can't promise it will be soon, though. If it's not done in a week or two, please give me a gentle poke!

Thanks for the explanation, and I'm sorry to hear about your suspension. Take it easy, try and be productive on other less-contentious topics, continue to post factual errors on talk pages, and I'm sure things will work out. Noel (talk) 15:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain (I have no familiarity with this process), but I would guess that there's an implied "for now" in there - i.e. it's indefinite, but not necessarily' permanent. Try asking Ed Poor - I think he would know for sure. I'm sure he'd be happy to explain. (Ed and I seem to share a conservative viewpoint, so I do sympathize with you, and I would guess that Ed does too.) Noel (talk) 16:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I've always liked that Churchill quote (although the version I have in my memory uses slightly different words - exact same sense, though). He was quite a guy for a phrase... (among many other things - probably the single greatest statesman of the first half of century). Noel (talk) 17:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I fixed the article to include your correction. How does it look now? If you see anything else that needs doing, mention it on the Talk: page and I'll look into it. Noel (talk) 03:54, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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 2000 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)

Two state solution
Hi! Good to see you back! I am so pleased you haven't given up completely.

Thanks for you comments on the article. I'll try and work them in as I get a chance. I'll probably do the stuff about the international zones first (I had mentioned them briefly already, leaving the full details to the full-blown articles on the actual plans - I don't like to duplicate material too much), and get to the other stuff in a bit. Is that OK? (I have lots of other stuff I'm trying to get to, too!)

Also, if you have any other articles which you think are a problem, I'd be happy to try and help with them too (provided they aren't too bad edit-war hot-spots - this one's quite pleasant, actually), provided you bear with my time limits. Noel (talk) 23:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't quite understand the "The$1ncertaintyshould be reflected in the article rather than the current 'a two state solution will look like this'". I thought that the article did make it clear that there was a lot of uncertainty. (E.g. it explicity uses the Johnsonian 1967 "territories" formulation, rather than "the territories", precisely to indicate that there is no certainty as to how much of the West Bank a Palestinian state would get.)


 * It also mentioned that business about some people thinking that Jordan is the Arab part of the Palestinian mandate, although I suppose I could punch that up some. (Although I must say that I kind of doubt the Jordanians would want to be part of any solution, or that the Palestinians in the West Bank would want them to be - I got the impression they'd had enough of the Jordanians after the '48-'67 period. Although you're right that with the Palestinian demographics in Jordan, and Jordan's status as something of a democracy, the Palestinians in Jordan could decide to involve themselves.)


 * Could you give me some specific guidance on things you'd change to make the appropriate level of uncertainty plain? Thanks! Noel (talk) 23:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, you say that "These [international] zones were strenously rejected by the Jews and Muslims." Our 1947 UN Partition Plan article says nothing of Jewish opposition to the '47 plan. Is the article wrong? If so, can you provide references to that opposition, and I'll fix both articles. Thanks! Noel (talk) 00:06, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I've punched up the level of uncertainty in the intro, and also emphasize the international control a bit more. I'm sure this isn't perfect, but I think this is the direction you were thinking of, right? Noel (talk) 00:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Later refugees at Palestinian exodus
You started a new section at Palestinian exodus, entitled Palestinian exodus.

In that contribution, you said: ''Palestinian Christians have been suffering marked at the hands of their Arab brethern who have a saying "first the saturday people, then the sunday people"....when the saturday people are stiff-necked and resist, the sunday people made to suffer by their Arab brethern. Lance6Wins 18:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)''


 * .... But your references seem to prove the opposite of what you claim. According to what you've linked to, Palestinian Christians blame Israel and the US for what's happened to them - please see what I've posted Isarig at Talk:Palestinian exodus.
 * PalestineRemembered 16:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)