User talk:Shamir1/Archive 2

Regarding the image Image:Bar rafaeli2.jpg
Hi. Saw that you uploaded this image, but with a broken link to the source where it was found. As the source is needed to determine the correct license, the image is now tagged as no-source, which mean that it will be deleted in about a week unless the source is specified. Bjelleklang -  talk 15:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Izabel_goulart.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Izabel_goulart.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 21:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Natalie_niv2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Natalie_niv2.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 20:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Ahdout
Do you have a source for him being Jewish? I posted the same question on his discussion page. I realize that it is very likely that he is, but I haven't seen a good source for it. JackO&#39;Lantern 05:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Ahdout
First of all Sinai Akiba Academy is a Jewish day school, the school I WENT TO. Our families are best friends. I can tell you his entire family history of when his parents escaped Iran on camels crossing the border into Pakistan and then flying to Israel. I also attended his parents wedding anniversity where Rabbi Wolpe conducted the ceremony. I see him at least once a week and if you want you can check his religion on his myspace: myspace.com/jonahdout

I hope that takes care of it!
 * Lol, well, you should tell him to mention being Jewish in the next interview he does. That way I can cite a source for it here. :) JackO&#39;Lantern 07:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:39_1_sbl.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:39_1_sbl.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Image legality questions. 11:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson
Hi, You recently added Jesse Jackson to the category Anti-Semitic people. There is a discussion on the Talk Page for that article regarding his inclusion in that category. I thought I would ask you to put your rationale on the article's talk page, so that we can find a consensus on this. Thanks! Jll 08:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Signing your Comments
Please remember to sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful. Also, I was wondering if you are Sean Flynn-Amir... you seem to know more about him than most of us, not to mention your username is kind of similar. Just curious, either way, I'm glad someone else is helping to expand his page. - pm_shef 22:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Liv Tyler
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Liv Tyler, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Yamla 03:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You said: "How did I vandalize pages? What did I do to Liv Tyler's article. WHAT?"


 * In what way is Liv Tyler Native American? She may be as much as one eighth (though possibly considerably less) Native American but that doesn't make her Native American.  --Yamla 03:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You said: "Umm, I would NOT call that vandalizing pages, first of all. Secondly, take a look at the other actors in Category:Native American actors. Very few of them are full or even half. That category is just for actors with Native American somewhere in their blood whether it be 1/2, 1/4, 1/8... Just like under Irish-American actors, many are 1/2 or 1/4, but unfortunately there are more Americans who trace their roots to Ireland than in the Americas. That is why even actors who have a slight amount of Native American or American Indian heritage, if it is mentionable and has been, there is no reason why they should not be listed in that category along with the others."


 * I strongly disagree. Even Liv Tyler doesn't identify herself as Native American.  Nevertheless, while I firmly disagree, I'll let your edits stand.  --Yamla 04:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on User talk:Aucaman
Hi, I wonder why you left those comments on Aucaman's talk page? I'm going to remove them, as they contain a personal attack that's not allowed. But apart from that, Aucaman hasn't edited the article on Persian Jews for weeks - and is actually not allowed to, as he has been banned from it. I have no idea what issue you have with him, you seem to accuse him of being anti-Jewish, when in fact (at least as far as I'm informed) he is actually a Persian Jew himself. Lukas (T. 22:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Catagories and Isabella of Castile and Martin Luther
Hi Shamir1. Your talk page has you listed under the Native American Actors category. This should probably be removed from your talk page. I also see that you added the two folks above to the anti-semetic category. I am going to remove them until this can be sourced. Thanks.--Tom 18:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * TOM, you have got to be kidding me! Isabella of Castile played a very strong role setting up the Spanish Inquisition. She ordered Jews to be executed or expelled. Martin Luther was fiercely anti-Semitic. Please see Martin Luther and the Jews and On the Jews and Their Lies. Shamir1 21:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Shamiri, I kid about alot of things, but I really wasn't trying to be funny above. I saw that you added a number of people to the category of anti-semitic people and just thought more consensus was required, thats all. I find the entire list to be problematic but did vote to keep it. You are obviously very convinced about these people being on that list but this project is about compiling facts/information that isn't original research, POV, ect. Sorry, my spelling sucks...--Tom 21:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Tom, none of this is "original research" it is ALL on WIKIPEDIA. it is not my opinion, these are all facts that are on this site. please look at each of the articles I showed you, including Isabella of Castile's. thanks. Shamir1 21:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have read both articles. I have actually learned alot about Luther mainly because of edit wars here. I had actually never heard of him before. Also, I'll be honest, I hadn't heard of Isabella before now. However, I don't see anywhere in the article where they are labeled anti-semites. Luther wrote some nasty stuff but it amounted to 1/100th of his overall work and came during the last 4 years of his life. I am not defending the guy or what he wrote, I am just saying that we should find multiple verifiable reliable sources that call him an anti-semite before adding him to the list. Same for Isabella. Maybe there are sources out there that say they are anti-semites. If so, lets referrence them and gain consensus. Anyways, I got to run now, later..--Tom 00:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Czech Jews
I wonder if you'd be interested in looking at this article. The issue is that one anon editor has deleted a swathe of people, even such undoubted Jews as Gustav Mahler, arguing that although born in Czech lands they are somehow not Czech enough.--Newport 11:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah Article
Hi Shamir,

I'd like to participate you in editing of this article. Don't you think this part "but it does list other radical Islamic Shi'a groups, such as Islamic Jihad as well as [[al-Qaeda which is believed to be linked with Hezbollah." is't appropriate? Why do you add it to Hezbollah article.--Azmanet 19:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Arenaaug8.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Arenaaug8.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 21:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit
Details about Gilad Shalit belong in 2006 Gaza conflict; the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is limited to the campaign in Israel and Lebanon. Thanks,  Tewfik Talk 04:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Care to comment?
There is a discussion on Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict talkpage about the inclusion of detail for Israel. I am of the view that Israel should be included but the detail is being continually removed by User:Tewfik.

Tewfik's argument is what he considers the illegality of Hezbollah under UN 1559 as the reason he removed the detail. However, Tewfik has not removed recent requests of arms sales to Israel such as jet fuel and GBU-28's. I believe he is pushing the POV that aid to Israel is only in response to the current crisis or the illegality of Hezbollah under 1559. US aid to Israel is in fact a long standing agreement responsible for the size and makeup of the IDF. Without the aid they would not have a military capable of engaging in conflict. If you can take a look and support my position (was working under 82.29.227.171) that would be great. RandomGalen 11:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind assistance. Please comment in support in this topic Talk:Military and economic aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Please also, if you know of any other wikipedians interested in seeing a balance in the article can you make them aware of the problem and how to register their support? Thank you again. RandomGalen 17:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I left some comments on Jospin which might help the case of leaving his views in there. Is he still politicaly relevant is the issue.  If you can prove that in some way then the case for inclusion is strengthened.


 * Aside from that I am looking at writing an article on human shields, and noticed the images you have on your talk. Details are spilling out from the manin Lebanon/Israel war article and the attacks on civilians one- it needs to be grouped. Another user suggested a neutral title to address accusations against both combatants. Do you have an ideas on the best way to structure the article?  RandomGalen 21:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Entirefamily.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Entirefamily.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. feydey 19:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Images on User page
Please see Fair_use #9 and remove fair use images from Your user page. Thanks. feydey 19:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Israel hezbollah bodyarmor.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Israel hezbollah bodyarmor.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. feydey 19:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! Æon Insane Ward 20:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you so much for that friendly. It is always nice to come across people who knows how to maintain a friendly atmosphere! Cheers Bertilvidet 08:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Article on terrorism
You may find the article Terrorists of Pakistani origin interesting. It may be deleted soon in perhaps a few hours.

If you have any views on having such articles on Wikipedia, please do share them at Articles_for_deletion/Terrorists_of_Pakistani_origin

--Robcotton 01:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's good to know
... that you shomer ;-))) Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I saw that anon introduced a lot of POV. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on my talk page
Thanks for your note. Unless I'm mistaken, the first Palestinian suicide bombing was in 1994, some time after Baruch Goldstein's massacre in Hebron. (((((just noticed this by accident, won't get into the debate, but this is wrong. there was actually one suicide bombing before, though it had no fatalities. good day. Amoruso 02:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC) ))))) You state that "Palestinians have been using various methods of terror since before Israel was established", but you can be assured that the feeling against Israelis is mutual, since everything was done to suppress any desire for freedom and independence including various methods that would never have been reported abroad (and especially not in North America).

You say that you are "wondering why for the 20 years Egypt and Jordan controlled the West Bank and Gaza Strip, they did not even intend to give it to their fellow Arabs." In making that statement, which is actually irrelevant since it occurred before most present-day Palestinians were even born, you have made a critical error and seem to be confused by the age-old myth that these people are indeed "fellow Arabs". They are not. The only people who speak about 'fellow Arabs' are politicians, usually hoping for some financial benefit. Jordan clearly had territorial ambitions in the West Bank, and in fact many Palestinians (including relatives of mine) were imprisoned by Jordan because of their nationalist views. Then foreigners lament that Arab countries have treated Palestinians unjustly (which they definitely have) by not giving them citizenship!! Excuse me, who would want to be a citizen of these countries?

Your next question, also about a period preceding the lifetimes of most Palestinians, is why "the Arabs rejected a Partition Plan that would give them ALL of the West Bank and more of its surrounding territory, ALL of the Gaza Strip and more of its surrounding territory, and territory in the north.". Well, if you wonder why "the Arabs" did so, I'm afraid you will have to direct this question to them. Sufficed to say that it has always been an Israeli and American interest to lump all 'Arabs' in one basket, so that one could then punish Palestinians for the crimes of the Syrians or Saudis. This perception is so widespread in North America that even people of reasonable intellect like Bill Maher are duped. Let me assure you that had those 'Arabs' won the war of 1948, do not think for a moment that they would have handed Palestine back to us and went on their way. Palestine (and Lebanon) was a paradise compared to their desert kingdoms, and any foothold in it was an ambition of theirs. I can tell you what I know about why Palestinian Arabs rejected the partition (and remember, I don't really care because I wasn't alive then, and I don't accept humiliated and denied my basic human rights because of events that occurred before my father was even born): We saw no reason to partition our own homeland because of what we saw were European colonizers who were coming to set up their own country in our midst. Had they come with the intention of settling peacefully among us, and not to overpower us and force themselves into a majority, I believe things would have been very very different (assuming your Arab friends stayed away). I know from my own grandparents how Palestinian Arabs and Jews lived harmoniously in the earlier part of the century. My grandparents kept in touch with their childhood Jewish friends (and visited whenever possible) until their deaths in the past decade. And my grandparents were by no means unique in this aspect. In any case, that's all in the past now.

I can also tell you that your statement to "Keep in mind, Palestinian Arabs were encouraged to leave by their own leaders to ease the killing of Jews and destruction of Israel" is another canard which I'm sorry to see you repeat. While I don't know if there was ever such 'encouragement', which may have actually been some random musing by some commander that didn't really reach many ears, I can tell you that such 'encouragement' would never have been sufficient for people to just leave their homes, at least not without actual lives being in danger. You are, of course, welcome to keep believing whatever you want to believe, ultimately it's human nature to convince one's self of whatever is most convenient to one's ideology. Just remember that none of this really matters to a young Palestinian whose only experience in life is being oppressed for the sole reason that s/he is of the 'wrong religion'.

I appreciate that you are not trying to argue, but I just had to respond to what you wrote on my page. I really hope you are a man of peace, but a person of peace must have the grace to fight for what is right without dehumanizing and "putting down" the opposing party. I try to correct the perception of Palestine and the occupation, but I don't do that by (intentionally) bashing Israelis. We are all human beings. Now this is clearly NOT the preferred method of people like Brigitte Gabriel, who uses lies, deceit, and a great political marketing savvy to put down and dehumanize "Muslims" and ends up being full of the very hate that she accuses Muslims of having. Ramallite (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to respond to everything you said right now, but you are seriously confused about a lot of things. Do not think that you will convince me of anything when you take bullshit about my own country (which I know much better than you) and throw it in my face as if it's fact. That includes statements like:
 * Palestinian textbooks have taught math with such equations as, "If I capture 5 Jews and kill 3, how many are left?". I am Palestinian. I went to school there all my life and know Palestinian textbooks. Your accusation is akin to pure hate speech, unsubstantiated, and intended to dehumanize. Oh, absolutely wrong, of course.
 * I also know that Israel has built 6 universities and 20 community colleges for Palestinians. Pure bullshit (that I've heard before). Considering your source (which is not a source but a propaganda hate poster), it's highly offensive to call yourself a history student and throw rubbish like this. Israel did not build any - ANY - universities for Palestinians. What Israel did was not prevent their founding (like the Jordanians did) by Palestinians and funded by local and diaspora Palestinians. But most of them were ordered shut by the Israeli military. To say that Israelis built universities for Palestinians is like me trying to convince you that I am the architect of the Knesset.
 * I will tell you I have resources, basis, and reason to back up everything that I say. How many of your so-called sources are reliable, verifiable, and unbiased? Just curious. Your usage of standwithus.com as a source speaks volumes. Many of the quotes you provided are controversial, some are debunked, taken out of context, or actually do not prove anything. Even if they are all true, Palestinians did not get up and gleefully stroll out of the country as you are led to believe by Netanyahu or standwithus.com.
 * first reported female suicide bomber was in 1985 Are you talking about Palestinians or world-wide? I'm talking about Palestinians...
 * Jews have maintained a presence (though their numbers have shrunk due to invasions) in the region for centuries before the ancestors of today's Palestinians. So does that mean native American Indians have the right to kick you out of America back to Iran? Besides, how do you know how far the ancestors of today's Palestinians have been there? Did you do a DNA test on all of us without our knowledge? Just curious?
 * Do you think anyone is going to give back the money and loads of property stolen from the Jews in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Iran, Iraq,... I've already told you, Israel's problems with other Arabs are not a concern (or an excuse) for me not to have basic human rights. I have no sympathy or support for your Arab countries, and what they did to both Jews and Palestinians is horrendous enough. But don't offend me even more by asking me why I or my countrymen don't obtain citizenship there.
 * First you say "There would not be a single Palestinian refugee, had the Arabs (including the Palestinians) accepted the plan", then you say Yes, migration may have been necessary on both sides, which would not be a terrible thing."'' Pick one, which is it? Either way, partition based on racial or religious superiority is just not proper. They tried it in South Africa, and it failed. Now the Israeli Arabs, according to recent polls reported by Haaretz, are still considered a "demographic threat" by Israeli Jews.
 * Please do not try to excuse the Palestinian acts of terror. 6 million Jews were slaughtered in Nazi Europe and I have not heard of a Jew blow him/herself up in a German restaurant. Show me when I did that? I don't excuse any act of terror, Palestinian or Israeli, thank you. You seem to have been listening to Wafa Sultan and Brigitte Gabriel a bit too much...


 * Like I already told you, it is human nature for one to believe whatever rubbish or, as you call it, baloney, that are necessary to sustain one's own ideological viewpoint. If you believe that Israel's only road to survival is getting rid of the Palestinians, then you must dehumanize them as much as possible in order to justify actions against them (it's an age-old human habit that just happens to work, unfortunately). I am very sensitive about blatant misconceptions about us, especially our textbooks (which have been proven by international bodies to be lies) and Netanyahu-like racism (they would all still be Felahin if Israel didn't build universities for them - what a disgusting thing for him to say, and easily proven wrong). Your assertions about my own country, as if you are suddenly an expert, are so wrong that it's laughable. But they are also dangerously dehumanizing. Can you even bring me one quote from our textbooks? Or do you spend your time getting them from standwithus.com and Itamar Marcus? I'll make you a deal, we can continue civil discussions if you want, but I won't argue with you about California if you won't argue with me about Palestine. Next thing, you'll be arguing with me about our living room decor... they must have a picture of it somewhere on standwithus.com, perhaps? ... Ramallite (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ps standwithus.com is not a verifiable source for that text you keep entering into Al-Aqsa Intifada. Please see my comment in that article's discussion page. Ramallite (talk)

Palestinian exodus
I saw your post at Ramallite's page. Your contribution to the Palestinian Exodus article will be highly appreciated. Thank you and good day. Amoruso 20:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This edit war is getting absurd
I will make a list of the differences between us right now on the discussion page for the timeline, and attempt to reconcile them there before I edit anymore, let's reach an agreement on the discussion page of the timeline before either of us edit further.

One note however, you said something to the effect that the language used isn't important, only the facts are. I couldn't disagree more. Language, more specifically, choice of words, is integral in projecting meaning. Words hold meaning, each and every word projects a specific meaning and can affect one's interpretation of the facts. Altering or choosing a lexicon is a powerful tool. So while writting facts is very important, the selection of words used to present these facts is equally important. Ex. "Palestinians 'leave' as refugees" versus "Palestinians 'become' refugees". The former implies a willingness, or a voluntary exodus; it implies a lack of responsibility on Israel's part, it is a calm term which lacks the humanitarian aspects of the exodus. Ultimately, it projects a meaning sympathetic to pro-Israeli pov's. There is a tremendous difference, it may sound as though I'm nit-picking, but linguistics are important to think about here.

Simply entering facts is not de facto neutral. For example, the way in which you insist on entering a detailed description of the Hadassah massacre, humanizes the Jewish victims. It brings the reader closer to them, creating sympathy, it creates an emotional response and adds a human element. Then, by relegating Arab victims of massacre to mere numbers, has the exact opposite effect, it creates a distance between the reader and the victims, it lacks the human element present in the Jewish victims, it does not create such sympathy or emotional response. Therefore, although this may be "factual" it is not "neutral". That is one of my problems.

It seems to me that you are out to create a timeline sympathetic to the Israeli POV because you regard this as the "truth", I am trying to edit this timeline so that it favours neither and tells the events from an entirely NPOV, is that not one of the goals of this encyclopedia? This isn't about telling the "truth" of the conflict (truth being a relative point of view), it's about being absolutely neutral. Are we on the same page now? A student of history 02:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sensing that you're not getting what I'm trying to say at all. Facts are not simply facts, their selection matters. Sourced information does not mean neutral information. Language and wording matter tremendously, as per wikipedia's NPOV policy. This is not about "TRUTHS" like you keep saying, it's about NEUTRALITY! The very last thing I want is to turn the timeline into a page full of contradictory arguments and confusing statistics. It should only list major events, leaving the descriptions to their proper pages.

A student of history 20:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see you're one of these people who doesn't understand what "neutral" means or is. I'm not going to play this game with you if you refuse to discuss it with me on the discussion page. If you won't do that, I'll step up and make sure that timeline stays neutral, because you seem to completely misunderstand the differences between NEUTRAL POV and "facts", "sources" and so forth.

Look, let's just agree that this is a TIMELINE, and thus we shouldn't get into argumentative and contradictory detail here. It should only LIST IMPORTANT EVENTS, and provide links to them where greater information is available. If this were a regular article, and not a "Timeline of notable events", I would have absolutely no problem with the both of us adding tons of additional view points, statistics, context, background information and so on, but this is a timeline, and that is not appropriate here. This would solve all our problems.

Look, are you going to go over this with me on the discussion page of the timeline or not? I've listed some of my problems there, perhaps you'd like to discuss yours there with me.

A student of history 16:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Human Rights Watch
Were you aware of the discussion on the talk page regarding the Palacio paragraph? Please have a look. Tyronen 15:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your user page
Please refer to this policy User_pages which states "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian." --Inahet 01:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Pema Chödrön is a Jew?
re: your edit
 * Is there a reference?
 * I reverted it. (above comment is also mine) - Nearfar 14:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You reverted it again. Jubus doesn't convince me as a 'reference'. Does some online article or biography mention Pema Chodron as a Jew? If so, can you provide a link to it? - Nearfar 05:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

check out these pages
I think Dome of the Rock will interest you. Amoruso 04:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Hindu mathematiciansCfd, Category:Jewish mathematicians
Incidentally they're both up for deletion at the same time. I find the cats useful as well (I dont look at the Jewish one often, but its useful).Bakaman Bakatalk 00:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

West Bank
It's a violation of WP:V pure and simple. Please revert your edit. --Ian Pitchford 19:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just read the policy - it's very clear. I don't see any point in arguing about it as I can't see the dispute resolution process upholding a violation of policy. --Ian Pitchford 19:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Shamir1, I've been following this discussion about the "Why Annex" section, and I wanted to give you the courtesy of saying that I have removed it from the article because it lacks proper citation and is therefore in violation of WP:OR. I don't doubt that the arguments you are trying to include are true, and I regret the uncivil manner in which you have been treated by other editors, but I do think that those arguments will have to be sourced and cited directly if we are to avoid a constant battle over that particular content. I know this issue is important to you, so if you think that perhaps I am being hostile to you by removing that material please take a look at the other edits I have made to the article before reaching any conclusions. If you find good sources for the arguments you want to include, I will be happy to work with you to make sure they stay in the article. Take care, Dasondas 22:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the smile dude
I thought for a moment that it was one of those awards barnstars on user pages :) I'm touched. Amoruso 06:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Israel related issues
Posted somethings here, wonder if it's accessed regularly by users. such as this. Amoruso 01:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Bush's comments
Shamur: Bush's comments were not in repsonse to the Pope Lecture Controversy. Any connection between the events is dubious at best. Stop re-inserting them into the Article.DocEss 19:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not "dubious." The sentence in parantheses clarifies why it is there. It clearly comes into context when around the world Islamists are publishing things like "The Vatican joins the Zionist-American alliance against Islam," among other things. It is very relevant. --Shamir1 19:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you thick: He gave the speech att the UN. He did not mention the Pope. The speech is not a response to the Pope's comments. DocEss 19:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No I am not "thick." Bush's speech was responding to the reaction, not Pope's comments, smart one. He was referring to the worldwide rampage and ongoing propaganda in the midst of this situation. --Shamir1 19:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The section is titled: Initial Reactiopns. Pres. Bush's speech was not a reaction to the Pope's comments. Others agree with this position. [P.S. Keep this discussion here on this page, not two pages.]DocEss 19:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

West Bank
Per policy, you will need to add citations of your insertions in the article itself, and not ask people to "see talk" to find them. You keep removing requests for citations but don't provide any. The ones in Talk are not automatically linked to the article. If the ones in Talk are in fact sources to that section, can you please add them to the article, or at least try to add them and another editor can fix any problems? Thanks Ramallite (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on the talk page, I'm sorry I won't be able to respond to religious holy assertions or to movie quotations. Some of the other stuff is highly erroneous, but I'll leave it up to you to discover reliable sources to read and educate yourself. Ramallite (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Silly you? No, you are quite right, I am smarter than that (much smarter as a matter of fact), but I often have to dumb it down on Wikipedia. Now back to the point: When you add something to WP, you must source it, not pure but pretty simple. Arguing that the sources are discussed in talk is not sufficient. Saying that the sources in Talk are not sufficient is a false argument, because as long as they are relevant - even if not sufficient - they must be added. So I suggest you add them. Your refusal to do so is not only blatantly against WP policy, but is also illogical and incomprehensible. You have a point, you have the (or perhaps "a") source for that point, then add the source. It's that simple. Leaving a section like that without a source is unacceptable and will be removed per policy unless sourced. Ramallite (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

email address
you should make one my friend. Yishar Koach. Amoruso 01:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * thanks. you can send me an email through my user page or specifiy one in preferences (that way people can send you emails without knowing your address unless you reply them. you probably know that). it's better not to expose the address on wikipedia I suppose. Amoruso 03:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * at my user/talk page, you'll see the section "toolbox" on the left where you can choose "E-mail this user". You can also put your own email into the "my preferences" section and then it will work for e-mailing you too. Amoruso 06:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Yahoo! article
Hi Shamir,

A single Yahoo! piece wouldn't be good grounds to change the number on, but if further research yields many sources also showing a much lower number than that on the page, that would be significant. Let me know,  Tewfik Talk 05:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Look pal
You can stop whinning about vandalism and "untruths" and all that other crap, because I have done nothing of the sort. I'm going to get tough here, this is a damn encyclopedia, and if you want something to be in it, you're going to have to prove that it's true. So for the last damn time, if you claim something is a "fact", then get a source for it. If you refuse to and don't source your claims, then I'll assume you weren't able to get reliable sources for them. It's just that simple, you either get sources for you supposed "facts" or you stop your whinning. This feels like history 101 all over again, if you claim something to be true, you must be able to prove it using a reliable source. Now stop complaining that I've removed your unsourced nonsense, and get sources to back up what you say, otherwise, you have no facts, only claims. Use primary sources if you can, but if it's not reasonable or practical, we'll need to agree on what secondary sources are acceptable. A student of history 23:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See the discussion page for the new list of points of argument between us I've made. I went through the entire timeline and picked out all the issues that we cannot resolve. My point here, is that many of these issues are not simply POV disputes, they are disputes of fact. Sources will make all the difference here. And lol, you keep on embarassing yourself. Have you ever heard a scholar say "lefty" to someone, as if it means anything at all? "Lefty", that's a good one. I happen to be on the left of the political spectrum, and it seems as though you're on the right. But what the hell does that have to do with anything at all? In my experience, the only kinds of people who use these left/right issues to denegrade or insult others, are those people who lack ability and as such, resort to cheap, meaningless remarks like this. But thanks for the late night chuckle. Now, put some of that cleverness into finding reliable sources for your claims.

Someone who cant do simple research ...
Would like to invite you to discuss your repeated inserts of contentious material in the lead to the Israel article. In case you failed to notice, there is an ongoing discussion (also in the latest archive) about whether the claims you are making should even be in the lead. Please join the discussion, rather than unilaterally making edits to the lead while others are trying to build consensus. Thank you. Tiamut 09:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Religious significance of Jerusalem
The Questionable significance section you have added is fantastic! Well done! Chesdovi 12:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Nurit_Peled-Elhanan
I see that you support Israel. Can you help me make the above article NPOV? Thanks. Tidaress 03:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your edit. Although is it not an occupation rather than administration? UN resolutions state the same. Tidaress 20:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Gaza casualties
You are correct, I too believe that those human shields were not civilians, I do not believe they were added into the civilian catagory, if they were it was not done by me. --Spoil29 06:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Third holiest site in ISLAM
You said that "There is not and has not ever been an official or agreed upon "third holiest" in Islam. Muslims have long written about it.". What you think about OIC already recognise it as Muslims holiest site            .. If a small minorty think differenlty then a section on Al-Aqsa Mosque could be okay but do not insult us by creating this article. I beg you please.. -- ابراهيم 10:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Mashallah
Hi, Yes, persians are not arabs. Mashallah was an Arab from either the arabian peninusla or most probably from egypt, and less probably from khorasan, because the astrological methods he used was typical to egyptians astrologers. For more see his talk page []. After telling you this, can you do me a favor? There are two couples who continouesly insert his "persian" ethnicity, disregarding all other sources. Can you keep a watch on that article? Thanks Jidan 06:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh?
Still trying to paint me as an intolerant revisionist huh? Only intolerant revisionists insist on painting their adversaries as intolerant revisionists, or so my uncle Mahmoud Al-Rothberg used to tell me. In any case, let's see here: A long time ago, you dismissed the notion of the universities built for Palestinians as well as the training of police.
 * I did dismiss the notion that Israelis built universities for Palestinians yes. I said that Jordan prohibited it, but Israel did not, but Israel did not build them, in fact, they usually shut them down forcefully. I don't recall ever saying anything about police training, maybe you can refresh my memory.

After Oslo, only the Israeli military and new PA police police are the only armed forces allowed to operate in the west bank and gaza.
 * Correct.

And yes then after oslo, Israel for a time did help train police.
 * I am not aware that Israel helped trained police. They may have, but from my understanding the police were trained in neighbouring states (unfortunately) and occasionally (including currently) by the American CIA.

Another source says it was 7 universities that had been three-teacher training institutions before were sponsored in part by the Israeli government and Jewish donors.
 * You mean police training colleges or actual universities? Israel was part of the international donors that gave money to reinforce the Palestinian police and perhaps economy (although the latter was via the Paris conference where Israel agreed to withhold and then transfer over the custom taxes for the PA), but Israel never directly sponsored actual universities. I don't know of any new universities that came into existence after Oslo anyway, except for the Arab American University near Jenin. Israel definitely didn't sponsor universities. If your source is reliable, and you are understanding it correctly, I'd love to see it. Keep in mind that I am very familiar with the academic life in my own country. Now as for "Jewish donors", all universities have donors, and there is no reason to believe that Jews never donated money to projects at certain Palestinian universities. But so did Christians and Muslims from abroad. In fact, I believe one of the faculty deans at Birzeit University is a Jewish-American (with a Palestinian ID, i.e. naturalized to the extent you can call it naturalization), but I am not sure about that.

If you choose not to believe it, its fine, you are within your rights.
 * I have very few rights as a Palestinian, so thanks for pointing out one of them. But as a scientist, I don't choose what to believe, I leave that to religious people or ideological hate-mongers (mutually exclusive of course). For me, if evidence is there, with the necessary scientific controls and proper context, that's usually enough.

PS, have you seen the documentary Promises?
 * No.

Ramallite (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Walid Shoebat and Bethlehem
You keep editing the Walid Shoebat article to state, as fact, his opinion that Bethlehem belongs to Israel. I don't want to get dragged into an endless edit war, but Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy means that personal opinions and assertions cannot be treated as fact. If you feel that it's important to convey Shoebat's beliefs on this point, you can report them as such -- write something like "Shoebat believes that the Occupied Territories belong rightfully to Israel".--GagHalfrunt 12:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I know it says according to his biography because I put that in. The point I'm making is that we need to distinguish facts from assertions. The facts are:


 * 1. Shoebat says that he was born in Bethlehem.


 * 2. Shoebat says that Bethlehem belongs to Israel.


 * Both these points should be treated as Shoebat's assertions (the only source for biographical information on Shoebat is the man himself), not as facts.--GagHalfrunt 15:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Israel Defense Forces
Dear Shamir, I am not an activist, I am a cientist who has worked with facts and logic all my life, and I do not wish to see you using the IDF page to recruit for your army. I have great jewish friends who detest what Israel is doing just for an example, so you do not accuse me of being anti-semite. I am being neutral and fair when I remove those statements because the IDF is not one of the worlds most combat-trained armies because such rank does not exist - you cannot state something like that because it will lead to an infinite discussion if the Russians are more battle trained, the Americans, the French, the British, the Africans who live in war, the Colombians and so forth. So how can you go and assert that in an encyclopedia? It is cheap jewish propaganda and one cannot accept it.

About the "arab neighbors wanting to destroy your homeland" please do not come here to stir controversy, this is an encyclopedia where you can, at most, state that "Isarel and arabs have differences and the world is trying to work them out", you cannot state in an encyclopedia that "john wants to kill me" ok?

I hope you understand because I will be relentless in eliminating arab or jew propaganda, if you MUST do recruitment or propaganda work please start your own site and do so. 10:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29 10:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Boxes
Hope you don't mind. I just tidied up the boxes that were on your user page. Expatkiwi

Is this a box you want as well?

 10:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Templates
I trust that my tinkering earlier to sort out your plates was to your liking? Damon Seath 10:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My stance
In regards to Zimbabwe, I regard what Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF cronies did to that nation as a travesty. Ian Smith's Rhodesia showed more compassion to the populace than Mugabe ever did, and Smith had respect for the law. His book BITTER HARVEST is one I would recommend for anyone to read.

In regards to Northern Cyprus, I believe that given the historical animosoties that have always existed between the Greeks and Turks, and that had enosis (union) of Cyprus to Greece occured, the Turkish Cypriots would have been either expelled or killed. With the current situation of Cyprus, at least the intercommunal killing has stopped, and since the TRNC has endured for over 22 1/2 years, its time to recognize that fact.

Damon Seath 10:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Timeline of Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Look, a lot of the revisions you made to my edits put back in POV's. For instance, about the Camp David Summit in 2000, the statement that Barak "offered" 97% of the WB, so on and so forth, is not a fact. These figures are heatedly disputed with estimates ranging as low as 70%. Your edit is one sided.

I always try to steer the middle ground here, and several entries here ring of pro-Israeli POV. 10:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

To archive sections without time stamps
Just add a time stamp via " " (five tildas). I have done that for you this time. JRSpriggs 10:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:RefugeesEng.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:RefugeesEng.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ian Pitchford 19:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Israeli official historiography
Post-Zionist and palestinian historians claim the "traditional Israeli historiography" didn't explain the events the way they happen. "Official Israeli historians" (who were maybe more propagandists than historians) would have built an history for these events. Right. Noted. They are many references for this in first quality (undiscussed) scholar's works. As a consequence, isn't their point of view an important information to add to an article. Not to claim that what they say is (or may be) true but only to underline what they say and permits he readers to understand precisely the "size of their (alleged) lie"... (if any) I think Katz, Schechtman and other pov would deserve a place in all these controversed articles but in a special section : "Israeli official history". Their Pov could be given and critics of their pov from other historians (if any) too. As I think I wrote some months ago (you were not there yet but this received no echo) :
 * if what they claim is (maybe) not true, it is true that it is what they claim.

This information deserves numerous lines in the articles because this is what all Israeli citizens and most western people learned unless they studied the matter deeply. Any comment ? Alithien 09:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Barack Obama
You recently inserted this into the Middle East section of Barack Obama:

Barack insists the U.S. should use "American moral authority and credibility" to solve the Middle East crisis. "Our first and immutable commitment must be to the security of Israel, our only true ally in the Middle East and the only democracy," he says. ¶

However, please note that the section discusses his activities as part of the Middle East Congressional delegation, not his views on the Middle East in general. The above was not in any way related to the delegation, so I have removed it from the article. Gzkn 07:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Re. Religious significance of Jerusalem
Hello. I did notice that I was protecting the article in a version that was not your last. Administrators are not to favor one of the sides in an edit war occuring in an article they are going to protect, and therefore protecting does not imply reverting to the last version of the user who requested it. Remember that protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. As I've just recommended to the other user involved in the dispute, perhaps a WP:RFC would help bringing more input to this dispute before the article gets unprotected. Regards.-- Hús  ö  nd  01:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Cooperation - I agree!
Yes I agree we chould co-operate and move about very carefully. That's why I have invited you to discuss changes in the following section. Perhaps we should both agree upon an informal version of the text before the page is unprotected.Bless sins 16:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome template
You can use this template to welcome new memeber you think may be Jewish, just copy and paste into their talk page, feel free to discuss and improve. FrummerThanThou 02:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Hello Shamir1, Sorry for the delay. I don't come often on wk:en. I am from wp:fr. I see what I can do. Alithien 20:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust
Considering you have Iran listed on your userpage as a "Government I don't like", may I suggest you do not edit articles relating to them? Your edits to this article were reverted, and rightly so, for POV pushing. I am among the contributers to this article, and we all worked very hard to make sure it was as neutral as possible. I would hope that all of us here at Wiki would try to edit with neutrality in mind. Thanks. Jeffpw 07:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw your user page after I saw your edits. Further, I am not the one who reverted your edits, though I support the revert. Please stop pushing a POV in articles. I have reviewed your talk page, and I see this is not the first time you have been warned about doing this. Sincerely, Jeffpw 08:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)Classifying Neturei Karta as "small, but extreme" is your POV, and I am sure they would disagree with you. I don't, but that's not the issue.
 * 2) however, due to the Islamic regime, they are strained from speaking out. This is not only gramatically incorrect, but also an unsourced assertion, and as such, has no place on Wikipedia. It is also POV, in that a claim can be made that everybody in Iran is equally restrained from speaking out.
 * 3) There is no need to classify Khaled Kasab Mahameed as Muslim. That was not included in the source material, and is not relevant to the article. He is included in the article because he was denied entrance to Iran based on his Israeli passport.
 * I have better things to do than give remedial Wikipedia lessons to editors that should know better. please think before making future edits to contentious articles. Jeffpw 08:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You really are not a careful reader. *I* did not revert you, another user did, which I stated above. Moving on, Unlike most Israelis, he is not Jewish, he is Muslim. He adheres to Iran's state religion, yet is still denied access to Iran. That should be noted. This is not supported by the sourced article. If you can find a sourced article that says this, add the fact with the source. Until such time, I will remove unsourced claims. And the pre-revolution Jewish population of Iran has nothing to do with the conference. Please try to stay on point. Jeffpw 09:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You also removed the pre-Revolution Jewish population in Iran. That is well worth a note to at least just show one effect of the institution of the Islamic Republic on their Jewish citizens. Here is where you said I reverted you, when I have not reverted your edits at all. Rather than accuse me of not being a careful reader, perhaps you should write more carefully. In any event, this conversation is pointless. Please see the article talk page, and try to remain neutral in your edits. And very clearly, do not reply on my talk page again. Further communication will be considered harassment and dealt with as such. Jeffpw 09:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

October 2000 Arab citizens of Israel
Shalom to Shamir1 and others, On 01:08, 22 December 2006 you carried out an edit with the following comment: (Rv. The 12 Israeli Arabs were killed by Palestinians (please stop, Abu Ali)). I do follow events in Israel quite closely, and all the controvosies I have heard so far have been about whether it was "necessary" for the Israeli police to kill the 12 citizens (and one non-citizen). This is the first time I have heard the allegation that they were actually killed by Palestinians. I would appreciate it if you could provide some evidence or references for this new (to me at least) allegation. Please reply on the articles talk page Thanks Abu ali 10:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

conflict with Bless sins
Hello. I think that unfortunately I cannot help you. Maybe be JayJg could do a better job... ? Alithien 13:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Religious significance of Jerusalem
Thanks for letting me know, I'll take a look and see if I can assist in mediation. Jayjg (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Book
Hi! Thanks for putting your reasons on the summary but I am having difficulty understanding. Hopefully you can understand me too and we can cooperate. Anyways, my questions. How can a review about the book not be relevant to the article? What do you mean when you say his arguments are not? His arguments are a critique of the information in the book as it says if you read it. As for Clinton, the reason why it was added (not because it needed a review, it doesn't), is to show where Dershowitz stands but more importantly because Clinton, like Carter, is also 1) a U.S. president, 2) Democratic, 3) Brokered peace for Israel, 4) Nobel Peace Prize winner. That is why it is something interesting, not just a book review. --Shamir1 05:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Shamir1,


 * Maybe I should have phrased my comment better- what i meant to say was while you may be using a review of the book as a reference, the particular points quoted in the article are not explicitly related to the book. For example:


 * "Carter has changed. Something has happened to his judgment. I don't understand what it is, but I know it is very dangerous. At a minimum, his legacy is irrevocably tarnished, and he will never again be a factor in the quest for Middle East peace. At worst, he is emboldening terrorists and their apologists in the Arab world, encouraging them to go on with their terror campaign and refuse even to recognize Israel's right to just exist."


 * This seems, a criticism of Carter himself rather than the book or its contents. To talk about his "legacy", to me, is tackling the man, not the ball. The main thrust of Konner's argument is the fact that he believes Carter condones terrorism- so a simple sentence on that would suffice. I hope you can also see that the blockquote about him refusing a post at the Carter Center isn't really relevant to the book's discussion. Which brings me back to my point: while the source you quote may be a review, those points aren't.


 * As for the Clinton comment I can see what you're trying to do, but this is something to go in the Alan Dershowitz or The Case for Peace. I'm sure others can go through the rest of the article and add a sentence or two about who likes a critic/praiser of Carter- it just doesn't make for a better reading.


 * Hope that answers your questions --khello 06:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Although I understand what you are telling me, please see my side as: None of that other information has been removed, shortened, or talked about as extensively as my short edit. Those passages are even a bit longer. They do not address Carter, but instead they address debate on the book (not the book, debate about it) and assault on him. It does not address the book or Carter, one basically addresses "Jewish media" or something of the sort. Meanwhile, the Zayed ordeal has more controversy, importance, and interest to the article. It deals with the author firsthand in an attempt to cite proof of his bias and view. And really, it really is not that long at all if you look at it. Dershowitz's op-ed was only given a one-sentence passage. I do believe you when you say you were not trying to attack me in specific, but it does feel that way since this is the only edit being pinpointed. --Shamir1 02:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go through the article sometime this week (when I get a good chunk of free time) and try and weed out all these excessive and irrelevant bits. Again, I'm sorry that it seems like you're being picked on, but like i said before it's much easier to tackle a recent edit than one that's been there for a while.
 * In the meantime I encourage you to address those passages you're mentioning and edit them accordingly. I suspect there's going to be a lot of activity on this article in the coming weeks, and I'm sure in the end something acceptable to all will be produced.
 * And Happy New Year by the way! --khello 06:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR
I'm reporting you for your flagrant reverting, despite warnings from other users. Mostlyharmless 00:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The Case For Peace
It's not a matter of whether I believe you or not about him being prominent (for what he does, I am certain he is prominent), it's that it is an opinion. Any of the things you just listed would be great to put there. I already put he is the "Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law" even though I don't really know what that particularly means. If you would rather mention his work on a specific case or his age at the time of his appointment be my guest. The key is to state the fact and let the reader judge that he is prominent. I think the Felix title would satisfy us both. --75.46.88.60 03:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Religious significance of Jerusalem
If all parties don't accept a mediator, then it cannot proceed. Mediation is voluntary. Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture
Hello! I am very glad you joined our discussion. Your help with the Location of bombings picture is greatly appreciated. There is still one issue with the picture. It uses the word "assault" in the title which is not neutral, and hence not encyclopedic. "Attacks" in its replacement, or "Location of bombings" instead would be suffice, or even have that row removed (since the key below it explains what the map is and what the circles represent). If you can and/or know how to make this adjustment we would be very thankful. Thank you. --Shamir1 02:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Anytime, Shamir :). I see George's already taken care of the "assault". Just for future reference, I'm male. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  14:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, atheist. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  08:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixing your grammar
Hi Shamir1. Do you want to discuss ways we can fix the grammar in the casus belli you continue reverting? I'm pretty sure we agree, more or less, on the general events, however we appear to keep reverting each other over grammar.

Some points I'd like to start with:
 * 1) Using the numbers repeatedly is redundant, confusing, and can be misleading. I'm sure most users can add three and five in their heads to count to eight. It would also help cut down on the length a bit.
 * 2) It is incorrect grammatically to use numerals that small in a sentence. 3 should be three, 5 should be five, etc.
 * 3) I believe the shelling should be listed before the raid, as those are the order they occurred in. This is significant as the shelling was a diversion for the raid. They were both cross-border, so I'm not sure why you take issue with switching the order.
 * 4) Using the parentheses throughout is confusing, and doesn't really achieve anything more than listing the numbers outright would.

Thoughts? — George Saliba[ talk ] 02:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Shamir1. The sentence structure you suggested on my Talk page looks much better. I'm quite happy with your revised sentence grammatically, and I would endorse it. I'm still a bit dissatisfied with the POV term kidnap, however I think it's ok to use it until we reach consensus as to the proper term on the main article's Talk page. — George Saliba[ talk ] 06:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and updated the article using your casus sentence. Cheers. — George Saliba[ talk ] 05:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Your reversions
Shamir1, you reverted mine and Vladko's edits here. SInce you indicated objections against the "mistreatment" clause, you should have only reverted that part of the article. Instead in your reversions, you removed citation tags without providing citations and you also undid a lot of wikifying by User:Vladko. Please be more careful next time.Bless sins 15:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

hi
As you were a participant in this discussion you may want to see the new avatar of the discussion. Baka man  16:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"Casus belli" in 1948 Arab-Israeli War
I have noticed that you continue changing the listed casus belli to "joint-Arab invasion of the state of Israel".

As I explained on the talk page, a casus belli is defined as "an event or action that justifies or allegedly justifies a war or conflict". The Arab invasion started the war, of course. But the casus belli is the justification offered for the Arab invasion.

If you aren't happy with this explanation, please just delete the casus belli line entirely, and take it to mediation if you like. Eleland 16:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Reversions on The Case for Peace
You just reverted your own edit on The Case for Peace. I think you've been reverting some of my material which you haven't been meaning to (external links, brief mention of criticism via YoYoDa1 22:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I was going to put them in now if you don't voice a complaint with them? --YoYoDa1 23:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Israel-Lebanon
I fear your maths isn't very good. I've reverted twice - here and here in 24 hours, and I think you'll find two is less than three. But thanks for the early warning! As for vandalism, if I'm compromising the integrity of the article, you're doing the exact same thing. At least I don't use sockpuppets to avoid the 3RR (of course, I'd never accuse you of doing so!). Iorek85 04:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * When? I can't find the 24 hour period in which I reverted it three times (even if you count one edit I made reverting an accidental reversion of my change, which doesn't count to the 3RR, it still isn't 3 edits in 24 hours). Iorek85 09:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it highly amusing that you have labelled yourself politically moderate and then have a list of governments that you hate as the first thing on your page. - a random person

War on Terrorism
Hi Shamir1. I don't think we've reached any consensus regarding whether to include the War on Terrorism label in the header of the conflict box, so I've gone ahead and reverted that portion of your edit, though I agree with the rest of your edit, so I've left the rest in. Please join the discussion on the talk page. Cheers. — George Saliba[ talk ] 07:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries man. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time – especialy me! — George Saliba[ talk ] 08:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

3rr
You have breached the three revert rule on Arab citizens of Israel. That you have done so in order to reinsert original research and material which misuses its sources doesn't make it look any better. If you don't self-revert, I will consider reporting you. Palmiro | Talk 04:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You did indeed break the rule. Please see WP:3RR for a full explanation of the three revert rule. It includes the removal of another editor's edits 4 or more times within a 24 hour period - which you did. Bear in mind it doesn't have to be the same editor, or the same revert; as long as there are 4 within 24 hours.


 * I'll give you a warning, rather than a block (which is standard) as the response to the report is a bit late. I reccomend you go back to the talk page and continue with discussions there, rahter than reverting anymore. --Robdurbar 11:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Fox News Article
Hello. I agree with you 100% about the Fox News article, and have been working tediously to give genuine neutrality to the page, but have been opposed fervently. Go back and look at the edit which I recommended. It would be nice to have someone else who knows the difference b/w fair and unfair, and is not blinded by personal ideology. My recommendation is as follows:

Fox News has been criticized as advocating conservative political positions. [3] This same study discloses that only 7% of national and 12% of local journalists used in the survey described themselves as Conservative. The channel denies allegations of bias in their news reporting.

I propose that the comment on bias needs to be either removed or edited. The information which I have added is not OR. It is actually stated in the exact same source. It is in the last couple of paragraphs just prior to what they are saying. Since it is in the same source which they are citing, I do not see a problem with elaborating on their claim. If they want to use a bias source, then I know that explaining how the source came to its conclusion is relevant. I feel that their attempt to censor and cherry pick information is a violation of NPOV. Please read the last few statements I put on the Fox News talk page and let me know if you seen relevance to my argument. I'm sorry for any mistakes I have made in typing this, but I am in a hurry and will be back online soon. Thanks for looking out (OfForByThePeople 01:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

Pleased to have read your page
Hello. I am a new editor to Wikipedia, but not a new fan. The reason I started editing can be found here User:OfForByThePeople I believe that neutrality can only be achieved by analyzing the facts, using logic, listening to every argument, and using a cold heart when making decisions. My motto is 'feelings do not make facts'. When people word things in a suggestive manner for one article, and then are unwilling to support using the same suggestive manner/format for the articles of opposition is wrong. Subconsious manipulation is just plain wrong. This is a very big flaw with Wikipedia which is being ignored. Although, it would be better if suggestive writing techniques could be eliminated completely. This is not possible as most people cannot turn off their emotions, and are near ignorant as to what NPOV really is.

I am pleased to have found you, as people like you and I are very much a minority. So I would very much like to work with you to bring neutrality to extremely important topics i.e. politics, media, geopolitics, etc etc. If you are engaged in similar disputes I would very much like to bring truth to these matters. Being new at this I have not had much success in finding people who are realists. So if you are engaged in any disputes with users who are blinded by emotions and/or partisanship please allow me to know. I debate people through the use of facts, knowledge, and reality. Feelings do not make facts, and unlike the truth emotions lie. Thank you for looking out, I hope we can work together. (OfForByThePeople 03:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

Mediation
As you may have seen I posted the Rfc at Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy, that linked toTalk:Religious_significance_of_Jerusalem. However, the results have been disappointing. NO one has showed up to comment. Even Jayjg, from whom I requested a comment has so far given none. Regarding mediation, I was hoping that since you picked the mediator last time, I would have the opportunity to pick the next mediator. However, you insist on picking Jayjg. There is only one step remaining (that we can both admit to), and it will have to be Requests_for_mediation. I am going to file a request within a week.Bless sins 03:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I too "want to hear what someone wants to say", that is why I asked Jayjg to comment. There is certainly bias in wikipedia. For example, if I suggested that we ask User:Aminz to mediate between us, you would reject it, just as I have rejected Jayjg. You need to understand that a user has a right to refuse mediation of someone he/she has conflicts with in the past. Filing a mediation, Requests_for_mediation, is a netural thing to do. Bless sins 14:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Cas number
Hey Shamir1, my guess is that the Higher Relief Council (HRC) figure is the most recent, as it is updated to include deaths after the end of fighting that are still a direct result of the conflict – deaths due to cluster bomb explosions on the ground, bodies found in the rubble after clearing, people dying of their wounds after the ceasefire, and the like. It would be very helpful if we could find the original sources that the AP article cites for the 1,035, 1,123, 1,183, and 1,119 figures, as primary sources are almost always preferable to secondary sources, and it would most helpful to get dates to associate with each estimate. For instance, the 1,035 estimate is quite clearly a toll of only those killed during the fighting, not as a result of the conflict: "During the war, AP counted 855 killed... Adding the additional 180 deaths now conceded by Hezbollah raises the AP tally to 1,035." Cheers. — George Saliba[ talk ] 06:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, so I assume, based on your recent edits, that you've come to the conclusion that the secondary source citing the government figure is more reliable than the primary source citing the government figure? Any particular reason why you've reached this conclusion? Or were you not aware that the HRC is a Lebanese government organization? — George Saliba[ talk ] 01:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's cool. Unfortunately I can't speak or read Arabic. You may want to ask LestatdeLioncourt, as I know he does speak Arabic, and he's an active editor. You should also consider emailing the HRC to see if they respond. Maybe ask both organizations what their figures include (I think the post-conflict cluster bomb deaths may be part of the difference), and if they have any more up-to-date figures that distinguish between civilians and militants, as that would certainly clear up a lot of the "gray area" as well. — George Saliba[ talk ] 02:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist/Military wing
Apart from NPOV issues, refering to a certain wing of Hezbollah as a terrorist wing in that sentence, is a tautology. I was trying to say that in the edit summary, but you can only type one sentence in there.

The countries that have placed Hezbollah on the terror list have, of course, banned all parts of Hezbollah that they think are involved in terrorism. This means that all banned wings of Hezbollah are "terrorist wings" by definition. So, refering to "terrorist wing" becomes ambiguous, apart from the NPOV issue.

One can argue about whether "military wing" is an appropriate name. Perhaps "armed wing" is better and more NPOV....

Count Iblis 13:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah are not terrorists. Stop infecting pages with your opinion.

Shalom Shamir1, I have made a comment on one of the citations you used is Arab citizens of Israel. You may want to reply on the articles talk page. Abu ali 07:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Lebanon conflict
Hey Shamir1. I too hope that everything going on in Beirut works itself out peacefully.

Regarding the "majority civilians" note, I think it comes down to what the articles out there state. If, for instance, twenty articles state that the majority were civilians, and two or three indirectly contradict this, then I believe the general consensus for statement in a summary (in this case, the infobox) would be that the majority were civilians. However, this doesn't mean that the minority view wouldn't belong in the article – it absolutely would – however, not in a summary, as a summary is just an overview, and shouldn't delve into every claim and detail. If the number of articles on each side wasn't so one-sided, then this wouldn't be the case, but based on what I've been able to find, there are very few articles, most of which aren't even primary sources, which give the Hezbollah death toll as a majority (or, conversely, the civilian death toll as a minority). — George Saliba[ talk ] 08:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The holocaust
Help, there needs to be a concerted effort to kick the Holocaust diniers of the Holocaust talk page. They are plotting to wrck the holocaust artical. --Lilidor 05:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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


 * I may be wrong, but your edit should have been placed under "Requests_for_mediation/Religious_significance_of_Jerusalem". Bless sins 02:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:3RR
Hi Shamir1. Please be aware that your most recent three reverts to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict violate the 3RR rule, and as such I have registered your violation. You continue to push this revert despite numerous reference citations and an ongoing discussion on the Talk page. Your expression of your opinion, which two other editors have disagreed with on the Talk page, which no one else has agreed with on the Talk page, and which I consider to be original research, is extremely far from reaching consensus. Based on your archive, I see that this is the third or fourth time you've been warned for having broken the 3RR, so I trust you're aware of this rule. — George Saliba[ talk ] 02:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Druze soldiers Israel 1949.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Druze soldiers Israel 1949.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 01:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 16:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

AfD nomination of Eilat bakery bombing
An editor has nominated Eilat bakery bombing, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 13:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin and Joe Biden?
A disproportionately large segment consisting of the summary of a floor speech given by a single US politician? Come on, you've been here long enough to realize that there is a problem with that in regards to policy. I encourage you to revise and condense significantly. A summary of one floor speech in the Senate taking up so much space in an article like this definitely fits the definition of undue weight. Just because it's sourced doesn't mean it's appropriate. Ramallite (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Still disproportionately long in my view. You have the Israeli govt, the UN, HRW, and then.... a Joe Biden speech? I don't think he's as important as all the rest to be given equal time (or in my opinion, any time at all). By the way, there is rarely a real Palestinian funeral with less than 100 people participating. It's a clan thing. It seems to me that a bunch of teens were having a bit of fun on the ground, and you and a lot of others got duped into believing that it was a purposefully staged funeral. I know funerals, that definitely doesn't look like one (or like it was even trying to look like one). It looks like a small group of teens playing and teasing each other. In any case, please address your neutrality problems. Ramallite (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If that Israeli drone video if authentic, and I have no reason to believe it is not, it is capturing events on the ground that may be completely different than the narrative the IDF attached to it. All you see is a small group of boys playing, perhaps to tease each other, or perhaps to tease the drone, or whatever. But I don't see why it deserved such a wide circulation, it just wasn't worth it. People on the ground had a lot of grief to worry about. In any case, Shamir1 I think Tewfik's assessment is enough. I know that one of your favorite things to do on WP is to drive home your points strongly, often overwhelmingly, but you don't need to. It's like you are constantly going out of your way to overly apologize or justify Israel's actions, but you really don't need to go that far. I think people can get the gist of what your edits are without needing to hammer them in with lengthy quotes and philosophical arguments. There's more to the people of the middle east than having apologists working for them day and night (and I mean both sides). Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 00:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, do me a favor and self-revert on that last edit where you removed, of all things, the official website of the camp itself as a valid source. Do you believe any source that is Palestinian is crap? It's like saying that the official site of the city of New Orleans is not proper to report on Hurricane Katrina, but that a FEMA source is needed. Self revert, please. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 00:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, since you don't assume good faith (I guess?), have this and this translated. I was very very conservative with my one-sentence summary of all the eyewitness descriptions there. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 01:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You write "Also, the CNN source you added does not confirm the claim, and it is also before any actual investigation". Well, obviously, which is why "Palestinians initially feared". Didn't you get that part?
 * If you want to have a long Biden statement (who actually has more support for Palestinians than you'd like to believe), you're inviting equivalent counter-arguments.
 * You write: "Perhaps because the drone is photographing from a bird's eye view, it may look like teens to you.". First, I'm glad Americans get a kick out of Palestinians dying. Second, do you guys have some sort of super-sight that can zoom in from a bird's eye view that we mere Homo sapiens don't? Cool. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 01:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The CNN does mention that Palestinians think 500 are killed. If I change "massacre" to "500 killed", would that be acceptable to you? I thought a massacre was a number at least greater than 22 but less than 31. I get that! Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 01:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you are saying here: "I don't know why so many of the comments you say to may sound so appropriate when it comes to you, but hey, you've been here long enough to know that". I don't follow. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 04:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Any chance to reach consensus?
Hi Shamir1, I noticed that you recently reverted the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article yet again. Do you have any interest in joining the new RfC discussion on the Talk page in the hopes of reaching a consensus, rather than just revert warring? — George Saliba[ talk ] 07:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again Shamir1. I hope we're starting to make some progress on the talk page. Please join back into the conversation when you have a chance. — George Saliba[ talk ] 10:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Interests
According to your user page, we share every single value (listed on there). It would interest me to see how far down the same rabbit hole our libertarian values go. --bladebot 06:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for this edit. Its really important that niether of us edit the page until after the mediation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bless sins (talk • contribs) 13:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Your Mediation Cabal case

 * Just a reminder that this case is awaiting your input; my advice is to participate as soon as possible - if you are seen as inactive at the mediation, chances are the other editor's wishes will be implemented. Yours, Anthony cfc  [ T &bull; C] 14:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good morning (GMT time); I'd like to express my concerns over the fact that you are ignoring the above cases. Your input is urgently required, in order to get the dispute resolved and I'd appreciate it if you treated the case with some concern. If you do contribute again after this point, without participating in the mediation, I will assume that you have absolutely no objection to whatever compromise is raised by the other two editors, and your opinion will be assumed agreement with the general consensus. I hope to see you at the mediation site as soon as possible.

Yours, Anthony cfc  [ T • C] 03:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Categories of Jewish Athletes
Hi. I believe this is related to an issue that has interested you in the past. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Category:Jewish_fencers some people are suggesting that Jewish athletes, beginning with Jewish Fencers, should be deleted. I do not think that is the correct approach, or consistent with wiki policy, and thought that others might want to weigh in on the discussion. Tx. --Epeefleche 13:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)--Epeefleche 13:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)--Epeefleche 23:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your msg
Sorry for the delay. I've been busy lately. One day I hope to get to open those links. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

under israeli law, druze are a separate religion
can you please provide the reffrences.7day 18:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Here you go, for starters .... "Israeli law recognizes the "religious communities" as carried over from those recognized under the British Mandate. These are: Eastern Orthodox, Latin (Catholic), Gregorian-Armenian, Armenian-Catholic, Syrian (Catholic), Chaldean (Uniate), Greek Catholic Melkite, Maronite, Syrian Orthodox, and Jewish. Three additional religious communities have subsequently been recognized -- the Druze, the Evangelical Episcopal Church, and the Baha'i." --Epeefleche 00:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Hamas members
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Blast san 21:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I was editing in sort of a rush, and the "Hamas" didn't register as it should have. Category:Anti-Semitic people is a controversial category, and is prone to vandalism, but that's not an excuse for my inattention. Once again, I apologise, and I hope you can forgive my gaffe.  Bl a  st  23,02,07 2209 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 16:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Mediation
Im sorry, which mediation are you talking about? -Ste|vertigo 04:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Jerusalem in Islam

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 16:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Mediation
Im sorry, which mediation are you talking about? -Ste|vertigo 04:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Jerusalem in Islam

Please explain template POV in the "Azmi Bishara" article's talk page.
You've added a POV template to the Azmi Bishara article. Please make sure you state your reasons in the talk-page, as the template requires. Itayb 08:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the template. Before you decide to remark the article with this template, please read the following paragraph: NPOV dispute. Thanks. Itayb 08:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Desmond Tutu
I don't really have a strong opinion on this issue. I would prefer that the information isn't deleted, but CJCurrie has a point when he says that nobody has actually presented the original 1984 article. I tried looking for it myself on google, but I couldn't find it. Until the 1984 article is found, there's reasonable doubt that the Zionist website and Frontpagemag quoted Tutu in context. So I prefer to spend my energy on issues like Criticisms of Holocaust denial, where the facts are much more clear cut, and yet people still want to delete information. --GHcool 17:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Forgive me, Shamir1, but I think you're fighting a losing battle. Even though the Jerusalem Post did quote him and JP is a reliable source, it seems to me that there is more than enough information in the article on his views of the Arab-Israeli conflict.  I also happen to respect Desmond Tutu, even though I think he has a moral blind spot when it comes to Israel.  The level of damage he has done to fuel the Arab-Israeli conflict is nowhere near the level of Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, or even Jimmy Carter's new book.  --GHcool 21:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I find it difficult to believe that Tutu is an anti-Semite. Tutu is simplistically applying the South African apartheid model to the Arab-Israel conflict.  Its ridiculous and irresponsible, but I wouldn't call it anti-Semitic.  The "monopoly" comment does not really surprise or alarm me considering the fact that he is a religious Christian leader.  If you want to continue arguing your point (and it is a valid one), don't let me stop you.  --GHcool 23:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right. Maybe you can add the quote in a footnote rather than in the body of the actual article ... ? --GHcool 00:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR
Shamir,

You're over the 3RR on the Tutu page. Please self-revert before you are reported.

Would you have any interest in asking a neutral party to look over the article, rather than continuing this seemingly endless edit war? CJCurrie 04:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. You have to self-revert now.

I'll repeat my suggestion concerning a neutral party. CJCurrie 04:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I simply meant that it was unfair to suggestion Tutu was singling out Judaism for criticism. I attempted to include both critical references in the article some time ago, but was soon reverted. CJCurrie 04:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you suggest a neutral party? CJCurrie 04:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't planning this to be a mediation session, so much as just seeking outside views. CJCurrie 05:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, understood. I don't know much about User:Alithien, but I won't object to him looking in on the matter. CJCurrie 05:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you've reverted the page again. I thought we were going to defer the controversy until it could be reviewed by an involved party? CJCurrie 01:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Response:


 * The Hartford material could very easily have been taken completely out of context. It's not appropriate for us to present the quote without having a better idea of what Tutu meant.
 * I'll reiterate that Tutu has used the "monopoly on God" line with reference to Christianity as well. We shouldn't present one quote without also presenting the other.
 * I'm not opposed to including the "Jewish arrogance" line per se, but the Holocaust quote could easily have been taken out of context as well. The presentation does not seem at all fair to the subject.  CJCurrie 02:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Response:


 * I edit at Wikipedia and was also involved in collecting quotes from foreign leaders for the Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy. I, and other editors, used regular news sites. The AP, Sydney Morning Herald, Washington Post, Jerusalem Post.... Quotes are already selected for the news site, and were usually just pasted into the article or shortened even more. Not once did any of us editors have to retrieve the complete speech, not once. And we all used reliable sources. Unless you can find a source that even mentions the idea that that line was taken out of context, then that edit stand. Never working at Wikipedia have I heard such a baseless excuse for removal.

The problem is that we don't have any quote from Tutu vis-a-vis the Temple, nor even the original newspaper report. Perhaps more importantly, we don't have any evidence that Tutu's comments about the temple were a source of controversy among Hartford's Jewish community. All we have at present is a summary (possibly selective) on the website of someone who hates Tutu, and a passing reference in the Jerusalem Post. There's nothing to indicate that this is important.


 * I'll reiterate that he is not Jewish! It is totally and completely and utterly different when a Christian leader says that about Jews. Imagine a Jew telling a Jewish stereotype joke to another Jew, that is no big deal. No imagine a Muslim telling an Jewish stereotyoe joke to a Jew, that probably wouldn't be too funny. Not that any of this is irrelevant but it appears hard for you to understand. Anyway, you will need a something that draws that comparison, otherwise it does not stand.

I don't need anything that "draws the comparison". Tutu has used the "monopoly on God" line with reference to both Christianity and Judaism, and the comments may be referenced together accordingly. The rest of your comments are, in fact, irrelevant.
 * Not only do I not see how these quotes can be taken out of context, but it doesnt matter. I dont see how it is presented badly when almost all in quotations. You can bring something up in specific and that can be handled. Unfortuantely, life is not fair, and it is not good form to simply hide away his controversial comments.

Context does matter, and there's little purpose in including a potentially inflammatory statemet that may have been taken out of its proper, etc. I'll have to review the AJC's summary of this matter, but I'm not convinced the entire exchange is significant enough to mention. CJCurrie 08:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict
You are agreed the above dispute is resolved? anthony cfc [ talk] 00:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Award
<div style="font-family:Garamond,Georgia,Serif;"> The Original Barnstar For your civility in the Mediation Cabal case, WP:MEDCABAL/Israel-Lebanon conflict, and for helping to solve an important dispute efficiently and sucessfully - and making my Mediation easier :) - I, Anthony, award Shamir1 the Original Barnstar. Well done! Kind regards, anthony cfc  [ talk]


 * Awarded: 17:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Anthony cfc
Good evening (GMT time); I've replied to the above post at my talk page, as requested (let me know). Hopefully you will find my recommended reading helpful.

Kind regards, anthony cfc  [ talk] 22:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Elias Chacour
Hello. I noticed your edits to the article on Archbishop Elias Chacour. Please note that he identfies himself as a Palestinian and as recognized as such by journalists, academics and the Catholic Church. Majoreditor 04:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware
Hi Shamir, please be aware of Deletion sorting, such as WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nick Berg
Hi Shamir1, I noticed that you reverted my edit and said reversion of vandalism under edit summary? I really do not appreciate this mischaractorization of my edit. Thanks, --Tom 15:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nor do I appreciate you mischaracterizing mine... Where did I say I reverted that edit because of vandalism? --Shamir1 16:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Shamir, I mistook rv for rvv or rv v. Please accept my apologies. May I suggest adding more detail to your edit summaries? Anyways, no hard feelings? Peace, --Tom 17:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Ahdout
you edit his article a lot. where do you get your sources from?

--Kızılderili 07:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

George Galloway
Please see my comments here so we can attempt to move on and unprotect this article. Thanks.--Jackbirdsong 00:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will put my two cents in on any RfC - and I really only have an issue with the stuff that seems to me to be in violation of policy. I frankly have no opinion one way or the other insofar as Galloway's comments, I just wanted to try to get the article unprotected for all editor's sake.--Jackbirdsong 09:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have responded to your revised criticism section in Galloway:Talk. There are some things that I still believe are not cool with wiki policy, but you should go ahead and file RfC to get some more outside opinions on the subject. Cheers.--Jackbirdsong 22:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent vote
Hi Shamir, it appears that you voted twice on category: Anti-Smeitic People. I'm sure that it was an accidental oversight; you may wish to cross out your previous vote and comments. Thanks, Majoreditor 00:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

2006 Lebanon War
Hi Shamir1. I think this name was chosen because what is called the "First Lebanon War" colloquially in Israel is known as the 1982 Lebanon War on Wikipedia, so the "Second Lebanon War" is just following the same model. I'm not the person to consult with however, as it wasn't my page move request. Feel free to weigh in on the talk page though of course. — George Saliba[ talk ] 02:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

War article
Hi Shamir1. To answer your question, I am not now, nor have I ever been, Maronite. I generally consider myself to be an agnostic Humanist. I've heard similar emigration statistics reported, and not just for Maronites, though I've never lived in Lebanon myself. Cheers. — George Saliba[ talk ] 02:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not off the top of my head. They're more things I've read in random articles about the war last summer, and the resulting aftermath, or personal word-of-mouth. I know some people who hire out contractors to branches of major technology companies in Lebanon, and before the conflict they had no problem finding people to fill in the roles, but after the conflict just about anyone able to leave has left. The way they put it is they would go through dozens of resumes they received before the war, and of all of them they would only hear back from one or two people still actually living in the country tops. This is one interesting read, basically saying that the study regarding Maronite emigration is flawed, as many people (not just Maronites) don't want to stay in Lebanon. I don't really blame them, given that the economy and the government are now in shambles. Another interesting read is here – it's not really related to your question, but an interesting read about modern Lebanese culture and emigration nonetheless. — George Saliba[ talk ] 02:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One other thing to note. I don't personally agree with the study's assertion that the Maronites are leaving because of Islamism directly; it seems like a very narrow view. Basically the conditions in the country are quite bad, with a weakened economy, political turmoil, assassinations, and much of the civilian infrastructure destroyed. Those conditions were caused by, or at the very least exacerbated by, both Hezbollah and Israel during the summer war. These people aren't saying "I disagree with Hezbollah's ideology, and therefore I'm going to leave my homeland," but instead people saying "I hate the conditions here, and I hate Hezbollah, and I hate Israel." That's my personal view of the attitudes of people there at least. — George Saliba[ talk ] 02:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent change to Jerusalem
I don't believe this edit adds much to the Jerusalem article. Only the most pertinent information needs to be in the introduction and I'm not sure it's actually verifiable. Words like "vibrant" are especially subjective and I question whether the sources you note even support the statement. That's especially true in regards to the Jewish Virtual Library source, which does not relate to the sentence you added. --  tariq abjotu  23:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur. While it might be true (though "small town" is a bit much), it adds little to the article, and sounds like an advertisement. Tariq has worked a lot on making this article FA worthy, and I think it's better without your addition. okedem 22:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note Talk:Jerusalem. Perhaps information on the history of demographics in Jerusalem could be put in the Demographics section instead. --  tariq abjotu  23:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Al-Manar
You recently deleted a small block of sourced text on Al-Manar with an unconvincing edit description of "WP:Not"; could you explain which part of NOT you think this deletion was justified by? John Vandenberg 11:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries; thanks for clarifying that. John Vandenberg 23:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

George Galloway
Hi Shamir1, this is an invitation to participate in the discussion at WP:ANI#George Galloway. Thanks, – Riana ऋ 08:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

War Article
I'll use numbers here, to try to keep this organized. First, please note that I'm only going to deal with sources that state "Israel-Hezbollah war" or similar. I do not your opinion that usage of "war between Israel and Hezbollah" means the same thing. Thanks for starting the RfC. Hopefully we can get some more eyes on the discussion. Cheers. — George Saliba[ talk ] 06:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Okay, for TIME, first a couple notes. It is inaccurate to call it the "most commonly used news magazine," as this is simply untrue. It is the largest circulated weekly magazine in the United States. While I know that you're probably not going to see the differences between those, they're absolutely huge. Yours says it's the most used news sources in the world in magazine form, while in reality it is the largest circulation weekly magazine in the United States. The relevance has to do with giving the source undue weight. Now, to evaluate your claims one-by-one.
 * 2) *First, you claim that the same article refers to it as the "Israel-Hezbollah conflict." This is absolutely true, but misses the point. The point is that there is no consensus for the name "Israel-Hezbollah war." I absolutely agree that it is used sometimes, but I very much disagree that it used often enough or consistently enough to constitute a consensus. My point is that the TIME articles use half a dozen different terms when referring to the war, including "war between Israel and Hizballah", "the July-August war with Israel", "last summer's 34-day war between Israel and... Hizballah", "the summer's war", "the summer's war with Israel", "war in Lebanon", and, indeed, "Lebanon's War", and I don't think there's any consensus among them. This denotes absolutely no consensus for the name.
 * 3) *Second, please don't say things like "more Times articles call it." This requires us evaluating every article to state this as a fact, and short of evaluating it as such as a fact, it's just unnecessary exaggeration to try and make a point.
 * 4) Okay, for the BBC poll, and this is fundamental, polls are not sources. I am not ignoring your source, because you have no source. You have a poll. The fundamental difference is that while BBC articles are vetted, reviewed by editors who make edits and corrections, and written by journalists who research what they're reporting on, poll have no such editorial oversight. This is a critical aspect of being a reliable source.
 * 5) As for the Washington Post, what about a link makes it "permanent"? Neither the article nor the link have changed since they were written, so the word "permanent" has absolutely zero meaning. Furthermore the sources are old, and may, therefore, be tainted by recentism. They support the title you support, however, again, two random links to a page with a completely different title do not show consensus among scholars in any way whatsoever.
 * 6) I have no problem with the San Francisco chronicle article. It supports your argument. Again, one article means littles as far as consensus among scholars which doesn't exist. It's also not a very important source, being the 14th largest in America.
 * Yes, HRW calls it the "Israel-Hezbollah war" at points, and at other points it labels it differently. Just as Wikipedia article titles are important, so too are titles for documents, reports, and articles. The fact that they chose to use "Israel/Lebanon" in the title denotes to me that neither name is more or less appropriate that the other. Again, lacking consensus among all the articles and reports out there on a specific name, of course different sources will use different names. I do not dispute this; I only dispute that there is any sort of consensus for it. I disregard nothing, but I take everything into account with regard to the greater whole, and I see not definitive consensus. Also, please don't inject OR like calling it their "most researched" article, as even if it is the most recent, we have no way of knowing this to be true.
 * 1) Regarding, Congressional Research Service, again, you're misidentifying your source. It is not the "public policy arm of the U.S. Congress." It is the public policy research arm of the U.S. Congress. This is like confusing the CEO of a company with the researcher who was working on the companies latest drug; they are two extremely different things. I misspoke here: I should have said that it very often uses names other than "Israel-Hezbollah war." This varying usage of the name again illustrates that there is no consensus among scholars on a name.
 * I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then, as we don't seem to agree on any point. I don't see the term "Israel-Hezbollah war" (or similar variations) being used as a name for the conflict often enough to form a consensus (60-80% of the time), while you apparently do. Hopefully some other editors will weigh in on your RfC, or your move vote if it comes to that and you create one. — George Saliba[ talk ] 07:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In the RFC comment, sure. In most articles I've come across, however, they use war between... which isn't a title, but a description. A quick google news search (and I'm not advocating this as an accurate method) gives 403 returns for 'Israel-Hezbollah War', 438 for 'Israel-Lebanon War', and 9074 for 'Lebanon War' (of course, this would have the most since it includes all variations of the title with 'Lebanon' in it). It is telling, however, that there are only 5166 for 'Hezbollah War', and 1267 for '2006 Lebanon War'. The point is, it's hardly clear which is the most-common-by-far title. It's also not that big an issue - the Wikipedia page is in the top two results for all of the google searches;


 * Israel-Lebanon War = 1st.
 * Israel-Hezbollah War = 2nd.
 * 2006 Lebanon War = 1st.
 * Israel-Lebanon Conflict = 1st.
 * Israel-Hezbollah Conflict = 1st.
 * 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War = 2nd.

Since all the pages have redirects anyway, the title is a matter of accuracy, not urgency. Anyone who wants to find the page can with ease. There is no reason why we can't wait 6 months (as I jokingly suggested) and see what is more common then. If we wanted, we could wait a year. Iorek85 03:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've clarified my position on the RFC. I hope this clears it up. Iorek85 04:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Zeq_and_Zero0000 Zeq 15:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to delete category of Jewish athletes
Well, they are trying to delete a category of Jewish athletes again. This time, figure skaters. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_14#Category:Jewish_figure_skaters. I pointed out to the originator of the attempt that we had addressed this general issue already with Jewish fencers, where the attempt failed (due in part to your help). Still, they insist on trying to delete this category. Any help by your weighing in on the issue would be appreciated. Thanks again. --Epeefleche 00:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)--Epeefleche 20:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

so what. what does it matter if Wikipedia has or does not have this category ? would people get a wronmg notion of history or form fifferent opinion on the right of the Jewish people to have a homeland ?. get proportions and focus on article that counts. Zeq 03:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with you focusing on articles that count. But as you know, part of the entire Nazi approach, and pre-Nazi European approach, was to not allow Jews into sports, and in fact the effort of the anti-semitic approach was in part to characterize the Jews as unathletic.  That I imagine is a reason that there are Jewish Sports Halls of Fame and the like.  I don't think this has to be characterized as either-or. If you can support it, that would be great. --Epeefleche 04:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute on Israel's infobox
Perhaps you'd want to contribute to the discussion on Template_talk:Israel-InfoBox.--Doron 10:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Galloway
The article has been unprotected. I would encourage you to continue the conversation at the Talk page of the Galloway article before inserting any info, as some editors (including myself) still have major problems with the content, and it could start another edit war. Good luck, and be patient with other editors, even if they aren't with you - this gives you the upper hand.--Jackbirdsong 01:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw your addition to the discussion after I posted the above, so I'm glad you are talking with other editors about the situation. I appreciate your willingness to talk about the issue - I think we'll find a compromise soon. Cheers.--Jackbirdsong 02:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence Zeq 06:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Requesting feedback at 2006 Lebanon War talk
Hi, I noticed that you're one of the fairly active editors on the 2006 Lebanon War article. If you have a chance, please take part in the requested move discussion going on there. The move is in regards to whether we should use uppercase "War" or lowercase "war" in the article title. Whether you agree or disagree with my position, your feedback and vote would be appreciated. Cheers. — George Saliba [ talk  ] 18:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus
A consensus based on a compromise has been reached at Template talk:Infobox Israel. You are starting a revert war against the consensus version.--Doron 09:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No such consensus has ever been reached. Please don't spread such falsifications. Please re-read the definition of consensus if you misunderstand. The fact Isarig, Shamir1, Okedem, me and other raised concerns means there's no consensus, to make it short. Cheers, Amoruso 13:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Bar Refaeli
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Shamir1! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule img[0-9]*\.imageshack\.us/img[0-9]*/.*\.jpg, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 05:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Article talk page usage
Hi. Why are you not responding on the article's talk page instead of repeatedly inserting the contested addition? Please do so. Thank you. El_C 08:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A question regarding Werdnabot
Some time back, I noticed that you used this bot to archive your talk page. I was intrigued, but got distracted and forgot about it. Today, I noticed it again, and decided I would make use of it myself. I followed the instructions on the bot page, but my template does not look like yours, and now I am concerned that I did something wrong. How has your experience been with the bot? Have you had any problems? And has Werdna been available to answer questions? I guess I should have said "questions" in that headline. Seriously, I would like to know more, and I thank you for your time. Cheers! ---Cathal 02:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure I understood your comment on my talk page. Can you clarify wanting to start a 2nd archive? ---Cathal 14:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion Regarding Intro to Palestinian Exodus
Hi Shamir! It's been a while since I've seen you on Palestinian Exodus, but can I have your feedback on this ? Cheers and thanks, Pedro.Gonnet 14:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Johnston
Hi, I hope the compromise is fine: it currently gives part of the full quote (previously it didn't even use the quote, just paraphrased what was said). None of the other quotes in the article are in full so using the full quote here would not be appropriate (bias). If this doesn't suit you I'm willing to discuss a further compromise. Leave a message on the article talk if you want to discuss this further, but I think as it is it's fair - I've captured the main point of the demand in the quote, which is the release of Abu Qatada. Thanks, – Chacor 14:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 04:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC).


 * Well currently it's pending a mediator. Within the next few days, a mediator will pick up the case and you all will proceed from there. Each mediator's style is different (some prefer e-mail, some prefer on-wiki, some prefer IRC), but it will be entirely up to you all. Just be patient, and we'll get with you soon :-) ^ demon [omg plz] <em style="font-size:10px;">20:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian cinema
I have requested some discussion in the hope of reaching a consensus for the title of this article on it's talk page (Talk:Palestinian cinema). As you were the individual who moved the article from "Cinema of Palestine" to "Palestinian cinema", your input into the discussion would be appreciated. Gram123 14:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Jpost june6 1967.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Jpost june6 1967.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Jpost june6 1967.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Jpost june6 1967.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 10:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Winep logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Winep logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 12:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Naming Israel-Lebanon conflict 2006
I read your contributions on Talk:2006 Lebanon War I found out you may contribute in Farsi. Please help us to solve similar discussion on Persian wikipedia (Here : fa:بحث:جنگ_لبنان_(۲۰۰۶)). thanks very much for all your help. --Mmehdi.g 02:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Next step...
The next step I suspect you'll be looking for in the dispute resolution process for the naming of the 2006 Lebanon War article is a request for arbitration. — George [ talk  ] 22:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you can open a new mediation on the same subject, or reopen a closed mediation; you may want to ask an administrator. The request for mediation page says "Disputes that cannot be resolved through mediation, or where the parties are unwilling to take part in voluntary dispute resolution, may be referred to the Arbitration Committee for binding resolution, including sanctions." That's probably your best bet, as we'll likely end up at the Arbitration Commitee anyways, even if mediation is successful. Since we can show that we tried the mediation as a way to resolve the dispute and failed, it lets us take the issue to the committee that much sooner. Cheers. — George [ talk  ] 11:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Arbitration isn't like mediation; I believe it's a completely open process that anyone can join and discuss. If Italiavivi chooses to not participate in arbitration, however, the arbitration doesn't end (unlike mediation). I don't think you can block anyone from taking part in arbitration. — George [ talk  ] 11:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Mediation request
I am sorry but I am already tied up with another mediation I am somewhat neglecting, among lots of other stuff I should be doing... I don't think I have time to give that question the time it deserves, and so I politely ask you to seek the advice of another committee member. Apologies. &mdash;Sean Whitton / 09:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Continuing mediation
Hmm, I believe the previous mediation was already about the "naming only", but feel free to discuss it with the mediator as KillerChihuahua suggested. I'm going to be unavailable until mid-September or so, but we can pick the issue back up then and have a new mediation or something. Cheers. — George [ talk  ] 18:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Arafat receipt.jpg
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Arafat receipt.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 20:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes to Israel intro
Regarding this change, see Talk:Israel. --  tariq abjotu  04:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Requesting unblock
--Shamir1 04:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that 3RR is not limited to simply more than 3 reverts, but is also a preventative measure against edit warring that can apply for fewer than 4 reverts. Quote: "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." --Strothra 05:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but nothing wrong or in bad faith was done that would amount to being clearly disruptive. The examples of clear disruption: "editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system" was not done. More than three reverts was not reached and was not going to be. Thank you. --Shamir1 05:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you reverted me three times (to my discredit, I also reverted you three times), but you also reverted tariqabjotu once. El_C 05:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspected you must have overlooked it and, for my part, I was not going to make a 3rr report over it. But I felt you ought to know. El_C 05:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how he could have overlooked it; he put rv in the edit summary. --  tariq abjotu  06:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm back
Yes, indeed I am back. I suggest we go straight to the arbitration committee, as the mediator in our previous, unsuccessful mediation had noted that mediation is rarely used to resolve disputes around article names (since there isn't much room for compromise), and we can show that we've already put forth a good faith effort to solve the issue through mediation. Plus arbitration is the end point for the dispute resolution process anyways, so it's likely that no matter the outcome of a mediation we will end up there eventually. Cheers. ← George [ talk  ] 05:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I'm quite content with you renaming the link that shows in the article to "2006 war", but it's improper to point said link to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict redirect page, rather than the 2006 Lebanon War main page. You may remember at one point I pushed through a successful discussion to change the name to 2006 Lebanon war (lowercase war), but that was quickly reverted. ← George [ talk  ] 05:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's alright. I've changed it to just not link to the redirect page, while keeping your visible intention of "2006 war". Cheers. ← George [ talk  ] 05:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Israel
What needs to be accepted are the opinions of the source. "Freedom House's international research on the degree of political rights and civil liberties in the nations of the world found Israel to be the only one of eighteen Middle Eastern countries to qualify as a democracy--electoral and liberal. " Now, what, really what, can be wrong with that? It says that Israel was the only one of the eighteen countries Freedom House surveyed in the Middle East group to qualify as what Freedom House calls a liberal democracy, and credits the statement as belonging to Freedom House. We are stating the words of the research. That cannot be changed. It has been matched practically verbatim. Try to accept that. --Shamir1 04:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't bother me on my talk page; I can read Talk:Israel just fine. --  tariq abjotu  04:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Academic boycotts...
Apologies, I just intended to alert you to the fact that I had corrected a similar mistake previously. Famousdog 13:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request
A request for mediation has been filled out. If you would like to participate, please take the opportunity to agree. --Shamir1 00:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I noted my position on the mediation page. --  tariq abjotu  00:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Cooperation
I really wish you would try formal dispute resolution. I understand you have added many comments to talk, so have I. None of your reverts were based on any guideline, and you have not addressed the policies to which your sentence has a very clear issue with. So you feel you are right, that there is nothing else to it; if that is the case, and if I am "misinterpreting policies", then there should not be anything to fear in a mediator. Please give it a try. --Shamir1 06:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're a waste of my time. I'm not going to burden a mediator by letting you waste his too. --  tariq abjotu  06:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No mediator would be a mediator if it were a waste of time. "Even if good faith is in doubt, assume good faith where you can, be careful to remain civil yourself, and if necessary follow dispute resolution processes rather than edit warring or attacking other editors." --Shamir1 06:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What was the point of quoting that? I'm saying that we have spent over a month now talking about editing the introduction in various ways. I have never seen someone so stubborn; why don't you just drop it already? You keep throwing policies around – once it's WP:REF, then it's WP:V, then it's WP:NOR and WP:SYN. For God's sake, you have no idea what you're talking about. You just jump on any link with big capital letters (such as WP:SYN, which you only began to use after someone noted you were taking it too far) and ignore any rebuttal to your statements. I'm not afraid of a mediator (you seem to have a penchant for putting words in my mouth); I'm just sick of you. --  tariq abjotu  06:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Tariqabjotu, why don't you take a breather. Shamir, you should really appreciate that you have brought someone as patient as Tariqabjotu to their wits end. I have never seen him act this way, to anyone. And I have to affirm his impressions (based on my experience with you on another article, where you invoked various policies for some rather crude editorializing). You really need to review Tendentious editing. If you keep exhausting the goodwill of so many editors, if you keep burning all these bridges, that's pretty much a one way path, and one which only spirals downwards. El_C 06:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And for the record, I had put a lot of work into the Winograd Commission entry (which I authored months before it was displayed on the main page), but once Shamir1 appeared on the scene, there was simply no way to convince him. After five edits, I left the entry, never to come back. El_C 06:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the leads for other countries--full of international rankings and comparisons to the world and the geographic region. My changes to Winograd Commission (a sentence in text) had nothing to do with your other contributions to the content of the article. That claim is baloney. --Shamir1 06:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is still <95 percent my words, yes. But your addition to the lead was so simplistically partisan. It just was well below par. And the tendentiousness to which you defended it, as well as the 'compromise' you offered — well, I could not have anything to do with that. El_C 07:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I am supporting that the text of the source be re I am supporting that the text of the source be represented as written and that is tendentious? I have been suggesting compromises based on all the relevant policies, and have opted for mediation as part of dispute resolution. That is fair. --Shamir1 06:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is tendentious. Look at the lead for other countries. You are pushing for an unconventional one. El_C 06:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I said look at the leads for other countries. El_C 07:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You would not have a problem cite for me a comparable example, then. El_C 07:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was referring to the leads for these countries. El_C, all I'm trying to do is get the point of the source to be represented. I understand that some editors dont agree with the source's opinion, but it exists. The group of countries is not a matter of dispute, they list them. That's it. If we were all to just represent the source, it would be easier. --Shamir1 07:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You would not have a problem to cite a comparable example for me, then. El_C 07:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't tell what that means. --Shamir1 07:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It means: show me similar leads in other country articles. El_C 07:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did this a long time ago before. Canada, Iceland, South Korea, Finland, Norway, Sweden,... just to name some off the top of my head. Others devote sections to international rankings. --Shamir1 07:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And a long time ago, the response was that these do not include ranks from the neoliberal Freedom House. El_C 07:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, this goes outside my point: that you tend to wear out other editors (with me, I simply withdrew; but Tariqabjotu hasn't, and you see the results). You should be more self-critical and introspective about that, I believe. There is a repeating problem here that needs to be resolved. El_C 07:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Enough irrelevance (and your Freedom House point is completely untrue). Yes, I see the results when users assume bad faith and prefer edit war over mediation. That needs to be resolved. Bottom line, if Tariq wants to continue there should be nothing to fear in mediation. That is compromising. That is cooperation. I dont mind my comments being critiqued, I am the one pushing for a mediator. --Shamir1 07:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What you call irrelevant I feel is most important. If mediation will simply repeat circularity elsewhere, I'm not sure how helpful it can be. El_C 07:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A little dispute on Winograd Commission (and major exaggeration) is irrelevant to this. Keep it to that article. Its fine if u feel it important. I'm not sure how helpful mediation can be, neither is Tariq, neither are you. The only way to be sure is to just try. I believe it could be helpful for a mediator to pinpoint the guidelines and policies we have been mentioning. --Shamir1 07:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont want to keep on bumbing heads. Neither Tariq nor I need to withdraw. Do you have another idea in which both Tariqabjotu and I can put our two cents or would you suggest mediation? --Shamir1 07:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Israel
Shamir, I want to apologize for not being around during the discussion. As I posted on Talk:Israel, I've been pretty busy lately and have not been on. After seeing all the debate my attempt at mediation caused, I have to say I'm withdrawing it. Since I tried and failed at mediation, I'm inclined to endorse tariqabjotu's take of things. I do believe you are a honest editor who only wants to improve the articles on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line, everyone involved became impassionated about the wording of a single sentence. You, in particular, have allowed yourself get way too personally involved in a way you probably never meant and lost your cool. As a neutral observer to most of this, I want to ask you to please drop the fight. Israel as a whole is an excellent article, even if you do disagree with one sentence. Continuing this only brings down the article as a whole. It also keeps a bunch of good editors tied up in discussions instead of editting, you included. Its also dragged you into a request for comments that I'm sure you never wanted. With as passionate as you've been, I'm sure your editting would be incredibly productive in other articles. Is it worth using all your efforts on a single sentence in Israel? However things go, good luck in the future. --Jdcaust 03:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TheMissingPeace.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:TheMissingPeace.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dispute Advice
Hi Shamir, sorry for the delayed reply, I have been on a wiki break for some time. One thing I would try - and you may have already done this - is ask an admin for advice, and mention to them any wiki rules that are being broken. If you would like me to put my two cents in as an editor, let me know what/where the disput is and I'll take a look. Cheers.--Jackbirdsong 03:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagreements
Shamir, I understand your frustration with me, even if I disgree with you. First off, I apologize its taken me this long to get back to you. I have been somewhat busy, with only enough time to make a few edits here and there. Regarding the business at hand, I don't know that I've ever agreed with you regarding WP:SYN. I offered my compromise because it frustrated me that you and Tariqabjotu kept going back and forth with little progress. My perspective was that I could understand where both sides were coming from and that I believed you truly did want to help out, regardless of what the other editors purported. After reading the exhaustive arguments after I put forth my compromise, I realized two things. First, I had only made things worse and should have stayed out of the argument all together. I didn't realize how deep most of this went. Second, I never realized that the wording that was there had been established by a large consensus of editors. Parts of my wording had apparently been offered before and shot down. With these two things combined, I felt that I should retract my compromise, recognize that I made things worse, and apologize to all parties involved. When I mentioned stubbornness, I was referring to both sides, not just you. In this way, I feel that my comments were appropriate for the situation at hand. I do want to respond to claims that I'm blaming you or making things look worse. I'm not sure either is true. If you read where I signed on Requests for comment/Shamir1, I am committing to two things: Although some may see my signature as signing on to more than that, that is all I intended to mean. I feel that it should be all anyone should think I mean. I'm really not blaming you for anything. If anything, I don't think anyone is truly at fault. However, I do agree with you that you have been unfairly blamed on Talk:Israel. I wish I had noticed this when this was occurring as I should have commented. If this happens again, please let me know, because I do not think that this was fair.
 * That I certfied the basis for the dispute. I do feel that the dispute, as described, occurred in that way.
 * That I tried and failed to resolve the dispute. My attempt at compromise was exactly that.

Finally, I don't think I should remove my comments from the talk page. I wrote what I wrote before I read anything at the bottom of the dispute page. Further, I don't think it really reflects poorly on you as its mostly me taking responsibility for stirring the pot and asking you to end the disagreement, which you did. If there's something in particular that I said that you object to, please let me know and perhaps I can strike that and mention that I hadn't read the dispute resolution yet.

The one thing I do object to, Shamir, is your continued editting of your comments on my talk page without signing them. This is misleading as you only signed those comments on October 17th, but your edits on the page continued until October 19th. If you wanted to continue to add points and comments, you should have tabbed them out and signed them like you did the first time.

In any case, I'm sorry that its come to this. I'm glad to see you are staying around the Israel page regardless of the hostility that occurred. I know that you are a fair-minded editor that is easily impassioned. There's nothing wrong with that and I hope that all of this hasn't deterred you from continuing to be bold. Good luck in the future. --Jdcaust 16:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

History of Israel
Hi Shamir1, I have been editing the History of Israel page and need (sane) assistance. I would be grateful if you came over and had a look at it.

Thanks Telaviv1 19:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the need for more pictures, the war of independence section is causing me trouble, there's a need for more reliable information about the war + I have some guy who keeps inserting weird quotes and I need some help controlling him. Telaviv1 13:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)