Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:16, 17 September 2009

"I am a Palestinian. Hath not a Palestinian eyes? Hath not a Palestinian hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Jew is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that -- the villainy you teach me, I will execute; and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction." Tariq Ali's take on Shakespeare in the Khaleej Times "It is not enough for the settler to delimit physically, that is to say with the help of the army and the police force, the place of the native. As if to show the totalitarian character of colonial exploitation the settler paints the native as a sort of quintessence of evil ... The native knows all this ... he knows that he is not an animal, and it is precisely at the moment he realizes his humanity that he begins to sharpen the weapons with which he will secure his victory. From Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth

Archive #1 by Werdnabot /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9 /Archive 10 /Archive 11

You deserve this...

		The Geography Barnstar
		is hereby awarded to Tiamut for exemplary development work on the Outline of Palestine. The Transhumanist    23:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You've done an incredible job on this.

I can hardly wait to see how you finish it up.

If you need ideas, here are some examples: Outline of Vatican City, Outline of Japan, Outline of Iceland, Outline of Taiwan, Outline of Thailand, and Outline of Gibraltar.

(Pictures can relate a great deal about a place and its people).

Keep up the great work.

The Transhumanist    23:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: please consider joining the WP:WPOOK.

I second Transhumanist, your work is amazing and invaluable! -- penubag  (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome :) -- penubag  (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thirded (if thats even a real word), I was considering giving you a barnstar myself! Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 19:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

replied

on my talk. nableezy - 18:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

On Canada Park

Hi, I now understand there is a fourth region in Palestine called "no-mans land". First reading about the sources learns I don't understand enough. The stand-off did not change the UN-borders, did it? Well, I take a dip into the naming-thing too. More eyes to be opened. -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Putting Palestinian people up for AFD

I've decided to request your advice for this. Clearly no measure of public debate can expose the truth, however by increasing awareness of the article, a solution can be reached. Should we put this up for AFD? --Warm as ice (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

For your information: WP:AN/I#User:Warm as ice request admin action. Cheers. Zero 11:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

List of birds of Palestine

Hi, your bird list is a bit out of kilter with similar country lists. It's usual to list in taxonomic order, see for example, List of birds of Thailand, which you could use to sort out the order, or perhaps amend List of birds of Israel which although more basic is more relevant in terms of species. You can put the status next to each species, and perhaps put in a paragraph of text about migration without listing all the migratory species. Although soaring birds are particularly relevant, because they will not fly over the Med, many other species pass through as well Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

if you use the Israel article as a template, which I recommend since it has family summaries too, note that the headings and TOC are over-capitalised, eg Shearwaters and Petrels should be Shearwaters and petrels. You can illustrate your article, and the Thailand page will help you with layout. If you get stuck, let me know Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your birds of Palestine reference seems suspect Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got the Firefox WOT extension, which evaluates this as a suspect site. Having said that, it appears to have been assessed by only one person, and I can't really see what the problem is. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right, the site looks innocuous, and most of the bird lists start from Avibase. You could save a lot of time on the list by just copying across the Israel list (I wonder if it includes the occupied territories?) cutting out any species not recorded in Palestine, and adding any recorded in Palestine but not Israel. Let me know if you get stuck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the Israel list to remove the excessive capitalisation. I've also replaced US names and spelling with BE where I've spotted them (Avibase uses American names and spelling throughout) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Architecture

Wow, a lot of work! It's a nice article. I think there are a couple of places, particularly in the vernacular architecture section where it comes close to POV, but I'm conscious that it's in your user space so I haven't commented or amended Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: Impressed

You're welcome :). Hopefully we can steer him towards an area where he can be more productive - if not, at least we tried. I've been to Jerusalem before and greatly enjoyed it - the Dome of the Rock is possibly the most beautiful man-made object in the world. Unfortunately Ironholds aged 9 didn't know what happens if you take every picture with the flash on, and none of them came out :(. Ironholds (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Will do :). I was lucky enough to see it right up close about six months before they closed the whole area off (I don't know if they've reopened it to us genocidal warmongers yet. Out of interest, while it might not be your area in anything more than a geographical sense, do you know anything about the Church of the Holy Sepulchre? I've got a history of the thing waiting for me at uni and I was looking to get it up to GA or similar. Ironholds (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Shit, that sucks :(. It's an odd day when a lapsed Jew finds it easier to get to the Dome than a Palestinian married to a Muslim. I wont't be able to start the rewrite until September (as I said, the book is at uni) but I'll give you a poke once I start doing so :). The architecture article looks brilliant, and I'll take a looksee in the university library when I get back to see if there are any architecture/design books that might help. Ironholds (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Religious and racial tolerance = good. I find it helps to remember that at the end of the day all races, religions, ethnic groups and the like are made up of individuals like you and me, and that to damn those individuals entirely based on a particular association makes you no better than them. On a side note, while you've probably heard of him, if you haven't you might want to check out Aviv Geffen, a big leftist Israeli jew notable for publicly speaking out against the situation in the holy land, his refusal to serve in the IDF and so on along a similar vein. His song "cloudy now" is an excellent example of his leanings (although if you don't speak hebrew you might find it better to listen to the English version he recorded with Blackfield). Ironholds (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeedy, it's been a pleasure to chat. I'm actually at work, so I should probably get off the intertubes anyway :). Ironholds (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Montefiore Windmill

Thanks for restoring that text. There is another issue which has arisen, see the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You've got nothing to be sorry for. I've given more than adequate explanation of the refs for the name. Will investigate the Arbcom matter as referenced material was removed from the article. Meanwhile, have one of these:-

Mjroots has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Mjroots (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Article Hummus Dispute

Left you a message on talk page Talk:Hummus#Dispute_Levant_as_Arab Igor Berger (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said there, there is no dispute in the sources. So I won't be participating in that discussion any further. Feel free to retag the article if you like. I don't have time for this kind of misuse of NPOV tags, given the misuse of these tags at another article I am working on: Land Day. Tiamut 17:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for re-tagging the article. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Igor Berger (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookie

I left a message with Igor's post-block mentor. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Stalking

If you really think I'm stalking you, I encourage you to report me. Otherwise please don't make accusations you can't back up
I responded to your other queries on my talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course I can back up the accusation, otherwise it would not be made. See User:Tiamut/No More for an outline of how I came to this conclusion. I think it would be best for you to admit that you have been following me around, and commit to not doing it anymore. There is really no other explanation for your edits between July 20 and July 30th. Every single one is one an article that I was either developing heavily previously or had just made an edit to. Its disingenous for you to pretend there is an alternate explanation.

I won't be reporting right now. I've given you what I consider a final warning. Do not follow me anymore. Okay? Tiamut 21:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The proof is in your head. The fact I made edits to 4 articles you happen to have edited is hardly proof. There is a very good alternative explanation which I'll happily present when you file your report.
Again, I encourage you to report me if you're sure I'm stalking you. I won't be threatened out of editing IP articles. Make your complaint. Lets see if it holds water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk • contribs) 22:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that every single one of your edits over the last ten days have been to articles I edited either directly before you did or that I had been working on extensively previously is no coincidence No More Mr Nice Guy. I've given you two warnings now, and if you edit directly after me at an article you have not edited previously again, I will file the report. This is not a threat. It's a fair warning. Take it or leave it. There are thousands of I-P articles, thousands of which I have not touched. I'm sure it will be easy to find some. The ball is in your court. Tiamut 23:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the ball is in your court. You're the one making the accusation. I shall continue to edit whatever I please. You decide if you want to file a report or not. I'm sure it will have no more merit in the future than it has now, which is probably why you're not filing it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I won't be bullied into filing a report No More Mr Nice Guy. They are time-consuming and a waste of energy (just like this discussion). I've said what I want to say and you do what you want to do, andd we'll see what happens in the future. Happy editing. Tiamut 23:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/WikiProject outreach

Note

Thanks for your note. I've responded on my talk page. -User:Jaakobou

-- Jaakobou 10:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've responded on my talk page. -User:Jaakobou

-- Jaakobou 11:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've responded on my talk page. -User:Jaakobou

-- Jaakobou 11:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Outline Update - Basking in the light of knowledge - 07/28/2009

Phase two of outline integration (de-orphanizing outlines by adding links leading to them into article see also sections) is nearly complete. The better that outlines are integrated into the encyclopedia, the more use they will be to readers.

Due to greater exposure through outline integration, and with most of the OOK team on school summer vacation, development activity on outlines has increased a lot...

New members

Be sure to welcome our newest members to the team:

• Tiamut
• Mandsford

News: Outline of Palestine survives AfD

The outline was nominated for deletion for being too general in scope. The consensus was overwhelmingly for keeping it.

The most memorable comment was posted by Mandsford: I like the poetic name, anyway. . "Master Plan of Pakistan" and "Rough Sketch of Bangladesh" would be good too.

Special thanks to Tiamut for greatly improving the outline, and helping to save it from AfD.

To keep track of outline AfDs and other outline-related discussions, see WP:OOKDISC.

Who's active on Misplaced Pages this summer?

Courtesy of Rich Farmbrough, here's a list of editors by their edit counts over the previous month (8th June to 8th July).

It would be nice to get the most prolific Wikipedians involved with WP:WPOOK. If you can, find a good reason to contact one or more of them, and invite them to work on a relevant outline - or all 500!

Who's been up to what?

• Buaidh, Highfields, and Gimme danger have been working on the government sections of the country outlines. Being that there are about 240 of these, with critical information being filled in on each, this is by far the hardest and most important chore of this WikiProject right now.
• Penubag is working on a redesign of the top OOK page.
• Tiamut has done an incredible job developing the Outline of Palestine.
• And kudos also go to Eu.stefan for his work on Outline of Buddhism.

Thank you.

Here's what else has been going on...

New outlines

Recently created outlines include:

• Outline of England - TT
• Outline of Scotland - TT
• Outline of Buddhism - Eu.stefan
• Outline of ancient Greece - TT

Recently converted to outlines

These outline articles, which were named "List of...", have been converted to an OOK format and added to the OOK:

• Outline of the Vietnam War - was "List of Vietnam War-related topics" - TT
• Outline of combinatorics - was "List of combinatorics topics" - converted by Minnecologies
• Outline of category theory - was "List of category theory topics" converted by Minnecologies
• Outline of scientific method - was "List of scientific method topics" - TT
• Outline of ancient Rome - was "List of topics related to ancient Rome" - TT

Recently merged into outlines

There are a lot of "List of" articles that are outlines. Some of them are on the same subjects as the "Outline of" articles. The following articles have been recently merged into OOK pages:

• List of finance topics into Outline of finance - TT
• List of England-related topics into Outline of England - TT

Outlines that have been tagged

Tags are requests to fix a problem or improve an article in a particular way. Unless we want the tags to sit there for an extended period of time cluttering up the outlines (we don't), it is up to us to fulfill those requests or attend to underlying misassumptions (if any).

• Outline of literature - tagged as Original research
• Outline of ancient Greece - tagged as under construction
• Outline of mathematics - tagged as in need of attention from an expert
• Outline of arithmetic - tagged as not citing any references or sources.
• Outline of immunology - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of organic chemistry - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of psychology - tagged as in need of attention from an expert on the subject
• Outline of family and consumer science - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of energy storage - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of nuclear technology - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of ergonomics - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of construction - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of machines - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of free software - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of design - tagged as containing original research or unverified claims, and needing references or sources
• Outline of automobiles - tagged as an orphan

I can't stress enough the importance of watching

With so many outlines (now over 500), and a growing number of support pages (guidelines, wikiproject pages, etc.), I can no longer keep up. I need your help watching over it all.

If you'd like to omnisciently view everything "from above", see this page:

• WP:OOKWL - watchlist for copying and pasting into your raw watchlist.

Or go to these pages (and click on "Related changes" in the sidebar's toolbox menu):

• WP:OOKRC - a version of the above watchlist for use with "Related changes".
• WP:OOKDIR - a list of key pages related to the OOK, along with their shortcuts.
• WP:OOKDISC - list of discussions pertaining to outlines.

What's next?

There are a lot of contradictions in guidelines related to outlines. I'll be turning my attention to fixing those.

The number of "Outline of" articles is rapidly catching up to portals, and will probably pass them by the end of the summer!

Keep up the excellent work.

The Transhumanist    00:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Outline of birds

Thanks! I may be coming to you for help soon. It would be nice to have someone who knows what they're doing (more than I do anyway) have a look with "outside the project" eyes to let me know what doesn't make sense! MeegsC | Talk 21:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

OOK collaboration: Outline of knowledge (eom)

Delivered by –Juliancolton |  at 21:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian architecture

I went marauding through JSTOR in search of some sources for you and found a few useful bits. There's Ancient Palestinian Dwellings by H. Keith Beebe, which is more archaeological but might provide a source for the historical development and evolution of Palestinian architecture, Palestinian temples by M. V. Setton Williams and The Beehive Buildings of Ancient Palestine by John Currid. If you can send me a blank email or something I can send you the pdfs :). Ironholds (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever :). I'll have a look through the physical texts at uni when I get back as well. Email has been sent, with pdfs attached :). Ironholds (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Iraq and outlines

Thanks. I appreciate your consideration. As a show of goodwill, you may call on me if there's a particular article you are working on you want copyedited (er, as long as it's not an outline). WesleyDodds (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

ha ha ha!

A good thing about Sceptic is that he is not averse to using self-depreciating irony e.g. Talk:Gaza_War#Allegations...etc where, shortly after I had complained about too much soapboxing on the talk page, he said

"Throughout our discussions I tried on numerous occasions to show nonsense in Amnesty and others, however only Monitor receives all the credit. Do I have to double the soapboxing here?".

Yeah, a bit of levity helps now and again. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding

Whaw, you sure attract a "fan-club"! I´ve looked into the contributions of some of your "fans", and thought I have my suspicions, I have not found enough evidence (yet..) to file a CU-report. However, what *is* very obvious, is that you have been the subject of some, IMO, quite nasty wiki-"hounding" (I believe that is the wiki-political correct term, at present.) Especially by User:No More Mr Nice Guy ...and I must also mention User:Jaakobou. I had thought of filing an report on User:No More Mr Nice Guy at once...but then I saw that s/he had not edited for some days. If s/he returns, and follows you to as much as one single article; I *will* make a formal report. Take care! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 06:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: Oh, and Ash has some information for you over at his talk-page: User_talk:Ashley_kennedy3

Hello

Thanks for your kind note. It's very good to see you back editing with your usual clarity and panache. --Ian Pitchford (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem discussion

Hi, you may want to re-format the content you added here. I think each primary bullet is for a new comment from a new editor, so I'm not sure if that's what you intended or if the bullets after the first bullet should be indented. Let me know if this makes any sense, because I'm not even sure that it does! -shirulashem 16:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - August 2009

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter Issue XI - August 2009 Project news The Christianity project and its related projects currently have 75 FAs, 8 FLs, and 147 GAs, with a net loss of one FA and one GA. Our thanks to those who helped keep some other articles listed, and to those who have worked so diligently in improving all of our articles. Member news Three new members joined this past month, including new members User:116Calvinist, User:Lrnngrbc, and User:Frazz, bringing us up to 295 listed members. Thanks to you all, and a special welcome to our new members! Other news Two new pages for the benefit of members of the project have been created. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/Mutual aid society is designed to be a place where editors seeking specific assistance from other members can with luck find others who have the abilities or materials they need, and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/Special collections is, at this point, the beginnings of a list of publicly accessible special collections libraries which our members might find useful. Anyone who lives near one of the collections listed is encouraged to visit them and see if they can find anything they would like to read or use to improve some of our articles. There are always some discussions regarding project related activities at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum. I think the timing of the call for elections might have been bad (summer vacation, what was I thinking?), and have thus changed the period for individuals to run to be one of the project's coordinators. Individuals who have a particular interest or knowledge of specific fields within Christianity are encouraged to run, to serve as a kind of "unit coordinator" for that topic. Related projects news The WikiProject Films has recently created a new task force for Christian films. All interested parties are welcome to join and contribute. Christianity related news Pennsylvania Amish farmer jailed for outhouse violations Obama expands Bush's faith-based initiatives Relics of 39 saints found by British Museum From the Members Welcome to the Eleventh issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do. One area in particular need of attention right now is the content related to the Oriental Orthodox churches. Several of the topics within this field are of great importance, including the churches themselves, their histories, thinking, and some of the individuals associated with it. Unfortunately, the number of people who belong to the churches, and, correspondingly, the number of editors working on that content, is smaller than it could be. Anyone interested in helping to develop this content is more than welcome to look at the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy page and seeing where they can help out. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC) To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter is automatically delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 19:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem talk page

Hi, My eye has been caught by a couple of Gilabrand's replies to you and the description he's given them , . How easy is it for you to visit Jerusalem as a Palestinian living in Nazareth?--Peter cohen (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Some Info on the 1988 Declaration

User talk:Harlan wilkerson/The Real Meaning of the Declarations

harlan (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Wars of national liberation. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't template the regulars

This was unnecessary. Thanks for your concern, but I was not restoring identical material, and everything I added was properly sourced and cited. Please do not template me again. If you have problem with my editing, drop me a note to join you at the talk page. Thanks. Tiamut 20:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You are clearly edit warring on that page, as is the other editor, whom I have also warned. You are at 3 reverts already, so it would be wise to stop. If you don't wish to be warned in the future, fine, I'll proceed directly to the appropriate noticeboard, citing this. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do whatever you think it appropriate. I reverted once to the text that has been in place for months after Tallicfan20 altered it to delete important information and introduce weasel words and unsourced editorializing. He reverted to his verson, saying the links cited in the original were dead. I added new links and wrote a new text. He reverted to restore the original text with the dead links. I restored the material I wrote because the links were live (I could not understand why he would complain about them and then restore them after they had been corrected (that's one revert to another version). I left a message on his talk page asking him to discuss his issues there and at Ethnic cleansing. (He deleted that message ) He came to the talk page only there; I answered his questions. He asked some more questions; I answered again. He added the author's name to the beginning of the sentence I wrote, and I have not touched the article since. If you think that warrants me being templated and reported, by all means go ahead and do so. Tiamut 20:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Al-Majdal, Tiberias

Deligted that you have started this article, as Ash mentioned; there is a lot of stuff about the village over at User:Huldra/Sources#future article: Al-Majdal, Tiberias, District of Tiberias --I´ll start adding ASAP, (I´ve made a whole cat. over at commons with pictures of the village!) take care, my dear, Huldra (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC) PS, I´ll be delighted if you start any of the other articles there, too. ;-) (less work for me....)

Ok, I have added some stuff...there is still more to add from Khalidi (about the modern times) and Petersen (about the shrine)...but I´m done for tonight. I think you should nominate it for DYK ..I don´t have a clue about how to do it, but I *do* have a "hook": "DYK ..that the Palestinian village of Al-Majdal, Tiberias, the reputed birthplace of Mary Magdalene, was depopulated in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War?" Good luck! Huldra (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Good work Huldra and Tiamut. This village was not apparently populated in 1596 since the maps of Hütteroth do not show a village at that place. Zero 01:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded a bit of the 1870s map from the Survey of Palestine that includes Tiberias and this al-Majdal. Please use it where you like; and feel free to request more such maps. Zero 02:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A "snippet" Google Books graciously allowed me to see of something called "Eretz Israel: jubilee volume of the Jewish National Fund issued in 1932" says "Migdal is a very large farm founded in 1911 by a group of prominent Russian Zionists". Cheers. Zero 15:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

great work, Tiamut, and thanks, Zero0000. As for "hook"; I´ll accept anything you go for! I really do not have much experience here (I still haven´t ever nominated any DYK!) But, what about "DYK ..that the Palestinian village of Al-Majdal, Tiberias, located at the reputed birthplace of Mary Magdalene, was depopulated in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War?" ...if we say that it is located the same place, I don´t think it must implie that there has been continous habitation? Anyway, I leave this to you, my dear! (nice pictures from the place, eh?) BTW, I can see p 28 in the Pringle-book (where there is a lot on Magdala)...I cannot see the page you quote from Pringle....is the "Pringle" you quote the same one as I put in the "Bibliography"-section? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Huldra (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I do appreciate

your good will. cheers, Ori (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

message

Hi, I sent you email. Zero 10:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I sent it on Thursday or Friday, please send me mail via the mail link on my home page. Zero 12:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Your inputs and opinionis sought at article Fatah

Your opinion on the 'Desicions and statements made at 6th Fatah Movement Assembly' section of the Fatah talk page is sought.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey

The Haaretz source for reference 35 is showing an error. I don't know how to fix the code. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Al-Majdal, Tiberias

On August 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Al-Majdal, Tiberias, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

{{User0|Orlady 08:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate your help expanding these stubs. The idea was that I started them in a set format with infobox and then work on filling them. I have now made 700 and counting edits working hard on these. I'm sorry I was harsh with Hulcha and that she and you disgree with the wa I do things but there is a set amount of work that needs to be done and people should be grateful I am helping you out, not attacking me. I would like every article like the DYK above eventually, but it is far better to have stubs that provide information on these places than 3/4 of the article enitrely missing and containing absolutely no account of them. This however is not good enough apparently as every article should be FA class immediately upon creation? As I insisted when I was first yelled at I will be fleshing these out over the next few days yet this was not good enough. It is now quite selfish that she will only return if they are deleted given that I am not taking the easy option and have already tackled a third of those I started. If I can deal with it.. As I have repeated I will flesh these articles out, Hulcha said she wouldn't minded if I had added a bit of information. This is what I am doing as part of stage 2. Why is their still a problem if in a day or all of the articles have information and a referenced and we have a full set? . Dr. Blofeld 13:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Read the WP:Palestine talk page, I did this a while back... There shouldn't a problem given that the bottom of the template links to the others by district. I just want Huldra to stop being silly and make things easier for her so she doesn't have to look at the template. I find it massively too big too. I've created templates by district which would seme to make things much less stressful but am open to sensible suggestions... Dr. Blofeld 17:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW settlement is short hand for towns cities and villages anywhere in the world. Unless you want the headers to go on two lines and make the top really chunky.... Dr. Blofeld 17:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to that, I've ordered e.g Category:Cities, towns and villages in Turkey and mos tother countries in a similar fashion. The reason was purely for condensing reasons, the header is very long....

P.S. see Template:District of Safad. I've included links at the bottom of each template so editors who wish to navigate to another district can click the link to the list page which is practically shaped like the old nav template in layout. I'm glad you know I am trying to help your project and am a lot more willing to do a lot more for you than you initally thought. I think you all thought I just intended to dump the stubs on you. Not at all, I want to see all of the articles like your excellent recent DYK which inspired me to create them. Believe it or not I want to see articles like that too, but they had to be started, otherwise we would be denying people even basic information. Regards Dr. Blofeld 17:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Localities would be even better, it's shorter!! Thanks. Dr. Blofeld 17:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S the pea soup green is an interesting color, I like it for this set of articles. However I had to change the text to white to show better on the dark green, hope this is OK? Dr. Blofeld 18:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Wow you've written lots of really beautiful articles, I've read a number of them such as Palestinian costumes but didn't realise you were the author. Editors like you, Huldra and Ameerson have done Palestine proud on wiki!! I'm sorry that my stubs are substandard compared to your dedicated work, I can see you both want to attain the highest standard. I know stubs aren't too pretty but if they are fleshed out a little can be a useful start, after all, most of our articles started as stubs... I think it was just a conflict in quality and it suddnely alarmed Huldra that she would suddenly have over a hundred new articles to try to frantically improve and her head exploded. Believe me though my intention is not to "ban her from editing to wikipedia worse than arb.com" or something as she described me but it is to try to help your project in the long term and work towards a more fuller coverage. All I want to say is I am complete on your side with this project and I don't think your friend needs to think of me as banning her from wikipedia...I hope you can talk her around by email.. Dr. Blofeld 18:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I can understand a little how is disrupted her stride so to speak. The thing is, it really isn't a good idea either to base your organization around a massive red linked template and put it on the front page in front of millions and expect nobody to notice... If she wanted to build it on her own, it would have been best to either hide those missing links or delink them so as not to encourage mass content builders like me a chance to start them if it is not welcome... Dr. Blofeld 18:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. Anyway I'll do my best to add to ALL of the articles I created. I added at least some content to about half of those I started now. Huldra did say "she wouldn't have minded if they had a bit of content". Well they all will in a day or two.... Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you check out Al-Qris Horkins. Can't seem to find it. Dr. Blofeld 19:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't care where she said it. I won't tolerate being spoken to like that. OK she is a saint. I'm sorry we've lost a saint, but her recent actions are not what you'd have expected then... Try to see it from my point of view that I put hours of effort into trying to improve this site and get spoken about like a piece of dirt behind my back. Dr. Blofeld 20:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks, I've emailed you BTW. Sorry to bring up the subject... but I am human and have feelings. Dr. Blofeld 20:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

EC

• FYI : . Good luck. 81.244.41.108 (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Huldra

Tiamut, please try and convince her to stay. Her departure would be a great loss of potential. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think some IP must have just put it there. I do have the Khalidi book, but I'm currently not home (will be in a couple of hours). I'll check when I come back. Thanks for pointing that out. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut, Ameer, I went WP:BOLD and requested speedy deletion of this fictitious village. This has existed in the template ever since it was created (making it harder to track when it was added). I compared it against a list on another site (http://www.jerusalemites.org/crimes/destroyed_villages/34.htm), as well as PalestineRemembered, and there was a village missing (Zikrin or Thikrin). There's also a village that was apparently erroneously added to the list in the first link called Nabi Rubin. It would be a good idea to verify that no more fictitious villages exist :) --Fjmustak (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Tiny Canaan bit

Marhaba Tiamut, I was working on an article about Rafiq al-Tamimi and I came across this bit in a book by Issa Khalaf . On Page 140, it lists members of the Constructive Scheme's Administrative Council (founded in 1945). Canaan is listed one of the members. He is politically independent and a representative of Jerusalem. This might be a useful bit to add in the article, but I wouldn't know how and where to incorporate it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The council was founded by Musa al-Alami with the purpose of purchasing and developing the land of Palestinian villages. It was supposed to be funded by the Arab League, but I don't think the Arab states lived up to their word, as far as I can tell. I'm still somewhat unsure about its purpose exactly though. I say don't add the bit until we clarify what the Constructive Scheme was exactly. As for the villages, Palestine Remembered has an accurate listing, but the problem is they also include the existing villages in all of historic Palestine as well. But it's funny you mention it, because Zero0000 told me he had a list of all the villages. You should ask him if it's an online list that we could all see. Cheers Tiamut! --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyway I'll let it rest now and hope she will return sometime. I do hope that you and Al Ameer son will still speak to me. I had my reasons as did everybody to be upset. I don;t think Ameer son wants to talk to me again which is a shame because I like him and edits a lot. Dr. Blofeld 10:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Lol, Dr. B. I'm not angry at you and I will speak to and work with you. No worries, I don't get emotional on Wiki. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, but you can see here the reason why I more upset about the attacks not from Huldra but from the others. It seems more people discredit me than actually realise what I do. When I am not paid to edit it I expect people in the community to be appreciative not attack me like Somey and the others did. To be honest it was more what they said, anyway. Dr. Blofeld 11:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, anyway are there any articles you are working on which you are trying to bring to GA/FA status? Dr. Blofeld 11:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like some good articles could be written from those sources. Cool. I did have alook in google books as often they have books online, if I had a book I'd try to "provide the internet with new material" so to speak which is so important. Unfortunately my local library is very low key and poorly resourced. Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What's more awesome is that you are in Nazareth!! Wow, I've read about Nazareth in the bible since I was a baby! To have quality (and nice) editors from such places is excellent on here, we definately more people from places like this to try to reduce bias on here towards US culture!! Dr. Blofeld 11:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes my library is pretty bad really. It has like only a few books on African history like really generic ones like the Boer War for instance and about two books on beloved Tibet, which are pretty basic and cover nothing not already on the web! Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, ah that's soo sweet that you always feel homesick when leaving! Yep, I know what you mean about old shoes. I have a pair of battered black biker boots which I wear quite lot and were fit for the bin 5 years ago but they feel so comfortable and look cool! Unlike my sister who is like a shoe collector! You don't see too many Blue Suede Shoes about though! I wonder what our coverage of Nazareth related is? Do we have articles on notable buildings, places of worship etc? Dr. Blofeld 11:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

We'll have to change that! Photographs of places and buildings are always extremely welcome! I have taken a few photographs of local places in the past like this! Bit dark but I love that church. So medeival, that is one of my favourite spots actually, it is very peaceful. I live in Barry, Vale of Glamorgan for the record! Hehe I've even permitted animals the right to use File:PorthkerryParkviaduct.jpg if they must... Dr. Blofeld 12:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Me too! Hey you'd love Category:Castles in Wales. Many of them! My dad did us a painting of Castell Coch situated on a hill top! very picturesque! Dr. Blofeld 12:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello how are you! Hey you didn't tell me what you thought of the welsh castles! Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad you are well. If you'd expanded on of those village articles you started expanding we could have nominated one for a DYK!One of them was almost there! Dr. Blofeld 13:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Barfiliya I was thinking of. Just needs 2,000 more bytes. Dr. Blofeld 13:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've also begun expanding Bashshit and yes I actually managed to find scraps of info in a book here to contribute. So why I may not have the books unfortunately in the flesh I can find some info in google books if I'm lucky. Dr. Blofeld 14:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, but it would be nice to get one or two! Maybe you can find something on Bashshit then? That book and Morris's looks like they contains a great of info on the subject. I think the coordinates of Bashshit were 31°49'29"N 34°44'54. Could you check? Dr. Blofeld 14:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have one book at my fingetips anyway, Morris Dr. Blofeld 14:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated Bashshit for a DYK. Sorry it isn't an exceptional article but that was the best I could manage. If Huldra was here maybe it would improve further...

OK thanks. But I think it is probably one of the lesser notable villages. I noticed a number of other villages get much more coverage in Morris's book which I've taken some time to browse through.Some seem to still be missing articles actually.. Dr. Blofeld 16:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You might also be interested to know I've contacted the archaelogists in Israel od the village and have requested they permit us to use some photographs of the village and any further info they have. I don't really expect a reply but you never know... Dr. Blofeld 16:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it me awesome to eventually have a set of 531 GA articles on 1948 villages like Lajjun. Haha, maybe by 2050... I've co-nominated you and Ameer so far for DYKs anyway! Dr. Blofeld 20:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, too little time to get accomplished what we want on here. Beleive it or not that is exactly the very reason I once resorted to creating very basic stubs because there is so much we aren't covering and not enough time to solely cover it all writing every article fully! Dr. Blofeld 20:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Don't worry I'm not leaving wikipedia but I am abandoning my old account and starting afresh. As my edits were too numerous they couldn't move my account and I have my reasons as I am starting to refocus on the project and I don't want my quality edits getting hidden by "sub stubs" which I no longer create. Dr. Blofeld 10:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou! I was thinking of Himalayan Monsoon, but I thought that was a bit too much of a mouthful! Himalayan 12:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

My signature is still on trial.. Himalayan 12:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it is more reflective of my interests and Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan and Ladakh are very special to me. The maroon and gold of course is the color of the robes! Himalayan 12:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Bayt Susin was the other one, that could quickly be expanded, today is the last day I think... Himalayan 14:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey we have four between us already, Bayt Susin was the article I was thinking of initially though!! Hey no pressure! Regards. Himalayan 16:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Himalayan Explorer (talk • contribs) 16:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added to all the settlements in Ramla now anyway. At least they all contain info now. I'll make a start on Safad probably tomorrow, that is the biggie. By then I should have covered at least 3/4 of the articles I started. Himalayan Explorer 20:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd go for something a little less with my signature...Himalayan Explorer 09:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Translation of a short story

Hi! I see, you're a Palestine, I love them. So you speak Arabic. I would like to request something from you. I'm a Hungarian wiki editor, my name is Norbert. It's a little bit out of wikipedia, it's a translation request. Soem years ago I wrote a (really) short story of a lonely man, who symbolizes the Saami nation, but actually, all the minority nations. We started to translate it into several languages. I love the arabioc, but we don't have this translation yet. Could you make me that. You could see the English or other versions here, and you can put the arabic version also here. Thank you! hu:User:Eino81 —Preceding undated comment added 11:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC).

Thank you for the information, but as I see, you already wrote to the other Arabic-speaking editor, thank you for that. I hope, there will be soon an Arabic version. --Eino81 (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Can you take a look at it and tell me what you think? Cheers. --Fjmustak (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) By the way, I wrote a note in the WPPalestine talk page about Al-Manshiyya. I loved your disambig page, but I found it missing the Jaffa neighborhood. This was fresh on my mind, because I had just watched a documentary called "Palestine Street" about Jaffa, and it talks a bit about Al-Manshiyya. I would love to see an article about it, but unfortunately do not have access to sources. Could you, if you have the necessary resources (and time of course) help me out with it? Thanks. --Fjmustak (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Started Thanks for the refs. --Fjmustak (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Barfiliya

On August 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Barfiliya, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 11:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Mohsen

I appreciate your feedback and edits on Mohsen Subhi's page. As you may have noticed, i mistakenly left the S in Subhi (in the page name) in small letters. can you fix that? thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by July271997 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!!! i noticed you have done a lot of work on/for Palestine and i cannot find an appropriate way to thank you. ramadan kareem to you too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by July271997 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem ;) And I know it's a couple days late, but Ramadan karim akhti! --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tiamut (and please dont ask my forgiveness again, makes me embarrassed for some reason). nableezy - 04:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Tawfiq Canaan

You might want to re-visit Karanac's talk page. ceranthor 09:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now check it out. ceranthor 10:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Tiamut

I'll get over to Mr. Rayan's bio as soon as I can. Pretty darn busy this week, though.Haberstr (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Bashshit

On August 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bashshit, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 23:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I know this is a difficult thing, but if a body accused both Israel as well as Palestinians of war crimes, you think it would be ok to list "accused both sides" or would it be mandatory to write only "accused Israel"?
Warm regards, Jaakobou 01:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Did HRW accuse the Palestinians of war crimes as well? I wasn't aware of that. Can you show me where? Tiamut 11:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on civilians have not gone unnoticed.

Mukawama if fun for a while but the consequences are dire.

p.s. discuss your desired changes please (see also WP:BRD).

-- Jaakobou 12:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That report is not referring to the Battle of Jenin which is the subject under discussion here.

I have discussed my changess, please respond, rather than reverting. Tiamut 12:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Attacks from 2002, and March are mentioned specifically. Thank you. Jaakobou 13:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, you do not seem to understand. The HRW report discussed in the Battle of Jenin article intro is not this one. Its the one on the Battle of Jenin itself. Why would we mention the contents of another HRW report in that intro when we are discussing another report? Makes no sense. Tiamut 15:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Selective-POV aside, the Palestinian attacks in March are the most definitely connected to the Battle in Jenin as are later notes that both sides (not just Israeli) were considered in violation of international war rules - albeit Israel were charged with instances of this while the Palestinians were charged with doing this as their main tactic.

p.s. I believe I understand the idea behind this project (i.e. that it's not meant as a manifesto for one side's perspectives) quite well. Please try to consider this idea as well.

Cordially, Jaakobou 18:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion on the article talk page. And please do not slyly accuse me of POV pushing. It shows you do not understand the idea behind WP:AGF and it makes trying to collaborate with you painful. Tiamut 18:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The pain starts with the edit where you wrote "Israel was accused of war crimes" when both sides were. I make a clear note here that you have a problem with keeping neutral and within a reasonable perspective. Please don't try to spin this the other way around. Just a while back you insisted that the article of Israel must have some type of "some people claim it's not really a democracy" on the 3rd paragraph. Just a little while before that, an admin who happens to be Arab-Muslim agreed with me that your application of the word "Nakba" (a.k.a. Palestinian word for "catastrophe") was too colorful for the place that it was used. So PLEASE make an effort to adhere to NPOV and take note when people who might not be anti-Israeli raise concerns.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 18:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There is so much wrong with what you just said that I cannot even hear you. Stop talking to me on my talk page and respect my request to limit this discussion to the article talk page and subject matter. Tiamut 19:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You have much more patience than me Tiamut, I would have removed this nonsense long ago. nableezy - 18:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm so used to it now Nableezy. Jaakobou forms a special one-man fan club for me that believes in giving me lectures for my betterment. Its quite amusing actually; painful at times, but mostly laughable. Tiamut 19:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Za'atar

Wow! Spectacular! Thank you very much indeed. -- Earle 13:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

dont care?

really? That hurts. All kidding aside, you are right of course the discussion doesnt belong there. nableezy - 16:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ashley

Had no idea he was blocked. I've asked User talk:Amalthea if it is possible the ban can be lifted.

P.S. ever heard of Makam el nabi Sain Mosque. The commons has loads of pictures on it and it looks a notable building but I can't find any info. Do you know of it it?

See

Himalayan 08:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I found it here. Himalayan 08:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I just chekced out the Nazareth website. It looks beautiful!! Himalayan 09:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed we are missing coverage for the District of Ramallah here. Shall I create a new template and red link them? Himalayan 09:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, seemingly they weren't depopulated but are former settlements. Best thing would be to create the district article and list the villages that were in it...I might start it later if I have time..Those villages aren't priority right now anyway... Himalayan 12:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Za'atar "often" made with salt?

Hi Tiamut, do you have a source for za'atar "often" being made with salt? I've only ever eaten Lebanese za'atar, which to the best of my knowledge has no salt. I looked through the sources, and while some recipes seem to call for mixing in salt, I'm not sure that this practice is done "often". Thanks! ← George 10:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What I'm unsure of is if these sources are saying to add the salt and olive oil to the za'atar (when making manakeesh, for instance), versus actually mixing it into the za'atar itself while the za'atar is sitting dry, in a bag. Or maybe it's a difference of Lebanese versus Palestinian za'atar (the sumac the Lebanese use could certainly replace salt sometimes). The image at the top looks nothing like the za'atar we eat, even without sumac (and looks like it has a lot of salt in it - actually those don't even look like sesame seeds). Ours looks more like what's in the picture of the bag from Syria, or the manakeesh at the bottom of the article. I'll leave the article alone on the issue and ask around... I'm mostly just curious, as the thought of salt in za'atar sounded odd to me. Anyways, take care. ← George 10:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw your Za'atar article BTW and thought it was great! Himalayan 12:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou! I did start some Yemeni dishes a while back but I wish they were of the same standard! There unfortunately seems to be very few people on here who know anything about Yemen or Oman! Me, I just want quality information about any place or notable topic in the world! Himalayan 13:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Flag of the British mandate of Palestine

There's no evidence that I've seen that Arabs were enthusiastic about this flag during the 1927-1948 period, and I strongly suspect the contrary. Many Arabs in Palestine would have never seen it at all, since it was mainly a maritime flag... AnonMoos (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It was not a "flag mandated to them" -- the British saw it as an administrative convenience for ships registered to inhabitants of the territory who were not British nationals, and so could not validly fly the basic Red Ensign. The British specifically refrained from imposing a Palestine flag on the territory... AnonMoos (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Help I don't know what to do!!

Hi. I spent a lot of time splitting the big village template because Huldra said "I can no longer function using that template". So I thought I was doing the decent thing by splitting by district into a more manageable way which brought no objections. However it now turns out that she hates the split and that she wants the big template restored! Now I am happy to restore the big template (providing it stays closed by default being so big) but I need some assurance that in doing so it won't be the wrong thing to do again. I genuinely want to help, if she is able to use John's coding to hide the stubs into her previous version I am happy to restore this template. What I don't want is to restore the full template and still have my efforts again belittled as being useless. I don't know how I can win... As Huldra won't speak to me, please can you email her and ask her to kindly return so we can work something out. This happened around August 17 now. 2 weeks ago. I am still here aren't I willing to sort it out?Please can you ask her if she will return if I restore the full template and she uses the coding John Vandenburg gave her so it was as before. Because right now even if I turned half of them into GAs that would still be wrong... Himalayan 19:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I did actually think it was easier to connect them all together in one big template, as it is default closed it isn't that big a problem. I only split them because I thought Huldra would find them easier to follow and it seemed manageable that way. OK I'll make about 350 odd edits now and restore it. Himalayan 20:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully it can be sorted using AWB. I've recommended that the long template name is reduced to shorthand and then readded. I want it and things to be as useful as possible for everybody.. Himalayan 20:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As I know you like birds, have a majestic looking dove to look at! Aren't his wings splendid? Wow check it out in full px.

Yeay anyway my sister is returning today from her six week trip to Egypt, Japan and China, 3 holidays in one, sound crazy?? I have really missed her actually! She said she is a wreck from six weeks on the road travelling!! Himalayan 20:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Culturally all of those places are awesome I think. She liked Japan although said she lost a lot of weight because of their diet over there and that they were obssessed with cleanliness!. She hated Beijing and northern China for some reason but said she loved Yangshuo and southern China which was rather less hectic. Well I'm sure she'll tell me more shortly.... Himalayan 21:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You'll be pleased to know I've added a lot today and have now added some information to all of the stubs I created. If they had all been created like that initially, I don't think it would have seemed to bad, it is just I chose to do it the other way round as I find or found it a more efficient way to start articles. They are now in a good position to be expanded. Every now and then I'll expand a few as I do with other articles I'm working on into DYKs, I really look forward to Huldra's return and hope she can find a way to accept them. Himalayan 18:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually there might be a few stray ones I missed from Jaffa I just noticed, I'll try to add to find those later. Well, the last thing I heard is that Huldra is having keyboard problems, her m and s keys aren't working or something. She said something about a new computer being ordered and it would take up to two weeks, Either way I hope she can return when it is sorted and continue her good work. I kept my word about filling them out anyway and I did replace the big template back again... Himalayan 18:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK that the depopulated Palestinian Arab village of 'Alma was once the biggest centre for growing olives in the District of Safad? Hey if you could add a little bit of text to add to Harrawi we can DYK it too, I can't find anything else about it! Himalayan 11:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no pressure, I began expanding yesterday so we have a week. I think I can work out the coordinates to them anyway although I would rather it if Ashley added them... Himalayan 11:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Note

If you keep reverting my edits and push one sided propaganda, we're going to have a problem. Jaakobou 14:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. And we already do have many problems. Tiamut 14:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Only this time, FOUR editors disagree with your approach and 3 have made clear note of this. Jaakobou 14:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That is your interpretation of the facts, which as usual, runs fast and loose. I resent your last revert of over 4,000 bytes of reliably sourced information, most of it sourced to books, which were lacking as source in the article. Its vindictive an childish and I'm very tired of your harassment. Tiamut 14:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring

I looked at the report about you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and though I declined to block based on that report, it is clear that you may need to seek a less adversarial way of editing on controversial articles. I understand that it takes two to edit-war, but it would be better not to allow yourself to be sucked into blindly reverting. Thanks, Black Kite 00:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't phrase it better than my fellow wikipedian above, that you've adopted a highly adversarial approach; calling fellow editors names on edit-summaries and reverting off the bat without attempting to resolve matters through discussion. Your response to Black Kite's warning, for example, is something which should be avoided.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 12:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right about exactly one thing: I dohave at times had an adversarial approach when it comes to you. I don't like people who consistently mock me and my people. So please take your supposedly "warm regards" Jaakobou, and stuff them elsewhere. Tiamut 12:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking charge over at Battle of Jenin. I was already tired of the slow edit war myself, and Jaak's repeated violations of WP:NPOV and WP:PRESERVE in particular, and only went back for "breadcrumbs" (IP editors don't have watchlists), and was please to see someone else working to present what I would imagine to be a NPOV version of events. For now, I leave that page in your capable hands. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake, I was actually thinking of Operation Defensive Shield. I always get those mixed up.... -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply more appropriate to be posted here

To start with, if I remember correctly, in some border incidents there were casualties. But that not the point, Tiamut. You're visiting this site quite often, you know the article and, hopefully, read the sources. It is time you realize that 'an escalation' is not necessarily measured by the number of dead. Even HRW, not the best friends of Israel, issued statement that support my words. The military expert who testified for the Goldstone committee said something that indirectly support my words too. Rockets and attempts for terror attacks in last 7 month were plenty, much less than before, but still too much to bear. Ah, I didn't check the article and its talk page, but I hope you are informed about the small and insignificant incident that happened recently in Gaza, how exactly it was suppressed and how many innocent bystanders killed there. Maybe you should try to stop Palestinians kill Palestinians first, worry about Israel later. --Sceptic from Ashdod 11:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sceptic. I agree that violence cannot be measured simply in the number of casualties. Thankfully, so do Israelis like Amira Hass. But every death really does bother me, no matter who kills or does the killing. I actually do burst into tears sometimes reading about these things. The feeling of despair at how leaderships and even ordinary people have totally lost a sense of human dignity and morality regularly overwhelms me.

I'm sorry if you see my comments as one-sided or something in need of a response in defense of Israel. That's not what I wanted to do. And I really don't want to have ths conversation, so if you'll excuse me. Peace, love and all that. Tiamut 11:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Tiamut, I do see your comments one-sided because even here you bring in Amira, an Israeli. It would be much easier for me to believe that you are sincere when saying that that is not what you wanted to do if you brought someone from Palestinian side condemning violence. I respect your wish and will not push further. I'm sorry if some of my comments sound hostile. Happiness and health to you and your family. --Sceptic from Ashdod 12:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you did not understand the point of Hass' work. Occupation is a form a violence. As Khaled Kuzmar, legal advisor to the Palestinian branch of Defense for Children International (DCI), said: "The root of the problem is not the minors' criminality, but the occupation under which they live." Tiamut 12:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Decorum

Hey there. I noticed a post that you had made, and I hoped that you would think about striking parts of it to help preserve the civil atmosphere and decorum of Misplaced Pages. Phrases like "So please take your supposedly "warm regards" Jaakobou, and stuff them" and this don't really help, although I do understand that you and Jaakobou have a history. I really want to echo Black Kite's words here; it would be great if you could continue the excellent work you are doing on Misplaced Pages without edit warring as much; try to voluntarily restrict yourself to 1RR and discuss calmly on the talk page (giving yourself at least 10 minutes between each reply) before undoing an edit. Feel free to reply here with anything you wish to say; I'll be watchlisting this page for the time being. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Have I edit-warred again since the warning from Black Kite? I didn't think so, but thank you for the reminder nonetheless. I will refactor that sentence to Jaakobou slightly, and make sure to be more mindful in the future. I don't recall civility being an issue for me, in general, but I'll be sure to pay extra special attention to it in the future, with a particular regard for Jaakobou. It's the least I can do, given his attentive regard to my activities and concerns. Thank you for your comments. Happy editing. Tiamut 22:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare, are you still watching this page? Perhaps you'd like to leave a note for Brewcrewer about edit-warring too? Your note is being quoted by him to me now, as though I am under a 1RR restriction. Would you like to pass on your friendly advice there too? It seems to be needed. Tiamut 15:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note to self. Tiamut 23:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you know what this is about?

There was an angry SHOUTED post by a Palestinian anon at the Ariel page. I'm puzzled by one of the responses and wonder whether there's some subtext in the message that someone more local would understand. So you have an ideas what this hill of death business is about? Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

hope you like it

Left a small token of appreciation at the top right of the page, hover over the flag with your mouse. nableezy - 05:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to hear your thoughts

about if you think the category "Egyptians of Syrian descent" should be in the three articles posted here: WP EGYPT On the basis that Tamer Hosnys mother was Syrian , Soad Hosnys grandfather was Syrian and Anwar Wagdi was of Syrian descent --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey! you only have to ad a comment if you believe the category should be in those articles or not. Thanks in advance.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey again! Thanks for your comment on the wagdy page, I have copied it to the WP EGYPT discussion, hope you don't mind. I would really appreciate you commenting about the two other articles also at the WP:Egypt page since only one have answered so far.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Jenin

Hi, you have been editing the Jenin article very well. I hope you like my contributions. I just noticed you had commented about the amount of space given to the list of Jenin-origin attacks - after I added lots of section breaks here. I hope you won't mind, but if you do, please let me know, I'm sure we can work it out. Best wishes. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC) And to clarify, I mean that I noticed your comments AFTER I had made the changes that expanded the amount of space in the section. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for your note. I too, am optimistic we will all work together nicely (even after my embarrassing misunderstanding with nableezy). I disagree with your view on the loudspeakers in the lede, but it is possible I am wrong. Since I would welcome broader commentary, I will post @ talk and hope you will reply there. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: ANI

Sorry, I wasn't around yesterday, and the link no longer works. Since the thread is gone, I assume the case was closed? -- Nudve (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

Hello. I thought I'd say that you're doing excellent work on the ethnic cleansing page. Very interesting article. What do you think of the part in the 21st century section about Israel settlements' being evicted? Two of the sources are from the BBC, which doesn't refer to it as an "ethnic cleaning". A further two are from Jewish publications, which are not exactly NPOV. I think that this part should either be removed or altered to say that only a minority of journalists have referred to it as "ethnic cleansing". Epa101 (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have succeeded in getting the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestine included in the ethnic cleansing article. Good stuff. Epa101 (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't falsly attack me in edit summaries

I never deleted this content.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I got you and User:Rm125 confused . I'll correct my comment at RSN. Tiamut 14:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. While I'm here and while it looks like you're in a reasonable mood ;), the lede was expanded per an explanation at the talkpage (Talk:Aftonbladet-Israel controversy#Lede expansion), where it sat for a while before you blanket reverted the sourced content, claiming there was no consensus or discussion at the talk page. Neither of which are true. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it because other editors in the discussion (outside of you and Rm125) indicated that he lead was either fine as it was, or should be discussed first before being expanded. I stand by that reversion. As you've already restored it, I'm not going to revert again. That's how I've been dragged into edit-wars, as you can see above, its not good. I suggest you slow down on the reverting to restore your work yourself. Particularly when its an unsourced addition in the lead that many people have different viewpoints about that are not accomodated in your text. Tiamut 15:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that sure there were editors out there who said they were fine with the former status. In any case, that doesn't mean that nothing can be added to the lede without achieving a new consensus. See WP:BOLD. Also, the former lede did not meet the WP:LEAD requirements because it did not summarize any of the main points of the article. As for the comment regarding "unsourced addition", you happen to be wrong again on that. Everything stated in the lede is sourced within the main text of the article. Per WP:MOS, the lede should not have citations. In any case , I'm happy to see that you're promising to abide by the 1rr promise you made. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverting to restore your version of the lead after another editor objects to it, isn't being bold - its edit-warring. And I made no promise to abide by 1RR, nor was I asked to abide by it. I was asked to consider it. Perhaps you should too? Tiamut 15:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You removed the sourced content on the grounds that there was a consensus to the contrary and that there was no discussion at the talkpage. Neither of which are true, as pointed out above. I figured that you would self-revert when you realized you were so badly mistaken and I did you a favor by reverting for you. But no need to thank me, that's what friends are for. As for the 1rr restriction, I actually generally abide by such a restriction. Indeed, I've never been blocked or even taken to 3rr noticeboard. But once you're on the subject of 1rr, you might want to make mention of this great idea to this one editor who you're buddy--buddy with who spends a disproportionate amount of time on Misplaced Pages just reverting. That's all for me today. It's a beautiful day outside and I have to get me some sun. You all have a good time without me. Love, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever Brewcrewer. You can run around in circles all you like. I'm not interested. I'm busy elsewhere thanks. Tiamut 15:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Brewcrewer generally abides by a 1rr restriction. Except when he is reverting BLP vios back into an article, or when his favored version is not accepted with cause by multiple other users. Brewcrewer, if you want to suggest something to me do it yourself so that I can respond with a stfu. nableezy - 18:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I had a wonderful day, thank you. Swam around a little on my plastic boat. Got a little tan, but that doesn't last too long for me. Happy to see you guys had a good time with diffs and all. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You'd get my vote, FWIW. Which probably isn't much! ;-) -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

much love

don't let the rabblerousers get to ya, sweetie. just the same old shit here on the pedia.  ;) untwirl(talk) 01:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

i have zero time to actually contribute (student/parent/worker) to creating articles so i just seek out things that interest me and add what i can as a break from the grind. i have learned so much from reading your work, tho (and nish's and harlan's). so nice to see actual books and scholars used as references. would love to have a cuppa with the three of you! untwirl(talk) 01:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I might crash.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but no. You've already crashed one too many parties. Tiamut 11:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Careful with the false accusations please (redux)

You left a nasty message on my talkpage about reverting without engaging in substantive discussion. As seen by this diff I did engage in substantive discussion. Its really difficult to collaborate with editors who repeatedly fling around false accusations. I'm tired of asking you to re-factor your false accusations.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You reverted first and did not explain your revert until an hour and a half later. You cited WP:SYNTH (basically parroting what I said here). It wasn't a nasty message. What's nasty is the way you are blanket reverting and ignoring what other people have to say, only bothering to comment when your edit is reverted by someone else in order to appear as though you are engaging in substantive discussion, when in fact you are not. Tiamut 13:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again on both counts. Look at the time line. There was a 45 minutes between the two edits, not 90 minutes. Its called thinking how to formulate words. And nobody reverted prior to my post on the talkpage. Your repeated unsubstantiated attacks are really getting out of hand. For the umpteenth time, please stop.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So it took you 45 minutes to think about how to justify your revert after you made it? Your (first) revert was at 00:42. Nableezy reverted you at 01:14. Your talk comment was at 01:25. Your editing behaviour at that page is disruptive. I've gone to a significant amount of trouble to examine the tens of refs cited in that section. I've made a strong case for why the new version is an improvement at User:Tiamut/breakdown. Did you really read it? Or did you just skim it, latch onto the word WP:SYNTH and decide to adopt it as rhetorical device to justify your reversion. I call BS Brewcrewer. Tiamut 13:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You call it BS, I call it blatant hypocrisy. Instead of yelling at me about reverting without discussion, you should be yelling at your tag-team buddy, who reverted to your version without any discussion at the talk page and could not wait to revert again so he reverted without even waiting for my explanation after I edit summarized that I "will explain at talk shortly". You might find it suspicious that it took 45 minutes to formulate a comment, but you may want to think about things before you make a comment as well, especially when you're accusing me of something you made up a second before pressed "Save page." I'm not responding to any further belligerency, so knock yourself out in your response.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Your misrepresentations are not worth my trouble frankly. But I am forced to have to collaborate with you at the article page, so please do deign to explain yourself in detail there. You restored a wholly unreliable source in your blanket revert (i.e. Palestinian Media Watch). The fact that you refer to it in your only talk page comment there as a "Palestinian advocacy group" and use it as an excuse to revert me, thus restoring it, shows just how little attention you are paying to the version you are defending. Tiamut 14:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Only one forum for this nonsense" is right - that would be WP:AE. Tiamut 14:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Operation Defensive Shield - question

Hi, I noticed some warring on Operation Defensive Shield, and wondered what you now meant by your last edit. You suggest that you are reinserting reliably sourced information, in that removing information which you say is 'without any sources'. You also suggest that they had reverted what you added, but I can't seem to find that (you also suggest here that you added this info). I am aware that this has been part of an ArbComm (Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA), which does have discretionary sanctions (see Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions). Your edit summary is worded in such a way, that I am a bit worried there are violations of that here. I would like to hear your response on that. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra 21:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou had deleted sources stating that it was not an Israeli victory and using the opinion of the IDF to present as a fact that it was in the infobox. Tiamut added a study that questioned the "Israeli success" here, Jaakobou reinserted "Israeli success" with an OR explantion (see the edit summary) here. Jaakobou has also been removing a study about destroyed Palestinian property inserted here and removed here and here. Jaakobou has also been removing information on Palestinian casualties in the background choosing to continually revert to an extremely one sided account of the events that preceded the Israeli operation. They have been added a number of times, most recently by me here with Jaak removing them as irrelevant (for some reason he feels each individual Palestinian attack should be listed but not the total casualties in Israeli attacks on the Palestinians) here. Out of curiosity, did somebody ask you to look into this and if so did they by chance provide a one-sided account of the "edit war"? I dont mean to question your impartiality, but it has happened in the past. nableezy - 21:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I was only trying to find the original addition by Tiamut, all I see are reverts by Tiamut. But I may be mistaken. --Dirk Beetstra 21:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is, there are several editors here active, removing each others comments. The issue is, that Tiamut here clearly states that information they have inserted originally, was removed. But there the problem starts, where exactly did Tiamut insert that originally, I have been going quite some edits back by Tiamut to this page, but I don't see it. --Dirk Beetstra 21:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut inserted the studies on the destruction of Palestinian property here. She also added the study questioning the "Israeli victory" here and later removed the phrase from the infobox as ot was only supported by the IDF and disputed by a 3rd party source. Jaak reverted that back in, as well as continually reverting the background section. nableezy - 21:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not the only thing in this revert .. still unclear to me. --Dirk Beetstra 21:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny, your diffs are of September 9, see this (August 21!)? --Dirk Beetstra 21:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nableezy. For some reason my internet connection went down. I've switched computers and hope it will be fine now.

This page has needed attention for some time. I tried to bring attention to Jaakobou's slow burning edit-war with an IP editor when he accused them of being a banned editor at ANI. I also tried to bring attention to the page at WP:IPCOLL here. Jaakobou has strongly resisted the inclusion of new material and while he has managed to avoid straight out reverts over the last two days, the sum of his actions is to revert out much of the material. First he stonewalled me for days, and then he peppered me with largely irrelevant questions. I admit my last revert, upon examination, did not have to undo his conversion of the UN quote into prose and its splitting into two around the material from Amira Hass, but that's still really a stylistic question. I have not removed any material he has added that is sourced. He consistently removes and undoes my additions and a close examination of the talk page and article history will show that to be true. Tiamut 22:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not an answer to my question, Tiamut. I have now been going back over a year, and this is the original addition, not yours, Tiamut, as you assert here and here. This, IMHO, shows that you have been using that IP, in which case you can consider this as an official warning for Edit Warring. --Dirk Beetstra 22:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I have never used that IP. I encourage you to read the ANI discussion I linked. I'm ready to answer any questions. I don't understand which one I did not answer. Tiamut 22:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You clearly assert it was your information that was removed here and here, but it was not added by you, you say (you never used that IP). Care to explain? --Dirk Beetstra 22:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My first edits to the article did incorporate most of the material from the IP editor's edits, because I found it to be valid and could not understand why it was being reverted. (By the way, have you read the talk page at the article?) Edits that were not to the background section were my own original edits and later edits to the background section by Nableezy and I incorporated some of what the IP editor has putting forward, but into the existing text. Tiamut 22:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Dirk, none of your diffs are about the destruction of Palestinian property, that is what Tiamut added and Jaak removed. You are off-base with the accusation of using the IP and if you feel you have enough evidence go ask for a CU, but just throwing about the accusation is not right. Do you have a diff that demonstrates that the information on the destruction of Palestinian property was not added by Tiamut? And why would it even matter who added the info first? nableezy - 22:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Confusing, it is. I see the article is now protected, I'll keep an eye if you don't mind. --Dirk Beetstra 22:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

One last note, the IP address locates to Massachusetts. Tiamut is in Nazareth. Please take greater care before making such accusations. nableezy - 22:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do. I wish someone would have earlier on too. Tiamut 22:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

And I just noticed this now. That's some kind of game playing. Best to return to editing only obscure articles like Tawfiq Canaan. Best not to touch the holy grails of the IDF like Operation Defensive Shield and Battle of Jenin, even if they become POV playgrounds for their owners. Tiamut 23:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That type of activity is why I asked Beetstra if anyone, *cough cough*, had "informed" him of the edit warring. Jaak is reporting you but failing to leave out one of your reverts was immediately self-reverted, or that he had been engaged in an edit war with that IP for a month, or that he continues to oddly accuse others of tag-teaming and edit warring and tendentious editing when he is tag teaming, edit warring and editing tendentiously. Looks like someone is upset they no longer own an article and doing anything to retain that ownership. That revert of his saying the Palestinian deaths are irrelevant but the Israeli deaths need to be moved up was a a bit odd as well. nableezy - 23:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This one? Not odd at all. What he has resisted from the outset is any attempt to alter the narrative POV he established there of Israeli victimhood as the only basis for the operation. In his version, there is no mention of the occupation (and even after my additions, there is only a passing reference to the Israeli Occupying power in a quote from the Palestinian segment of the UN report). There is no mention of Palestinian casualties that were happening during the incursions, which were mostly ongoing at the time of the suicide bombings. He's only just now accepted including the sentence "cycle of violence," but without any mention of its effects in terms of casualties for the Palestinians. Only Israelis matter and only what Israel says is true. Other people's opinions who do not directly contradict that of Israel's may be included - those who directly contradict Israel must be resisted tooth and nail and if they absolutely must be added, the information should either be sectioned together under a heading with the word "criticism", "controversy" or "allegation" in it or else be buried and equivocated away. Its clear as day to me. But you shouldn't listen to me because apparently, its my hours of editing the article, writing talk responses and creating sub-pages to analyze the sources that is disruptive - as evidenced by the multiple warnings I have been getting, versus the zero meted out to him. Odd? Not odd at all. Tiamut 23:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just look what happened to User:Nishidani, User:G-Dett, User:MeteorMaker, User:Pedrito, and User:Nickhh. They tried to bring Arbcomm's attention to nationalist POV pushing in terminology across multiple articles, and for their trouble, they were topic-banned. Tiamut

I have done a better timeline and had a better look. I do agree that I misread your remarks, and probably misinterpreted your confusing edit summary, I believe you spoke solely about your own additions, and did not mention the other additions that were also in the same edit. I therefore retract the suggestion that you and the IP are the same person, or that you were using that IP at some time.

However, looking at it more carefully, I do believe that that last edit did include highly contested information, I don't believe that consensus was reached about its inclusion, that that reinclusion in this way was careless, and that you did revert highly contested edits before discussing them (your first revert on this information). In that, you further fueled an already ongoing edit war, and therefore, my warning to not edit war still stands (please note that your unblock-log shows that admins have assumed good faith in you not war further after being blocked for 3RR/Edit warring). If additions are contested, then first discuss, and do not revert without further explanation. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra 09:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the acknowledgement that I am not the IP editor and that there was an edit-war ongoing at the time of my last edit. I agree that my last edit was hasty and probably fuelled by frustration, as much as it was intended to improve the article. I will try to be more cognizant of not repeating such behaviour in the future.

Since you examined the article more closely, you must be aware of my many attempts to engage people in discussion on the content, and the general stonewalling with which those requests were intially met (See also User:Tiamut/breakdown). It would be nice if someone took the time to explain to the other editors involved that blanket reversion without discussion, as Jaakobou did 6 times at that article before deigning to explain himself in any way, is also not productive. These contributions to the warring atmosphere certainly could and should have been addressed by others earlier on. For me to receive three warnings this week about edit-warring, while those who warred with me received none, fosters the impression that there is one set of rules for me, and another for others. With respect, Tiamut 10:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is what I did with the breakdown. Until your first re-inclusion of the contested information, the IP was the only editor who wanted to include it, three other editors (including indeed Jaakobou) contested it, and brought the discussion to the talkpage. You then re-included it, before joining the discussion. These are heated subjects, and I would say, that it should be simple: the IP inserted it, someone contested it, and hence reverted, and that second person should have brought it immediately to the talkpage (or the IP should do that, that does not really matter). The IP should not have re-included it, full stop (but they might not have known, which is fine). Jaakobou reverted the second time, ánd brought it to the talkpage, and that was absolutely not inappropriate. Even one is enough to contest inclusions on these articles, and then consensus should be reached before inclusion. That three editors removed it, shows me that there was certainly no reason to include it at that point, and even while in the end your questions were not answered, that still does not mean there is consensus and that you, or others, can include it.

In short, my advice, when the protection goes of, one of you should remove the contested information as inserted in the first edits by the IP, and try to get consensus before re-inserting it (alternatively, try to get consensus now and include consensus material when the protection finishes). I said a couple of times, that I find that Jaakobou is here on the right side of WP:BRD, he reverted a bold edit and tried to discuss (and more). The answers may not have been satisfactory, but replies to the concerns were also not confirmed (I don't see agreement of Brewcrewer, who contested it with reason, e.g.).

You say you got three of these warnings this week, which can mean several things. Maybe I can give as advice: before re-reverting an edit, consider to just leave it for now (its not so bad if a 'wrong' version stays for a couple of days, and in this case we are talking about a version which already stood for months, if not years), discuss, and when that does not help, seek external, independent advice. That keeps you out of 3RR/edit warring, and the independent, outside view may help in resolving.

I was above asked if someone asked me for advice. Yes, Jaakobou did. That was after you re-inserted the data yesterday evening. Jaakobou did not revert, and while I was posting here and looking further into the situation, another admin protected the page. Afterwards Jaakobou also posted the notice on the Edit warring noticeboard (unfortunately not a total breakdown). I do have some small concerns about how Jaakobou handled the situation, but overall, and as I said, he is more on the side of Bold-Revert-Discuss and Dispute resolution than several other parties in this situation/these situations. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra 11:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. So Jaakobou canvassed you to involve yourself in this matter, as is his wont when faced with edits he dislikes (See for example). You came here to accuse me of being the IP editor, based on your miscomprehension of my edit summaries. After Nableezy pointed out to you that such a conclusion was lacking in an assumption of good faith, you retracted your accusation, and warned me for edit-warring. While you claim that Jaakobou is the only one to have attempted to discuss, you ignore that he simply wrote "please discuss", which is not a genuine attempt at discussion. WP:BRD say clearly that when you revert the additions of another editor citing BRD, you should provide a substantive explanation as to why. Jaakobou provided no such explanation. As noted by User:Chamal N in the ANI discussion where I raised this issue, all Jaakobou and the others who reverted the IP editor managed to accomplish was to frustrate the IP editor without providing any information on how to change the edit so as to address their (unarticulated) concerns.

You are perhaps not aware of Jaakobou's history of editing here. While he made you aware of my own, perhaps you would care to look into his? I have compiled a page here because of repeated problems I have had with him. I had intended to submit this to AE some time ago, but decided it against it after Jaakobou indicated that he was willing to discuss more substantively.

In any case, as I said, and more so now, your intervention here leaves me with the impression that I have been singled out, and this, based on the advocacy work of an editor who has harrassed me for years now. That you did not mention that Jaakobou canvassed you to look into this up front only augments that concern. Tiamut 12:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Call it canvassing, if you like, I call it 'asking for a third opinion' (though we are talking more than 2 here). I think I showed why I had concerns, and IMHO I first asked in good faith to explain your edits. As you now may have noticed, I have also left a notice on Jaakobou's talkpage with concerns. You feel singled out, maybe true, but you also said that there were three (independent?) cases where there were concerns of edit warring. My advice in my last post was in good faith. --Dirk Beetstra 12:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I was warned for edit-warring by User:Black Kite above after Jaakobou filed this report. He likes to file reports instead of discussing article content substantively. The second warning for edit-warring was from User:NuclearWarfare and was not based on my having edit-warred, but rather a re-reminder of that earlier warning while expressing concern about civility issues. This is all on my talk page above, which if you are investigating this situation in earnest, you may have read.

Considering Jaakobou's proclivity for using off-wiki communication to round up editors to intervene on his behalf by only providing half of the story, I have some reason to believe that the internention from Nuclear Warfare was also "a third opinion" solicited by Jaakobou. All of these warnings are, in sum, traced back to Jaakobou's complaints. My own about Jaakobou's behaviour are sidelined, despite the opinions of uninvolved admins, who I did not canvaass to comment, that he was not substantively discussing and/or that the IP editor's additions deserved legitimate consideration that they were not receiving.

I understand that its hard to admit that you have been used as a tool in Jaakobou's campaign of harassment of me. But you have. Tiamut 12:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I call it a third opinion, which is also something you could ask for. I have not looked at other or earlier situations, I have focussed on the behaviour of editors on the article in question. The other situations are independent of that. It may be that all three warnings were the result of Jaakobou starting the investigations, it strikes me as odd that three independent, experienced admins do get to similar conclusions independently. Maybe we all have been used, but it strikes me as really odd. --Dirk Beetstra 12:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The information might be highly contested but it is also well-sourced and completely relevant. Jaak is upset he is not getting his way and is reverting for no reason at all (first he said that the IP was likely one of two banned editors, and neither editor he named are actually banned). Jaak has not provided any real reason for the revert and ] has been met by providing high quality sources for each of the additions. Jaak carried on a low scale edit war for over a month with the IP over including relevant factual information, yet your message to him is "please explain things more" (as if he had explained them at all) and here it "dont edit war and dont include contentious information". If Jaak wanted a third opinion he could have to WP:AN3 to begin with, he asked you because he wanted Tiamut blocked and thought you would oblige. I knew this was the case, see my first comment to you where I ask Out of curiosity, did somebody ask you to look into this and if so did they by chance provide a one-sided account of the "edit war"?, which you didnt get around to answering until later. You still havent looked into everything as well as you should. Jaak complained that the IP removed relevant information and added synthesis in the background so he reverted. I re-added the relevant information based on single sources without removing any information and he still reverted, claiming that Palestinian deaths are not relevant to the background. You want to keep a closer eye on the situation fine, but actually keep an eye on the entire situation. nableezy - 13:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Dirk, I suggested you actually read my talk page for a reason. In this section, NuclearWarfare asked me to refactor some comments I made to Jaakobou. He was not admonishing me for new edit warring, merely reiterating Black Kite's earlier warning. That's not three independent admins reaching similar conclusions. That's you and Black Kite warning me about edit-warring following reports filed by Jaakobou that completely gloss over his involvement in the whole fiasco and obfuscate the issue - plus one admin asking me to refactor my comments, made in frustration over Jaakobou's edit-warring, hypocrisy, and hounding.

Notice that NuclearWarfare does not respond to my question asking if I was in fact edit-warring again, even though he supposedly watchlisted my talk page? That's because I was not edit-warring at the time, and his "warning" was overkill. Jaakobou cited this "warning" in his report at 3RR to make it appear as though it was a new warning, when it was simply a reiteration.

So in fact, I've been warned twice about edit-warring following two reports filed by Jaakobou, who was edit-warring with me at the time. I was not blocked in both cases, though I was warned, while the party edit-warring with me, and who had been edit-warring before my arrival as well, got away without any admonition. Just a regular week at Misplaced Pages, where people trying to add content in good faith are out-gamed by POV warriors who contact admins to try to block people from adding information they don't like but have no legitimate reason to exclude. Nothing new here. I'm seen it a million times before. Tiamut 14:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Strangely, none of you have yet explained why three editors contested the material, but focus on Jaakobou. And it also does not excuse neither of you from seeking dispute resolution yourself. That information is referenced is not a reason that it has to be included, that still can be explained when it gets contested and consensus can be formed about it. It is by no means necessary to push it. Jaakobou did not discuss it, but even that single statement is way more than all other three attempted before re-inclusion. All three of you added the information before discussing it, while before the last two of you became involved, three had shown concerns and had removed it. Jaakobou may very well be wrong in wanting to remove it, but I am looking at the editorial process here, and well, that is where I think improvements can be made (heh, I have not even checked the content!).

Nableezy, I did not feel obliged to answer you that question, and I still think it is entirely appropriate that a third opinion is sought, and I encourage Jaakobou, Tiamut, and also you to do that more often. --Dirk Beetstra 14:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut. You are right, it is two, the third one is indeed about something else, and I can understand the frustration as well. However, my advice still stands. Please don't get pulled into edit warring, it is not worth it. It indeed needs (at least) two to edit war, and I did say, just let it be sometimes, discuss and do it that way, then the other does not have to warn you for edit warring, does not have a reason to seek third opinions, maybe in order to get you blocked, etc. etc. We have RFC for a reason, edit warring does not get anywhere. --Dirk Beetstra 14:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is appropriate to seek third opinions openly, trying to block shop by choosing an admin is not. Why do three editors object to the material? They all began objecting because the wanted the edits explained first. Nobody posted an actual objection to the material until after multiple reverts of it. Nudve made a single comment (Jaakobou is right. If you want to revamp the entire article, be open to discussion and explain your changes.) Jaak has only been able to argue about it being "the long-standing version". He only recently raised any real concerns, real but not substantive, about the material and yet has continually said others are edit warring and engaged in tendentious editing while he has been reverting the material for a month without saying what is wrong with it. Later, Brewcrewer objected because it cited the UN and unnamed "Palestinian advocacy groups" (not a single Palestinian advocacy group was cited) and was synthesis. Jaakobou said he was concerned about synthesis and removing information. I then add the information without removing anything, each sentence supported by a single source. Jaak reverts that again with some very dubious, and factually inaccurate, reasoning on the talk page. So why do 3 editors object to the material? By my counting 1 because the IP editor needs to do discuss before editing, another because of imagined synthesis, and the last as best I can tell because the second objected. Can you tell me why 3 editors feel the material should be included? nableezy - 14:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

:-) If Jaakobou was block-shopping, then he should have looked at the track record of the admin he was contacting, I am hardly one where that would have much effect. Nableezy, still, three editors reverting, seeing their edit-summaries, and 2 of them (and a third one who did not revert) commenting on the talkpage is still way, way more than what the IP, you and Tiamut did before re-inserting. I am not judging the reasons, I am not judging whether the information needs to be there or not, I am judging the editorial process, and I am urging you and Tiamut to discuss before reverting, if you both would have done that, Jaakobou would have no reason. And the little reasons that there are now are more than what you two have (as that is absolutely nothing (well, only the explanations afterwards). My simple advice for next time, if you want to make your case, and not have people report you (plural) for edit warring or 3RR, then please discuss and explain before reverting. Sigh. --Dirk Beetstra 14:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough (I took the liberty of correcting a hopefully unintended slip, changing Jableezy to Nableezy). But you have to understand that a number of people have had Jaakobou contact an admin and give a highly inaccurate portrayal of the circumstances in order to get them blocked and often times he is successful. It becomes increasingly annoying each time this happens because those of us who feel that openness and transparency are important to the process get screwed by somebody who is not averse to using lower tactics. nableezy - 14:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for the typo in your name. I know how it feels (not here, don't worry).

I understand the frustration, but in my opinion, it is very easy not to fuel it. Please note that the timeline on my talkpage is completely independent from Jaakobou's, and although it proves often too difficult to get a really complete picture (as other situations sometimes mingle into it), I think that this is a fairly complete description of the history of the situation on Operation Defensive Shield. --Dirk Beetstra 15:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not at all complete, but no matter. I appreciate the time you have spent reviewing the situation, and though I disagree with some of your conclusions, you are right to suggest discussion should occur before reversion. I try to do that always, but I will try more. I hope others will too. Tiamut 16:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey people, the relevant policy which Jaak continually ignores is WP:PRESERVE. I'd be very happy if this policy were enforced. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello

مرحبا ، كيف حالك اليوم؟ Understand? Himalayan 22:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I'm okay I think. You? And by the way, impressive... Tiamut 22:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian Political Violence

And I'm out. I resigned as a registered editor because of the time I was spending on articles like this. I'm going back to my beautiful family. To you I am just an "anon" but I've been down this road many times and I'm tired to walk it.

I applaud you for keeping a cool head in the face of such mindless racism and hate (regarding all that you edit here). Good luck to you. --anon. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Whose windmill?

We have to stop agreeing so much. People will say we're in love (From the song in Oklahoma) --Ravpapa (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What?

What the fuck? I'm not pissed and I don't think you are either. Cool and all. Your edits are valuable but you are biased just like everyone else. I am working on a college ball and Lecister City (can't even spell their name) page and they are the only ones I don't have an opinion about. How did it get to garbage on the talk page? My point was supposed to be "I don't care what anyone thinks as long as it doesn't fuck up the article". I feel like a 16 year old girl stressing out about this shit.Cptnono (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Listen Cptnono, I think you're a nice guy. But you don't seem to understand how what you are saying is offensive and wrong. I edit here to share information. Really. Both good and bad about Israel, Palestinians, and all other kinds of topics. I take my commitment to WP:NPOV seriously. I try to make sure I add both sides of the story in all my edits. When you write that I edit here "primarily to demonize Israel", I view that as a serious attack on my personal credibility. That's not my motivation for being part of Misplaced Pages - in fact, it's not even a motivating facto for me in any part of my life. You may think that to be so, but its your own speculation, and its one I find offensive.

I've asked you to strike that particular sentence on the talk page and I hope you will. I'm not planning on running to a schoolteacher to report you for "bad behaviour". I'm asking you, adult to adult, to retract what I view to be an incorrect and offensive statement about my motivations for writing at Misplaced Pages. I hope you will oblige. Don't be offended or anything yourself, but I really am done discussing there for today. I think RomaC's advice is good. Others can pipe in now with their own thoughts. Tiamut 15:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The talk page discussion looked to get more and more heated when we both seemed to be on similar pages. I clarified instead of striking but will be happy to put a giant line through it if you insist.Cptnono (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thank you. But I do insist that you strike the sentence I indicated is most offensive in my last talk page comment there, about "demonizing Israel" (perhaps you meant "defending Palestine" ;). Either way, its not my reason for writing here, and I'd appreciate no further speculation about my motivations or anyone else's unless there is strong evidence that its related to an ongoing "fucking up" of article mainspace and is said to identify the problem and deal with it. Tiamut 15:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think my amendment was just as to the point but if you are OK with the observation then it is alright then.Cptnono (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I just saw it now. Well, I guess you're entitled to your opinion that my edits "come cross as pro-Palestinian". I don't think there is evidence for that, but its a more subjective and positively phrased characterization than your last one. I still think its better to avoid making such statements altogether, particularly when they have nothing to do with article improvement. But if you think that's a fair re-phrasing, while I disagree, I'm not going to argue about it with you anymore. This has taken up quite enough time already. Tiamut

It is allowed. Don't worry about it. That is my observation from your recent edits to the page and edit summaries. If you have a problem with it you can adjust your style but it looks right on the mark after looking at your user page. As I alluded to before before: I could care less as long as you know it when making changes to the main article. And it has everything to do with article improvement.Cptnono (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I think you're mistaken in your impression. If you can point to specific edits where the content I added to the article made it unbalanced in a "pro-Palestinian" direction, I'd be happy to hear that critique, and reflect upon how I can do better in the future. Like I said, I don't think there is any evidence to support your conclusion. The content of my user page is only evidence of my honesty about where I am coming from. What did Gramsci say? All intellectual inquiry begin with an inventory of self. I'm open to hearing how I can improve when that critique is a specific one. When its just a generalization based on impressions, in the course on a discussion about something else, its not useful to me, nor is it useful to article improvement. With respect, Tiamut 15:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't say with respect when you know it isn't. You want me to point it out? Go hit the history button on the page and check your edit summaries. Take that and look at the edits. Then go look at the sources. Add all of that up and point at one edit (besides the revert to the vandal) that was not done in a Pro palestinian fashion. I can witch hunt you all day long but if you don't do it to yourself it doesn't mean anything.Cptnono (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I did mean it when I said with respect. I'm sorry you're offended by that. Like I said, I'm open to hearing about how to improve, but not when you make general statements that malign my editing contributions without pointing to specific things that could be improved. You're not helping me, and if you don't want to help me understand that's fine too, but then don't accuse of POV editing. Its slander when you do it without evidence and just antagonizes me, which has nothing to with article improvement. Tiamut 16:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't an offence thing it is a simple to the point thing. Go look at your contributions to the article and let me know if you have offered anyhting that does not make Israel look bad. I'm not going to debate something that is clear in the edit summaries. You come and tell me what you have done otherwise and I will change my opinion. Until then I am a huge fan of if it looks like a Palestinian it is more than likely a Palestinian (or an editor who identfies with the people and therefore only edits in a fashion that makes them look better when making contributions to contentious articles).Cptnono (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to go digging through my diffs to prove wrong an unsubstantiated accusation you are making that you have not bothered to provide a single diff to support. I'll take your "criticism" then, for what it appears to be; i.e. prejudice against people who identify with or as Palestinian, because the only evidence you have cited so far is my user page. I'll reiterate what I said at the article talk page, any problems you have with my user page can be discussed at my talk page. Any problems you have with specific edits to Gaza War are discussed at that article's talk page. Please do not mix the purposes of either page. And please refrain from making unsubstantiated bad faith accusations in the future. Tiamut 16:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Then don't prove me wrong and don't prove it to yourself. Make some edits to the page that are not biased or cleaning up other editor's bias. Try fixing refs, spelling, wikilinks, biased from your side (hate to label it that way) and prove me wrong. Until then you are just another biased editor with little Arab girls and a flag on your user page whose edits back up my conclusion.Cptnono (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop skewing the concern. Can you honestly tell me I am wrong in my assesment of your edits? Screw me having to proove it to you: yes or no? Me calling you out on the talk page is appropriate. If I had a Star of David on my page you could do the same. Furthermore, I attempted but failed to get this on track. You wanted to worry more about accusations. When it all comes down to it you could have accepted the crtiticism and gone for improvement. You got sidetracked like a 10 year old in a debate class. SHow me an edit that makes Israel look OK if you can.Cptnono (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't turn things around. I don't have to prove anything to you. You have not provided one diff and yet still claim your right to make accusations. I claim my right to take issue with your characterizations. And your refusal to point me to any one edit that would help to understand what you mean by POV editing so that I could avoid doing such things in the future makes it clear that you are not interested in helping me "improve", only in slandering and insulting me. And I don't have the right to point to a Star of David on your user page and then accuse you of making biased edits on article talk pages without pointing to any evidence. That's called assuming bad faith. Tiamut 16:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it is called not being an idiot. On your user page you have: Image: Woman in Ramallah costume. Photographed by Khalil Raad (1920)., on your user and talk page you have image Girls in Bethlehem costume pre-1918, Bonfils Portrait. Between the 15th and the 17 all of your edits suddenly spike and had to do with clarifying potential vilations of international law by Israel when in September it was related but still only clearing the name of Palestine (read the edit summaries you wrote before disputing) . You want to keep in info that speaks about Gaza even though the source does not mention the conflict. You get bent out of shape by the accusation. You have multiple mentions on your user and talk page regarding Palestine and wikichecker verifies. Like I said, I don't care where your loyalties are but when you pick up on only potential human rights violations and not simple spelling mistakes in the proposal it is a big flag. Hit the history btton than expand to 500 and then come tell me your editing does not have a purpose you liar. You could have said "Oh, I didn't realize" or "Oh, I was only intrested in" but for you to have the balls to say it sin't so means you are a dirty liar. Report it. You are a liar.Cptnono (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)