Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Regarding the lynching and the article by Gideon Levy... Btw, next time your people decide to butcher someone, can you consider him instead ? I'll appreciate if you pass the message to your local hamas representative, I can make a list. Cheers. Amoruso09:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Dome of the Rock
Amuroso and others like to use uncredible citations to spam the Dome of the Rock article. First they insisted that the Dome is not "Masjid Qubbat As-sakhra". That is it is not a masjid. Sencond that it is a shrine built most likely by Jews and for Jews and that Jews were praying their along with muslims etc blah blah.....
Of course, I improved the article by bringing the relevant story of the construction from the preserved historical sources by muslim scholars and others. See for example this article which is commonly used and information from is commonly utilized to spam both al-Masjid al-Aqsa and Masjid Qubbat As-sakhra articles . The discussions are long as you may see at the corresponding talk pages. Citing uncredible and unusual claims does not nmake sense and should not be given equal wait. Plus the Dome is a masjid as it is known and not a Shrine, or Maqam or Mashhad as they like to call it! Thanks. Almaqdisi15:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
These are personal attacks ("spamming articles...") Almaqdisi that aren't allowed on wikipedia. Refrain please from making BS claims. Amoruso01:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Almaqdisi, a lot of credible evidence show that the Dome of Rock is intact the place where a masjid not a shrine was built.Palestine4802:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Unspecified source for Image:ManarahSmall.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ManarahSmall.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Misplaced Pages (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell22:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Muchas gracias
Hey Ramallite, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi05:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Har Homa
I find the idea that "'widely considered' alone should merit this category" to be very interesting since similar logic isn't employed with regards to other categorisations like Category:Terrorists or Category:Terrorism. It seems that if anything short of acknowledgement (which exists regarding Israeli areas in the West Bank outside unilaterally expanded Jerusalem) isn't enough to categorise a group like Hamas as "terrorist," then it is only fair that an area whose status as a "settlement" is disputed not be categorised as such. Let me know what you think, Tewfik06:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to help you fullfil your mission, and I trust that I'll be able to be of assistance more often.
The "fringe minority" that you've discounted includes at minimum the Israeli government, the municipality of Jerusalem, and in my experience, most residents of such places, who have little or no cognisance of the political controversy, especially since it is treated the same as every other part of Jerusalem. Thus, the status of newly constructed neighbourhoods in the parts of Jerusalem annexed since 1967 are not universally recognised as "settlements," and as such should not be categorised as such. This is actually very similar to the practice regarding Category:Terrorists. Hamas is categorised as Category:Designated terrorist organizations because it is, and despite that it still isn't included in any of the categories that I mentioned above, because they are disputed (notably by Hamas). As an aside, I'm surprised that you think you cannot approach or live in areas like Har Homa due to your religion or ethnicity, as I recall you making a post on Talk:Har Homa discussing the trend of Palestinians with Jerusalem residency actually moving into places like this. I'm going to remove the categorisation for the reasons above, but I'm still open to any feedback you may have. Cheers, Tewfik19:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
