User talk:Humus sapiens/archive7

Good eye[edit]

Good eye. It looks like they've been doing this for a very long time. Most of their reversions have gone unfixed (see the entry's talk page). I just posted a notice on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Primetime 22:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting paragraphs?[edit]

I've been away for a few weeks, and returned to find this in my User talk:

Please stop deliberately introducing incorrect information into articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Rather than making vague threats or suggestions, indicate which article it is in particular that you're referring to.Paisley 04:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah of course. The article in which you thought it was somehow appropriate to not only include the phrase "ridiculous and truly horrifying" but include an exclamation mark in brackets after an attributed statement. Don't waste my time. -Paisley 06:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was your text. However, your reinstatement of the deleted paragraphs indicated a tacit approval of their content. In the circumstances (lacking any information about the paragraph) I felt that the emotive terms were entirely inappropriate and were liberally sprinkled throughout the paragraphs that I deleted. -Paisley 10:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josel of Rosheim[edit]

Would you take a look at my start at expanding the section on Josel of Rosheim's request to Luther that he help him meet the Elector of Saxony? I want to add a bit at a time and it's good to have other eyes on my work, since I want it fair, accurate and NPOV. Thanks! --CTSWyneken 16:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torah[edit]

Sorry it was not my intention to re-add conspiracy. It looked like simple page blanking vandalism with no explanation in the edit summary. --Adam ^(talk) 02:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antisemitism (People) has been proposed for deletion[edit]

Category:Antisemitism (People) has been proposed for deletion [[1]] and will be deleted unless interested editors vote.Doright 06:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by original research[edit]

Please explain what do you mean by original research wrt Hinduism article? You have blindly reverted all changes with regard to context. Pizzadeliveryboy 14:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yr edits in Hinduism[edit]

I think in the last version by you several Sanskrit shlokas written in devanagari script also got wiped out.

Sorry it was bcos of CARNASSUS....sorry again. Pizzadeliveryboy 19:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

enthusiasm[edit]

I'm not sure whether your recent remarks at Talk:Hamas were in response partly to mine or not? Palmiro | Talk 00:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I don't know anything about that paper and don't like looking at websites from that part of the world from here, so I will probably have to pass on that. Palmiro | Talk 13:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josel von Rosheim quote in reaction to "On the Jews"[edit]

Dear Humus:

I've seen Josel quoted in a number of sources to the effect that "On the Jews" is not worthy of a Gelehrter. Everything I've seen so far is a "cited in" of a "cited in." Do you have a direct citation handy? If not, I'm going down happy footnote trails for goodness knows how many weeks. I'd like to get that quote into one or more articles in the wiki. --CTSWyneken 11:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, was worth a try. Gelehrter = teacher. --CTSWyneken 03:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bible verses and chapters on Wikipedia[edit]

Hi Humus: Shavua Tov ! It is important that you see the following proposed Wikipedia policy pages and their discussion pages at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of 1 Kings 4 and 5 AND Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text. Thanks for giving this matter your serious attention before discussion is closed and the "policy" is set. IZAK 10:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solidarity[edit]

Sure, solidarity. But it's not like my position would be different were I an Asian, for instance. Websites like JW are what's wrong with the internet. --Chodorkovskiy 09:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven minutes?[edit]

Standards are slipping! Palmiro | Talk 10:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I was caught??[edit]

HI this is a response to your message:

"FYI, I have reverted your edit because you wrote exactly the opposite to the doc. you misquoted. The doc says: "... in the Jewish State there will be a considerable minority of Arabs." Care to explain? ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)"

I would love to explain.

According to you link, I edited three things:

I made: "By 1947, about 8% of the land of Palestine was owned by Jewish

individuals and interests... "

into : "By 1947, about 7% of the land of Palestine was owned by Jewish

individuals and interests"

Justification: If you go to the wikipedia page on [[British mandate on

Palestine]] then you will see in the section of "Division of Palestine by

United Nations", that there is a link saying Jews owned no more than 7% of

the land in PAlestine.

I made: "In terms of the land that would eventually become Israel..."

into: "In terms of the land that was allocated to the Jewish State..."

Justification: Please see my post

here I believe it is the last post.

I made: "3% by Arabs who became citizens of Israel, and 18% by Arabs who

left the country."

into: "21% by Arabs".

Justification: I simply merged the two figures. This is because the Arabs would not leave (or be forced to leave) PAlestine until after the 1948 war. This has nothing to do with the partition plan of the United Nations. The U.N. didn't know how many Arabs (if any) would be leaving.

Bless sins 03:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Look at my Archiving Efforts[edit]

Dear Humus:

I've taken the time to archive the talk on the Luther pages. Would you take a look and see if I've done it right? Thanks! --CTSWyneken 03:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doright at it again[edit]

Please take a look at Talk:Whitewashing If I speak to him again, it will be in an RfC. Note that he once again claims that Robert Michael said something he did not. When he first put this quote from a database abstract online (I can document from talk pages) he quoted Michael, referring to an article by Michael. I looked up the article and discovered the words nowhere to be found in it. In fact, as is his practice, Dr. Michael did not at all insult Luther scholars in the way the abstract suggests. He lays out his case for what he sees as wishful thinking on the part of Luther scholars, vigorously presents what he sees as evidence for a darker Luther and judges some editions of Luther's antisemitic/antijudaic works as leaving out some of the worst material.

I thought that Doright was going to play by the rules, but he appears to wish to insult people who do not agree with him (Including you and slrubenstein) Would you like to approach him, or is it time for me to initiate action? --CTSWyneken 02:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm hopig if several folk will talk to him, nothing more will be needed. --CTSWyneken 12:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CfD: Category:Wikipedian Chazanim[edit]

Hi Humus: Can you believe this: Category:Wikipedian Chazanim ? I have thus nominated it for deletion, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 5#Category:Wikipedian Chazanim. Thanks. IZAK 21:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Duke[edit]

Hi Humus sapiens. Sorry I reverted your change in David Duke but I just listed this under RfC and wanted editors to see what the issue was about. The Manual of Style (biographies) does not specifically address the use of "Dr.", "Ph.D", etc. I'm sure this will be removed but I'm trying to force a ruling on the use of academic prefix/suffix. Monkeyman 21:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates of: Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict[edit]

Hi Humus: The following four articles (lists actually) have duplicate articles that need to be merged into them. See the "merged into" notices on:

Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2000 (has three duplicates);
Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2001 (has one duplicate);
Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2002 (has two duplicates);
Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2003 (has two duplicates).

Thanks for looking into this. IZAK 13:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josephus[edit]

This is such a silly argument, I can scarcely believe someone is actually making it. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protocols[edit]

Can you help answer the request for these sources:

"One example is the semi-messianic idea that constantly appears in the text, of establishing a 'King of the Jews'. This was never a Jewish term, and was referenced only on the cross of Jesus."
"The Protocols are widely considered the beginning of contemporary conspiracy theory literature, such as None Dare Call It Conspiracy and Conspirators Hierarchy: The Committee of 300"
"Some scholars compare the Protocols to The permanent instruction of the Alta Vendita, supposedly found by Italian Secret police and endorsed by several Popes. The nature of the plans in both is very similar, as the Protocols go into much detail as to how to replace the Pope as the head of the Catholic Church."

These seem the substantive issues in the FAC so far. --Goodoldpolonius2 01:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV ?[edit]

I wonder if you took a look at this article Nakba.

I think it is a big failure (over years) in Wkipedia NPOV policy.

Zeq 09:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Template:Juddom[edit]

Hi Humus: Please see the newly-proposed Template:Juddom which strikes me as odd and redundent for now. Please add your views at Template talk:Juddom. Thanks. IZAK 14:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

banning of Pro Israel editors[edit]

You may be intesrted to look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq/Proposed_decision

It resulted from very low particiopation in articles about the Middle east by pro-israeli editors which left it open for palestinian propeganda.

Zeq 07:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reliability of a source[edit]

Hello. Could you give me your mind about Uzi Benziman as a reliable source as biograph of Ariel Sharon and particularly concerning Sharon's childhood and creation of unit 101 ?

Thank you 82.232.64.224 (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Washington Institute for Near East Policy). Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed at [2]

thanks[edit]

thanks for alerting me of those ludicrous reportings of 3rr. peace, --Urthogie 14:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bar Kokhba's papyrus.png[edit]

Thanks for providing the source for this image. However, the source you've given doesn't actually indicate the copyyright holder. Is there a credit for the photograph in the book you scanned it from? Thanks. Chick Bowen 21:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images but will happily remove that notice when this is straightened out. Thanks again. Chick Bowen 21:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Image:Barkokhba-silver-tetradrachm-bw.png from the same book? Since coins aren't two-dimensional objects, they're often considered fair use unless the photograph itself is old enough to be in the public domain. Thanks. Chick Bowen 22:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Ben-yehuda.jpg[edit]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ben-yehuda.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Chick Bowen 06:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged it {{HistoricPhoto}} and provided source & Terms and Conditions. Sorry, should have done it earlier. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman K. Kovalev[edit]

Can you take a look at this AFD, and vote or comment as you see fit? Seems to me like deletionism run amok, esp. in light of my additions to the article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--£ 11:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian territories[edit]

Hi - I've actually noticed overnight edit-warring going on there - I actually have no strong opinion either way; it certainly doesn't offend me to see the flag but at the same time its not worth having it there if its problematic. Perhaps a Palestine template can be added instead (seeing as there are quite a few political references in the article) and so an Israel template could be added to Judea and Samaria... I don't know what else to say, it doesn't seem like that big a deal either way.... I'll leave it up to you! Ramallite ^(talk) 14:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muchos gracias re:maps[edit]

===>I would if I could But I don't know how to compress png's. I only use MSPaint and when I have to (such as for png's) Fireworks, but I really know nothing about photoediting. If you have the time and inclination, feel free to compress them yourself. Thanks again for the heads-up. -Justin (koavf), talk 23:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your voting![edit]

Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you.

If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very much, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bigots[edit]

I see that bigots have started to vandalize the Jaffa orange article.

-Hype

insertion of an image[edit]

Hello. I would like to insert an image in an article. I don't know how to do. This is a part of a current wikipedia image in free use on wikipedia. I have already the final version on my pc in jpg format but then I don't know what to do...

Could you help me ? Thanks a lot ! :-)

Christophe 15:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you tell me if I did properly everything ? -> [3]. Thank you :-) Christophe 08:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits in Hamas highly opinionated[edit]

Wikipedia is no place for highly opinionated people. Any information you don’t like is “whitewash” and “incorrect information”. Maybe you are not comfortable with the open content model, and you need to have control over content. In that case, I suggest you start your own wiki and let people here contribute freely without your narrow-minded criticism. - Mohamad Takriti 09:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sakharov timemag 1101900514 400.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Sakharov timemag 1101900514 400.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Ta bu shi da yu 13:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sakharov timemag 1101770221 400.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Sakharov timemag 1101770221 400.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Ta bu shi da yu 13:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help !!![edit]

Could you indicate me what has to be done in such a case ? Thank you ! :-( [4] Christophe 20:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how can I delete it and rename this ? Christophe 07:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree for the title but don't understand what could be improved for the quality. I just gathered relevant minds about "Haj Amin al-Husseini and anti-semitism". I don't see what to add. Should I add an analysis ? That would be POV-ed. Maybe we can go on the talk page of Haj Amin al-Husseini. Christophe 07:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category_talk:Midian#Vote[edit]

Please take a look and weigh in with your opinion.

Arab League boycott of Israel[edit]

Hi. I saw your addition of the Washington Times article. Shall we include some of the quotes, like:

Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, wrote in a Feb. 28 letter to Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, "If Dubai continues its anti-Israel activity, it must be grounds for the cancellation of the deal." [5]

This might be more relevant to the Dubai Ports World controversy.

Cheers. Uncle Ed 17:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Thank you!
Hi Humus sapiens/archive7, thank you for your support in my Rfa! It passed with a final tally of 86/0/0. If you need help or just want to talk let me know! Again, thank you! – Dakota ~ ° 21:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Querran[edit]

While Querran is wrong in what he does, he has a point: Nakba is one of the most POV articles in Wikipedia. Nakba is written completly from palestinian prepective. The Nakba#.22Transfer_principle.22 section is full of non relavant WP:OR (see all the citation needed tags). Although the section is written in great talent, it is a complete fabrication . (see Population_transfer#Middle_East which is the right place for it. The word "tarnsfer" was used in the 30s by Peel Comision as exchange of popualtion. I can go one and on. This article needs a complete re-write, you should not call it NPOV it is not. Zeq 08:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation[edit]

Maybe you can start a process to fix this article ?

Can you look at modified #3 ?[edit]

Thanks Zeq 17:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi back to you[edit]

Hi Humus: Thanks for the hello! I've enjoyed interacting with you on the talk pages. Thank you for saying hello and for the nice words. I have noticed that you are very good at keeping your cool! Your points are well taken. I will look and if you have not made changes yet I will do so. My spelling is really horrible---thanks for being kind about that. elizmr 02:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.214.35.104 withwhom you had some inreaction in current ebevts and other places is actually:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alberuni/Proposed_decision

Sakharov images[edit]

In order for a proper fair use claim for TIME magazine covers, you really need to talk about them in the text of the article. See Luis Muñoz Marín for a good example. Regards, howch e ng {chat} 07:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use is a really tricky thing to pin down. In general terms, please see Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. For TIME magazine covers specifically, see Template talk:TIME. It's a bit long, but the gist of is that you need to talk about the significance of the subject's appearance on the cover, not just "Here's a pic of so-and-so on the cover of TIME." One example cited in this discussion is Demi Moore's naked pregnant picture on the cover of Vanity Fair. The article talks about that specific incident and uses the magazine cover to illustrate it. In other words, here's a case where only the magazine cover is appropriate. I hope that makes sense. howch e ng {chat} 07:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Protocols of the Elders of Zion 1992 Russia.jpg[edit]

Hi, thanks for the image. But could you please specify its source? i.e. if you took it from the net, the website's address. Thank you. --BorgQueen 20:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done.←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

What is surprising is that you are supposedly a member of the Countering systemic bias group, yet you advance the most obvious political biases on the Israel and Arab-Israeli conflict pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokiloki (talk • contribs)

I have no personal views on the Israeli-Arab conflict. I am neither Israeli nor Arab, nor do I have any concern of the area. But I do find that the lack of opposing viewpoints, found in almost all Wiki articles, are surprisingly absent from the Israeli articles. As well, when I go to your page I see that you are a Shabbat follower, etc, and it seems to me that YOUR bias (aka, pro-Israel) is clearly manifesting in use of the map, which is totally designed to show how "little" Israel is... might we also show, for example, a graph of Israeli military capability compared to the surrounding Arab areas? I imagine you would deny that. On "fact" of course?

And where is the Nakba referenced from the Israel page? Moreover, you were the one that started this by editing my edit and saying that I should avoid "personal attacks". I made no personal attacks, but, insofar as you referenced my editing as personal attacks, you in fact made such attacks. Moreover, as exampled by your evident bias in your edits, your religion does play a role in your edits: all of your Israel/Israel-Arab edits would, by just about any standard, be categorized as pro-Israel. How can we not separate your ethnic background and religion from such edits?

The other half of this talk is at [[6]]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temple of Jerusalem[edit]

Dear Sir,

Whilst I do appreciate your concern for the dating accuracy of the article for the above-mentioned topic, I must civily protest the use of B/CE for dating. This topic is something deeply personal for more than just the Jewish faith (though undoubtedly they are most concerned) and thus shouldn't be quantified merely by an assumed preference by said faith. Also, whether B/CE or BC/AD is used, we are still (rightly or wrongly, regardless of point-of-view) measuring according to the birth of Jesus (though He was not born by the Gregorian calculation of 1 AD, it is still based upon His birth) forward. Finally, BC/AD is commonly used and accepted throughout academia and public affairs. It is perceived that a 'revision' or 're-naming' of the measurements of the epochs is politically charged and not based on altruistic equanimity. Thus, I believe that BC/AD is more acceptable to most and more palatable for many. Hence, I respectfully decline a revision of the dates. And, if I may mention it, many of the topics linked to this article which are very particular to the Jewish faith are already measured in BC/AD, so please don't mistake my adjustment for the exception. It is done for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it is already supported by dating systems within Wikipedia itself on related topics. But again, while I understandably disagree with you, I do respect your approach to my edit. Please be well and "sholom aleichem".

Most sincerely,

Tom the Wikireader

Note: Dear Sir, wouldn't you say it is unjustifiable to insinuate that my dating recommendation is "inappropriate"? At the very least, you may personally disagree (which, no doubt, you do), but let us both be fair in admiting that from all of the information that I have read with regards to Wiki's epoch-dating policies, there is no "definitively correct policy". And further, I still have read and witnessed many Jewish articles measured with BC/AD. Therefore, are you promoting inconsistencies (which I don't believe you are)? My edit is time-honored and justifiable. I am sorry if this grieves you, but my edits are more than POV - as can be read in the above-stated article that I first wrote in response. But always, please don't suppose this to be a personal attack on you, sir. And again, be well and take care.72.49.186.231 00:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other half of this talk is at User_talk:72.49.186.231. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2: Dear Sir, while I do understand your POV regarding the dating annotations for the Temple, perhaps, for the sake of arguement, we might use both annotations - instead of stating "The Second Temple was built after the return from the Babylonian Captivity, around 536 BCE (completed on March 12, 515 BCE)" it might be more accepted and neutral(which you have stated to be your goal) to rather say "The Second Temple was built after the return from the Babylonian Captivity, around 536 BC/E (completed on March 12, 515 BC/E)," or even "The Second Temple was built after the return from the Babylonian Captivity, around 536 BC/BCE (completed on March 12, 515 BC/BCE)." As a man of reason, I am more than happy to meet a fellow halfway. But also, as a person who for various stated reasons (none of which have been "problems with WP:MOS" which, as I have noted before, is merely a guide that may support either usage, though inandof itself it does not bear a preference) is desirous of having at least a non-revisionist POV presented with regards to dating sequencing. Also, after having examined the edit history of this topic, it would seem that I am far from being the only person from expressing some dismay at the use of BCE/CE. Therefore, allow us to both have this expressed, thereby cutting off any naysayers who may wish to be vitriolic about epoch annotating for one of the most holy (and therefore, contentious) sites in the world. Please inform me of your thoughts on this and, if you would like, feel free to adjust any edits as would thus be dictated.

Just a quick second note, sir, if I may. In regards to your final point on my discussion page, I wasn't stating that you had accused me of attacking you. I just wanted you to be clear that this was never, ever about you personally. I know that all too often, people can 'read into' things and lift from certain comments that if their POV is at dispute, then they are being harrassed. You seem to be extremely intelligent and I would have been better-off in giving you the benefit of the doubt. But after having used the Net for so long, experience has taught me that sentiment can be easily misunderstood and that written words never appropriately convey the complex characteristics of vocal intonations. I was therefore just wishing to reassure you. You have been nothing more than a gentlemen in this discourse, and though we may be at odds here (hopefully not after my above recommendation) I hope that I have at the least presented a coherent and equally respectful dissent.

Be well and take care, Sir. It has been a pleasure (haha - frustrating at times, but intelligent discussion is always a pleasure. It's one reason why I surf and read the Wiki like a novel every day).

Au Revoir por Maintenant,

Tom the Wikireader 216.196.216.118 18:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With these IPs, I don't know where to address you anymore, I hope you'll find my response here.

Tom, thank you for nice words (I'm melting). I think I understand where you are coming from. In short, your conflict is not really with me and that's what I meant by the edit summary - also nothing personal. As I said earlier, I don't see "a substantial reason" for your proposed change; instead, I see a very strong reason to leave it as is. Correct, you are not alone, but I am not alone either :) Think Persians, Hindus and Chinese...

Somehow this entire issue became an electrifying rod/Pandora's box, and I have no intention of touching/reopening it. In addition, this may have a domino effect. FYI, I am trying to comply with equal opportunity offense rule, so I would revert the opposite change in John Chrysostom or Martin Luther as well.

On a personal note, I invite you again to please consider registering and contributing your knowledge to WP, even though our views on this particular issue differ. In any case, take care and all the best. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note 3: Dear Sir, I believe that you made an astute remark when you stated the following: "you are not alone, but I am not alone either :) Think Persians, Hindus and Chinese... " This is a very, very true statement. The suggestion I was therefore making wasn't one of exclusion to any, but acceptance of all. I cannot see ANYone objecting to the dual usage of BC/E. The act, inandof itself, negates the propensity for dispute. On the other hand, as you have noted, the choice of one or the other leaves one group feeling 'disqualified.' Thus, I am not doing this solely because of POV (and yes, I do admit a PART of it is that) - but rather, I believe that this dual usage of BC/E and CE/AD can remove this "lightning rod" for a topic that is so stringently revered by so many people, Jewish and otherwise. I hold much affinity for the Jewish faith and am in no wise desirous of offending those of that respected, ancient religion. But the Temple is larger than any one faith. It, and it's site, are adamently respected by the three great monotheistic faiths, each of which has - at one point or another - had their claim to the Mount. Thus, each should have a claim to it's history. Please, sir, don't automatically think that I am measuring this in narrow terms of individual faith. I'm doing my utmost to meet you and others half-way on a topic that I personally feel quite atuned towards (and though it may not seem it, it was a great leap of faith - if you will - to propose even using BC/E as opposed to just BC. Please keep this in mind when I therefore state that if done, I cannot see others being able to object to its usage).

Well, thank you sir for your time. You have been commendable. Also, though I have since signed up/into Wiki (at your proposal), I am uncertain of my desire to use it. I will admit that this is my first proposed adjustment to any Wiki article and I feel like leaving my subscription in frustration. I am sorry on that account, but I admit to feeling as though I've made no headway and am therefore fairly irrelevant. But I will give it time. In the meantime, as always, do take care and be well.

Most Sincerely,

Tom the Wikireader 72.49.191.157 19:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tom, please don't call me "sir". It is wonderful that you tolerate the beliefs of others. I do to (or trying to) and I wish more people were like that. What you wrote sounds nice in theory. In reality, the Jewish Temple lays in ruins for almost 2 millennia; Jewish claims to the Temple Mount and the Western Wall are disputed, and supersessionism runs strong. Sorry, I still believe that no "substantial reason" exists for the change. This is just my opinion. You may ask others or put it for a vote. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note 4: Hello. Allow me to first proceed by apologizing with the notation "sir". It has always only been meant as a term of respect. Though if perchance you are a lady (and I'm not saying you are, I'm just saying that I shouldn't assume your gender), then my utmost apologies regarding this salutation. If there are other reasons for your dislike of "sir", then I may respect this as well. I use it only in that I was raised rather old-fashionedly in regards to matters of propriety.

Regardless, allow me to proceed. I am desirous of knowing how I may go about putting an item such as this up for a vote (a very good idea!). I admit my ignorance with many of the tools of the wiki and would like to know if there is a forum or procedure that may instruct one on how to go about this.

Lastly, I was wondering if there is a way that we may perhaps correspond more properly via e-mail? I looked at your site and though you mention that you have e-mail, I cannot find what it may be. I would be very interested in perhaps being able to chat without having to leave notes here on your discussion page (pardon my cluttering of this page with the continuation of my addendums - hah!). And please be advised that my interest stems from nothing more than intellectual curiostiy. You seem academically inclined and I do enjoy talking with such people - especially non-American (I will admit to living in the US Heartland, thereby excluding me from most cultures more exotic than the occasional visiting Chicagoan - hah). So if you would feel inclined, I would be pleased to know your e-mail. If you would feel safer about it, you may post it here for a short time, then delete it after a day or less. Or if you'd rather I post my e-mail, then I'll accomodate that as well. Or if there is some third way - say, a website or some such thing.

As it is, I thank you for your time and consideration. Take care!

Sincerely,

Tom the wikireader 72.49.191.157 02:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have absolutely nothing to apologize for, my friend. This page is for talk, and you seem to be the most polite person here (counting myself). The link to my email is at the left-hand panel. Please let me know if it doesn't work for you. Oh, and for WP votes see WP:POLLS. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luther and the Jews[edit]

Good eye! Thanks for watching the page. I've been... occupied with the Jesus article. --CTSWyneken 04:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New additions to comparative statistics table[edit]

Did you find a source for reliable and neutral statistics for the new columns proposed? It would probably be better to discuss the sources beforehand in the talk section. Thanks. Lokiloki 10:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humus it is not appropriate to continually revert my changes so that the Palestinian refugees are presented in the same column as the Jewish population change from 1948 to current. They are totally different. For one thing, the Pal refugee column shows CURRENT refugees as defined by CIA factbook; if you keep the columns as you want them, that means that there are 0 Jewish refugees in, say, Tunisia, since the population declined... do you see my point? These are totally different numbers we are dealing with, and it is POV to force them together. Thanks Lokiloki 12:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rfc[edit]

Hi Humus Sapiens. I thought you may be interested in this. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Siddiqui Cheers. --doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 19:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for having looked at it. I was a bit in a hurry on that day, so my message was maybe a bit short. Regards, doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 09:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine[edit]

By the way I meant to type everyone disagreed with me in the Email, just in case I sounded like a rude prick.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"vandalism"[edit]

I recently received this message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.8.135.234&redirect=no but I have not edited wikipedia for almost a year and have never done so from this IP address.

I guess back in November that IP address was assigned to someone else. It's OK, no action required. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian territories[edit]

Hi Humus sapiens - do you still feel that the recent edits to the intro of this article keeps the focus of this article as a geographic area, or do you see a lot more politics now? Ramallite ^(talk) 23:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply; notwithstanding the objections I had about the changes, I was just a little concerned that the intro makes the article seem more about a political entity rather than a geographic location, which is something I thought we were trying to avoid. In any case, it's not a big deal. שבת שלום Ramallite ^(talk) 23:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main page[edit]

It was not as bad as I would have predicted. Talk page got a little weirder than usual, though. Jkelly 04:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it was still a fun day, huh? Thank Ra, it ended well and it's just as well that it's ended... --Chodorkovskiy 06:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Et tu[edit]

If you had looked at the edit history, you would notice that I labeled the statistics change as "09:53, 19 March 2006 (hist) (diff) Arab-Israeli conflict (→Intifada of 2000 - -- statistics update as of yesterday)" Lokiloki 10:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Based on this edit you made, I assume you are the anon who made this edit. Can you please answer the questions I left on the talk page here Raul654 00:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, was that supposed to be page 253 or 263? (the footnote name and explicit statement are different) Raul654 00:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, see my recent edit - I removed the inline referneces until an actual citation is provided. Raul654 00:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Memorial at kibbutz Yad Mordechai.jpg[edit]

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

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

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 22:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitism[edit]

Thanks for reverting me. Undoubtedly I was out of line. I was reverting an anon who I had blacklisted for dubious edits elsewhere. I was also skeptical because of the title of the article and the fact that he was changing a link from one concept to a seemingly disparate concept. Had this edit been performed by a registered user, with an edit summary, or had this same anon not been reverted previously on that page, I would have probably left it or looked at the talk page. Now that I do so, I realize that I made a mistake. Thanks for letting me know. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Jews[edit]

Could you keep an eye on this article? Some guy is challenging its factual accuracy based on some misunderstandings. Aucam an^Talk 07:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protocols of the Elders of Zion discussion[edit]

On 20 March 2006 you replied to a comment I posted on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion talk page. Here is a portion of the thread:

"Sorry to be frank, but you're full of it. If the Jews ruled the world, do you think 6,000,000 of them would've been liquidated in the 1930s-40s? The Jews are downtrodden, degraded, persecuted, and even murdered, to say they rule the earth is a misinformed and incorrect disillusion. Эйрон Кинни (t) 03:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Kinney, please retract your last comment. First, ad hom is never justified and second, I think you completely misunderstood Raul654 here. He's making fun of conspirator-wannabes. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)"

I did not direct my comment to Raul, it was directed to Feta, who I understood to be an anti-Semite, as presented in their comments before mine (thus: "i knew that the jewishes rule whole planet, but i didnt expect to rule wikipedia too..obviously/unfortunately wikipedia is a good means to promote jewish propaganda against EVERYONE"). And at no time did I make any personal attacks or use ad hominem, and if you feel I did, please point out a specific part of my comment and tell me if you believe it was.

But, in any respect, I accessed the talk page thread just today, and I failed to remove it. And by this time, it was archived, so I didn't want to remove it. Эйрон Кинни (t) 04:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and glad we could mediate it. Эйрон Кинни (t) 08:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIC[edit]

The use of extended quotations should be in wikiquote. You should not rewrite the AIC conflict to present opinions and analysis before fact -- and by fact I mean, for example, international law, and other things. Your attempt to force different analyses, bestseller-or-not, into the very front of the AIC is inappropriate. If you wish to create an "analysis" section, that is fine, but to present opinion before fact is inappropriate.

The use of the reference is fine, but it is inappropriate to put a Bush analyst's extended quote as the very first thing. Arguments should be split Israeli and Arab, or, if not that, they should be presented in an alternating fashion. The first arguments should be the ones backed by fact, and analyses and opinions (such as the one you quote) should come secondarily. Anything less would be POV.

Good to see you back,

Thanks, Lokiloki 05:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian territories yet again[edit]

Hi. So, after two weeks on holidays, I came back to Wikipedia and saw that the intro of this article was now not just as bad but rather an awful lot worse than before, and is again trying to talk about the topic as if it was an itemn of terminology despite the fact that the article it introduces is clearly about a territory. In an access of rage, I returned to something closer to the form that was agreed after the argument between you, me and Ramallite. As my blood is now at a slightly cooler 90 degrees or so, I'm contacting you to express the hope that we can continue editing this page in a collaborative manner and on the basis that it is about a place rather than about a phrase, and to reiterate me view that the version we agreed on back then is probably the best starting point. Best wishes, Palmiro | Talk 20:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I imagine we're going to have some fun; luckily, I probably have too much work to spend too much time on it! Palmiro | Talk 21:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I[edit]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue I - March 2006

Project news

An independent military history peer review has been created for the benefit of the project. A number of articles have already been reviewed, receiving significantly more feedback within the project than they did on the generic peer review page.
The project's Collaboration of the Fortnight got off to a great start with Ferdinand Foch and is now focusing on the military history of Spain.
Two new task forces—dealing with warfare during classical antiquity and the Middle Ages—have been created.
An effort to build a catalogue of high-quality maps for use in military history articles is now underway.
The newly-formed translation department is looking for volunteers to help with translating featured articles from other-language Wikipedias.

From the Coordinators

Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in.

Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months.

Kirill Lok s hin, Lead Coordinator

Current proposals

Proposed guidelines for categories of military people are currently being discussed. A number of issues have already been resolved, but the proposed scheme is still in draft form and further input would be very welcome.

delivered by Loopy ^e 04:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

AIC[edit]

Hi Humus:

I want to warn you that you are approaching your limit on reverts for this article. I believe you have already done 3 or 4. I haven't counted. Please remember that reverts consist of "substantially undoing the work of other editors".

The intro section should comprehensively, yet briefly, touch on all of the major areas of dispute in the topic. In English, the word "viability" does not mean that it currently exists: it means that there are issues and conflicts about its creation. Thus, when I say that the viability of a Palestinian state is part of the conflict, it simply means that this issue is part of the conflict, which it is.

Thanks, Lokiloki 22:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian refugees[edit]

Humus - Sorry not to have replied sooner. There are two useful books searchable at Google Print - Bowker's Palestinian Refugees' and Takkenberg's The Status of Palestinian Refugees in International Law. Bowker deals with the issues raised in the first of your questions on page 65-66: "the descendants of those who left in 1948 were included because the defining characteristics of refugee status in general - inability to return... and lack of national protection by the government of the country of origin - also applied to them." Takkenberg deals with the second of your questions on page 195 of his book; basically under current arrangements the answer is "no". Best wishes, --Ian Pitchford 11:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add two points. One is that it isn't all descendants but only those in the male line. It is also the case that female refugees become excluded from the rules if they marry male non-refugees. These rules violate several UN conventions on gender equality but somehow survived (at least until 1994 which is my latest information). The other is that the rules for being able to register as a Palestinian refugee are different from the rules for being eligible for UN assistance. To be eligible for assistance, one has to be registered but there is also a test of geographic location (somewhere UNRWA operates) and you have to have a demonstrated need of assistance. If you send me mail I can send you a detailed paper on both these issues. --Zero^talk 13:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_Arab_transference_from_Israel

Persian Jews[edit]

Hey Humus, do you think you could look at this article, there are a few people making some unusual arguments on the talk page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]