User talk:Shamir1/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Regarding the image Image:Bar rafaeli2.jpg

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

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Izabel_goulart.jpg

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

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in 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. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 21:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Natalie_niv2.jpg

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

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in 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. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 20:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Ahdout

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

[edit] Jonathan Ahdout

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

I hope that takes care of it!

Lol, well, you should tell him to mention being Jewish in the next interview he does. That way I can cite a source for it here. :) JackO'Lantern 07:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:39_1_sbl.jpg

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

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Alessandra.jpg

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

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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

[edit] Jesse Jackson

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

[edit] Signing your Comments

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

[edit] Liv Tyler

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Your comments on User talk:Aucaman

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

[edit] Catagories and Isabella of Castile and Martin Luther

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] List of Czech Jews

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

[edit] Hezbollah Article

Hi Shamir,

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

[edit] License tagging for Image:Arenaaug8.jpg

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

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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

[edit] Gilad Shalit

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

[edit] Care to comment?

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Entirefamily.jpg)

This file may be deleted.

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

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

[edit] Images on User page

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

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Israel hezbollah bodyarmor.jpg)

This file may be deleted.

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

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

[edit] Smile

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

Æon ^{Insane Ward} 20:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

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

[edit] Article on terrorism

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

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

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

[edit] It's good to know

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

[edit] Your comments on my talk page

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

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

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

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

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

I don't have time to respond to everything you said right now, but you are seriously confused about a lot of things. Do not think that you will convince me of anything when you take bullshit about my own country (which I know much better than you) and throw it in my face as if it's fact. That includes statements like:

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

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

ps standwithus.com is not a verifiable source for that text you keep entering into Al-Aqsa Intifada. Please see my comment in that article's discussion page. Ramallite ^(talk)

[edit] Palestinian exodus

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

[edit] This edit war is getting absurd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Your edits to Human Rights Watch

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

[edit] Your user page

Please refer to this policy Wikipedia:User_pages#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F which states "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian." --Inahet 01:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pema Chödrön is a Jew?

re: your edit

Is there a reference?

I reverted it. (above comment is also mine) - Nearfar 14:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You reverted it again. Jubus doesn't convince me as a 'reference'. Does some online article or biography mention Pema Chodron as a Jew? If so, can you provide a link to it? - Nearfar 05:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] check out these pages

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

[edit] Category:Hindu mathematiciansCfd, Category:Jewish mathematicians

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

[edit] West Bank

It's a violation of WP:V pure and simple. Please revert your edit. --Ian Pitchford 19:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Just read the policy - it's very clear. I don't see any point in arguing about it as I can't see the dispute resolution process upholding a violation of policy. --Ian Pitchford 19:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Thanks for the smile dude

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

[edit] Israel related issues

Posted somethings here, wonder if it's accessed regularly by users. such as this [1]. Amoruso 01:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bush's comments

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] West Bank

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

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

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

[edit] email address

you should make one my friend. Yishar Koach. Amoruso 01:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks. you can send me an email through my user page or specifiy one in preferences (that way people can send you emails without knowing your address unless you reply them. you probably know that). it's better not to expose the address on wikipedia I suppose. Amoruso 03:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

at my user/talk page, you'll see the section "toolbox" on the left where you can choose "E-mail this user". You can also put your own email into the "my preferences" section and then it will work for e-mailing you too. Amoruso 06:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Yahoo! article

Hi Shamir,

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

[edit] Look pal

You can stop whinning about vandalism and "untruths" and all that other crap, because I have done nothing of the sort. I'm going to get tough here, this is a damn encyclopedia, and if you want something to be in it, you're going to have to prove that it's true. So for the last damn time, if you claim something is a "fact", then get a source for it. If you refuse to and don't source your claims, then I'll assume you weren't able to get reliable sources for them. It's just that simple, you either get sources for you supposed "facts" or you stop your whinning. This feels like history 101 all over again, if you claim something to be true, you must be able to prove it using a reliable source. Now stop complaining that I've removed your unsourced nonsense, and get sources to back up what you say, otherwise, you have no facts, only claims. Use primary sources if you can, but if it's not reasonable or practical, we'll need to agree on what secondary sources are acceptable. A student of history 23:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion page for the new list of points of argument between us I've made. I went through the entire timeline and picked out all the issues that we cannot resolve. My point here, is that many of these issues are not simply POV disputes, they are disputes of fact. Sources will make all the difference here. And lol, you keep on embarassing yourself. Have you ever heard a scholar say "lefty" to someone, as if it means anything at all? "Lefty", that's a good one. I happen to be on the left of the political spectrum, and it seems as though you're on the right. But what the hell does that have to do with anything at all? In my experience, the only kinds of people who use these left/right issues to denegrade or insult others, are those people who lack ability and as such, resort to cheap, meaningless remarks like this. But thanks for the late night chuckle. Now, put some of that cleverness into finding reliable sources for your claims.

[edit] Someone who cant do simple research ...

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

[edit] Religious significance of Jerusalem

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

[edit] Nurit_Peled-Elhanan

I see that you support Israel. Can you help me make the above article NPOV? Thanks. Tidaress 03:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit. Although is it not an occupation rather than administration? UN resolutions state the same. Tidaress 20:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaza casualties

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

[edit] Third holiest site in ISLAM

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

[edit] Mashallah

Hi, Yes, persians are not arabs. Mashallah was an Arab from either the arabian peninusla or most probably from egypt, and less probably from khorasan, because the astrological methods he used was typical to egyptians astrologers. For more see his talk page [[2]]. After telling you this, can you do me a favor? There are two couples who continouesly insert his "persian" ethnicity, disregarding all other sources. Can you keep a watch on that article? Thanks Jidan 06:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

Still trying to paint me as an intolerant revisionist huh? Only intolerant revisionists insist on painting their adversaries as intolerant revisionists, or so my uncle Mahmoud Al-Rothberg used to tell me. In any case, let's see here: A long time ago, you dismissed the notion of the universities built for Palestinians as well as the training of police.

I did dismiss the notion that Israelis built universities for Palestinians yes. I said that Jordan prohibited it, but Israel did not, but Israel did not build them, in fact, they usually shut them down forcefully. I don't recall ever saying anything about police training, maybe you can refresh my memory.

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

Correct.

And yes then after oslo, Israel for a time did help train police.

I am not aware that Israel helped trained police. They may have, but from my understanding the police were trained in neighbouring states (unfortunately) and occasionally (including currently) by the American CIA.

Another source says it was 7 universities that had been three-teacher training institutions before were sponsored in part by the Israeli government and Jewish donors.

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

If you choose not to believe it, its fine, you are within your rights.

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

PS, have you seen the documentary Promises?

No.

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

[edit] Walid Shoebat and Bethlehem

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

I know it says according to his biography because I put that in. The point I'm making is that we need to distinguish facts from assertions. The facts are:

1. Shoebat says that he was born in Bethlehem.

2. Shoebat says that Bethlehem belongs to Israel.

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

[edit] Israel Defense Forces

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

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

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

[edit] FYI

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

[edit] Boxes

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

Is this a box you want as well?

This user is Jewish.

10:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

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

[edit] My stance

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

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

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

[edit] Timeline of Israeli-Palestinian conflict

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

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

[edit] To archive sections without time stamps

Just add a time stamp via "~~~~~" (five tildas). I have done that for you this time. JRSpriggs 10:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:RefugeesEng.jpg

Ian Pitchford 19:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli official historiography

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

if what they claim is (maybe) not true, it is true that it is what they claim.

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

[edit] Barack Obama

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

Barack insists the U.S. should use "American moral authority and credibility" to solve the Middle East crisis. "Our first and immutable commitment must be to the security of Israel, our only true ally in the Middle East and the only democracy," he says.^[1]¶

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

[edit] Re. Religious significance of Jerusalem

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

[edit] Cooperation - I agree!

Yes I agree we chould co-operate and move about very carefully. That's why I have invited you to discuss changes in the following section [3]. Perhaps we should both agree upon an informal version of the text before the page is unprotected.Bless sins 16:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)