User talk:Isarig/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Gush Etzion

Unless you're willing to start a new page dedicated specifically to either the historic region or the governmental division, the level of overlap between the two would justify keeping them together. Good luck TewfikTalk 20:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping them together - just thought it worth mentioning that places like Kedar, which is a settlement east of Jerusalem is not part of Gush Etzion, even though it is a member of the Gush Etzion Regional council.

Har Homa

Hi - where did you find the info about the lands for the Har Homa settlement being mostly taken from Jewish owners? Is that correct? Thanks. Ramallite (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=3&x_article=37. And before you get started on the "CAMERA is a baised source" angle, I'd point out that the info is not being disputed even by the likes of Tanya Reinhardt, a clearly pro-Palestinians source: http://www.tau.ac.il/~reinhart/political/SettleOnlyForPeace.html
Here's an additonal source, which I believe is quite neutral: http://www.fmep.org/reports/vol07/no3/04-har_homa_at_a_glance.html "Ownership: Palestinian residents of the nearby villages of Um Tuba and Bet Sahour own approximately 33 percent (694 dunams) of the entire Har Homa planning area. Israelis own approximately 75 percent (1,300 dunams), one-third of which was purchased before 1948. The remainder was purchased after 1967."

I wasn't necessarily disputing, just curious because I hadn't heard that before. Thanks. Ramallite (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding emboldens

The Ma'alot massacre mention is something I very likely would have added myself on a 2nd read (I had copied that passage from another WP article, then on to another, in a round of edits I have little memory of due to reasons whose toxicity go beyond the scope of these parentheses), and in that case you would'nt have removed it (?). Thus, next time, I encourage you to be bold and to add such important qualifications yourself. El_C 06:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because it is simply not true that the DFLP does not carry out terrorist actions within Israel. The Ma'alot massacre is probably the best known, and certainly the deadliest of the terror attacks it carried out within Israel, but it is not the only one, and is not an "abberation". Even post-Oslo, it carried out attacks such as the murder of an Israeli citizen in Gadera. If you prefer this hypocrisy be spelled out explictly in the article (along the lines of "the DFLP publicly says it opposes attacks within Israel, but in practice carries them out like the other groups") - fine, I've edited the article accordingly.

I prefer the truth as backed by evidence over telepathy; as conveyed through collegiality over hostility. And you may well wish to find out which Wikipedia article this passage was copied from, so that you can change it accordingly, no? Are you even interested? Please let me know. El_C 21:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What part of my change do you wish to see backed by evidence? The DFLP's involvement in numerous attacks in Israeli territory from the 70's on is well documented and not disputed by anyone. As to their post-Oslo attacks, here is a reference: [1] Instead of dropping hints about what I should be interested in doing, you can either edit the original article yourself, or name that articel and propose that I make the change there, too. Eventually, I'll probably get around to it.
That part and that part only — the only claim you've made: the Gadera attack of Mar '94. I know the DFLP committed numerous attacks from the 70s on, that was not the issue. You should have added that link the first time, avoiding the above dispute for naught. Hopefuly, this is something you can keep in mind for next time so as to avoid a needless expension of time & energy. Yes, I can "edit the original article [myself], or name [it] and propose [you] make the change there" once I'm able to remeber which article it was from. El_C 23:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

King David Hotel bombing

Hello, I've posted a response to what you said about the King David Hotel Bombing being an attack on a military target in the talk pages of the King David Hotel bombing article which I'm hoping you'll reply to. By the way, the original version of the article which stated the British police report said that the warning was delivered to the hotel manager, not the officer in charge, was correct. --ZScarpia 14:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole blind revert?

Hi, could you please not revert my changes without explanation. They were clearly not vandalism. Thx. --64.230.126.34 04:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please explain the problems with the edits I made. Be aware of the 3 reversion rule. Remember that Wikipedia is all about being bold -see WP:Bold. Thankx. --64.230.126.34 04:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I hit "Save" before adding my comments. You've made drastic controversial changes to the article's structure. for example - you've lumped togther the recent charge of Cole mistranslating Iranian president's comments with a old controversy regarding Cole's disputing a MEMRI translation, you put cole's critics' views under a heading which implies they are his views - etc.. Please discuss such major changes on Talk before making changes Isarig 04:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
We need a section on Cole's views. I am modeling the article structure after Hitchens' article. Yes, currently his views are being given by his detractors and we should fix that. But at least giving him a place to present his views is better than just incorporating them into the controversies -- check Christopher Hitchens article. It's handled a controversial character in a really good way. Yes, my edits are not the final draft but I think it pushes it in the right direction. Also separating out the legal section into the appropriate controseries makes sense -- and "Campus Watch dossier" really did need its own section. --64.230.126.34 04:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll wait to see your final version. Isarig 04:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no final version -- it's wikipedia -- there is just better. But separating out views from controversies is a good thing. You can help fix up the views section. I didn't just make up the views section -- those words already existed in the controversy section, thus I am not making him look any worse or better than he did before. Chronological order also makes sense for the controveries, I can't see how it could be worse, unless you had a favorite controversy you wanted to lead with. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 04:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Air Intelligence Squadron

In addition to the dictionary, www.knesset.gov.il/committees/eng/docs/intelligence_complete.pdf, for ex., uses "Air Intelligence Squadron." El_C 04:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Knesset is wrong (or rather, the person who translated the Hebrew report into english got it wrong). A squadron in Hebrew is "tayesyt". The AF Intelligence Unit is "Lahak Modi'in Avir" . Lahak, to the best of my knowledge, is "Group". A dictionary is not the place to look for the fine distinctions between Army unit designations. Isarig 04:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you'll find that Israeli dictionaries do actually tend to account for these subtleties, but in any case, that is an official translation. I'd rather focus on official usage (official translation-wise) than linguistic precision. Group of course would foremost be קבוצה. While טייסת indeed means squadron; squadron in English can also mean שייטת or יחידה — with respect to the latter, I guess it could be the Air Intelligence Unit, except we're already using the word unit in "unit of," and since the Knesset translator uses squadron anyway [not to mention odd vis.a.vis. יחידה 8200], I'm less inclined to modify it without citations (i.e. any other official translation for the name). El_C 05:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, Directorate, I see. Thank you for your persistence. And thanks for also adding חיל המודיעין — since I was the one who elsewhere had written that it "has been detached from Aman since the Yom Kipur War, but remains under its jurisdiction," I should have noticed it was missing from the Hebrew Wikipedia article. I'll see if I can start an article on it in the following days. El_C 01:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hold off a sec

I want to revert to your edit yesterday -then try and sort the Cole article out. Armon 14:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


Karsh paper text

Hi Isarig. I downloaded the text of the Karsh paper "Dear Diary, Juan Cole's bad blog" from the NR subscription site. It is here User:Elizmr/drafts at the top of the Cole section. It is a quite well written article, makes valid points, and is a solid source. I see Lee is bashing you on your sources, so please feel free to take a look at this one and quote it in the Cole article. I don't have much time for editing today. elizmr 19:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole and WP:3RR

Please see WP:3RR. You have reverted the same passage six times now within two hours. bcasterline t 19:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You are now blocked from editing for 16 hours.--CSTAR 19:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. I should also mention that the relevant (bureacratic) citations for the block are here: Talk:Juan Cole#Wikipedia:3RR violation.--CSTAR 02:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

NPA Warning

WP:NPA Cease the personal attacks at Talk:Juan Cole. FeloniousMonk 15:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Of note, Juan Cole has been a contentious page recently. While this user may or may not have made personal attacks, many personal attacks have been made against this user (I can document if you like). I would ask that an even hand be taken against all makers of personal attacks rather than singling out one individual for censure. elizmr 17:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Cole page

Isarig--I also found Jim's comment on the 3RR very unbalanced and called him on it, but would urge you to try to refrain from all assumptions of bad faith on this contentious page. Elizmr 02:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstanding Cole?

I wrote a fairly lengthly reply to a recent addition of yours to Cole controversy page -- it is on the talk page of the Cole controversy page. --Ben Houston 23:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the key point that I disagree with is this point of yours "for allowing 500,000 Jews into Palestine- thus enabling a Jewish state." Cole doesn't make that last connection, you inferred it. A good compromise would be to include Cole's quote without adding your interpretation of it -- I would not complain about that and it would let readers decide themselve what he is talking about. It is true that Cole's viewed on Israel and the rest of the Middle East are complex and do not fall solidly into a black-and-white pro-Israeli like classification. --Ben Houston 15:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of anti-Semitism

I've checked your sources and they do not actually accuse Cockburn, Finkelstein or Shahak of anti-Semitism. They are uncomplementary but I could not find any actual explicit charge of anti-Semitism. Homey 22:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll grant you Sahak. I still can't find anything in your citation re Finkelstein or Cockburn.Homey 02:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Your citation doesn't link Chomsky to either men - that remains your inference. Do you have any citation that claims Chomsky is anti-Semitic because of his support of Cockburn and/or Finkelstein? You have to confine yourself to what your citations say, making inferences beyond that, or reading into what they have said as you have done, is original research and is not permitted. Homey 02:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Where I come from...

when you post something like this: In response, a Fox News spokesperson said "Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network, and now his mind. We wish him well." The Anti-Defamation League, to whom Turner had apologized in the past for a similar comparison, said Turner is "a recidivist who hasn't learned from his past mistakes." you say, "Boo-ya!" :-) Nice job. Lawyer2b 05:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC

WP:AN3

Isarig, you might want to familiarize yourself with this policy too, which you have violated or have come very close to violating. I believe the better practice is to follow the guidelines and warn you before reporting. Take Care! --Will 01:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

See Report at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#.5B.5BUser:Isarig.5D.5D_reported_by_.5B.5BUser:Will314159.5D.5D Take Care! Will314159 19:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Isarig. you escaped the 3RR b/c of a typo wrong refernce. Quit messing with the James Joyner reference. You are way over 5 on it. And quit transposing the criticism. Pro then con. That is standard order. Take Care! --Will(talk) 02:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Very good strategy. The vandal playing the victim. Well the victim has gotten out of jail and reported the champion reverter for 3RR. Take Care! --Will(talk) 00:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Fred Wilson

I brought up the AfD for a review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review if you want to comment. ~ trialsanderrors 03:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Court ruling

Um, quite clearly they did quite that or they wouldn't have been taken to court! Please look at the source. Homey 03:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, quite clearly they tried to do that, and the court ruled they can't. thus to say ithey could do it is wrong. Isarig 03:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless they did do it - read the source. The court found the practice illegal. Yes, legally they couldn't do it but nevertheless they had done it to that point (and tried to do it even after the court ruling). Do not remove sourced statements again, if you want to nitpick them, fine, change "could" to "did" but don't remove any reference to the court ruling. Your objection also doesn't explain why you removed the reference to the Sharon government's bill to legalise the practice of Jewish only settlemetns. Homey 03:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You are the one nitpicking here, and your entire position is preposterous - using a court ruling that established that a certain action by a gov't agency is illegal to claim that it was legal until that point. It as if someone was to write that until the US supreme court ruled that burning the flag is protected under the freedom of speech amendment, that such acts were illegal. It's nonsense. The source you cite does not say what you claim - it is your POV OR. Isarig 04:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The source, by an Israeli law professor, says there were "hundreds" of Jewish only villages. Please read the source and stop trying to censor facts you don't like. Homey 17:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What part of "Until the Supreme Court Qaadan v. Katzir decision, Arabs could not acquire land in any of the hundreds of settlements of this kind existing in Israel." do you not understand? The quotation is from an Israeli law prof who wrote up a paper on the case, a source you didn't even look at before deleting it, judging by your reference to it as a "BBC report". Homey 17:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:CIVIL and warn you that you can (and will) be blocked for violating it. I understand the statement very well. Yes, there were (and are) hundreds of villages were currently only Jews live. This does not mean the ILA could prevent Arabs from buying houses there, as the court ruling shows. If you want to cite an Israeli professor who, like you, falsely believes this to be the case, go right ahead, but don't claim this is a fact - it is that person's opinion. Isarig 17:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, Zeq got banned by the ArbComm from various articles for doing just what you're doing, removing sourced material. I strongly suggest that you don't do it again. I'm afraid an Israeli law prof is a credible source for interpreting a court ruling whilst you are not. If you can find a source that contradicts the law prof then do so and make an addition or modification to the refernce but do not remove sourced material again. Homey 17:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"This does not mean the ILA could prevent Arabs from buying houses there, as the court ruling shows"

The court ruled that the ILA's practice was illegal and ordered them to stop. Until then the ILA did just that - again, according to the law prof's gloss on the court ruling Arabs could not acquire land in any of the hundreds of settlements of this kind existing in Israel', the ILA did prevent Arabs from leasing houses there. Where is your source that says otherwise?Homey 17:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Empty threats will get you nowhere. If you feel you have a case- by all means take it up to ArbComm. The claims you are making are not sourced. The quote you cite from Prof. Kedar is not an interpretation of a court ruling, it is an unsourced claim, proven false by the ruling. Prof Kedar is welcome to his POV, incorrect though it may be, and you are welcome to quote him, saying he believes this to be the case- but you can't state it as fact. If you are interested in sources taht show that Arabs can and did buy or lease ILA and JNF lands - have a look at the CAMERA refernce I've provided. Isarig 17:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Gaza Beach Blast

I've reverted your statement about Hamas having previously violated the ceasefire. They probably have, but your bald statement about it lacked both sources and had unneeded POV. Ive done a lot of work on this article, but I think that flat POV doesn't help. Cheers V. Joe 14:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair, depending on how good the article looks :-) V. Joe 15:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I will add that when I carefully editted this text to reflect the referenced source from AP, Isarig claimed that I had "removed sourced material". I did nothing of the sort. 69.140.65.251 03:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Fox News Channel controversies and allegations of bias

Please stop revert warring, and please don't fall for personal attacks made against you. --GunnarRene 15:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Hipocrite/Archive/Jul06#NPA
User_talk:GunnarRene#Perhaps

RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Apartheid (disambiguation)]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.SlimVirgin (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

An Offer

Read the Libertarianism and Conservatism articles (don't just look at the pretty infoboxes). Pay attention to the reference in both to classical liberalism -- the forerunner in many ways of conservatism. Also note the links to Austrian School, Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism in the Libertarianism article. Compare them with neo-conservatism under Bush. •Jim62sch• 01:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Isarig

Check out your user page! - CobaltBlueTony 20:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

State religion

Thank you for pointing out the error, the correction has been made. However, you might want to look at the semantics of the entry for Israel in the state religion article, I'm not sure why it is included in the article because, as you pointed out, it does not have a state religion or an established church. I'd recommend removing the entry entirely or adding a subsection with more detail in regards to its nature, instead of grouping it in the category of "Jewish Countries" along with nations with state religions. ekrub-ntyh talk 18:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

Isarig, I tried to e-mail you but you haven't set one in your preferences. Would you mind contacting me? slimvirgin at gmail dot com. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of a Section from 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

I believe you just deleted an entire section from 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. When you have a minute, would you mind joining me for a discussion at [2] please? FightCancer 01:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

List of terrorist organisations

Re your recent edit. Please provide a reference for your assertion that the PLO is itself a terrorist organisation. Nothing in the main PLO article indicates this. Everything on wikipedia must be Verifiable! Thanks --AndrewRT 21:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I am keen to build up this article - which is highly subject to NPOV disputes - in a sustainable way and I think the best way is to provide sources as much as possible so that people don't remove entries where they shouldn't. Many constituent components of the PLO have been designated as terrorist organisations, which is why they are listed. However I am not aware of any source which confirms a government listing the PLO, as distinct from a component of the PLO, as terrorist. If you are aware of a source that does this it would be most helpful. Thanks. --AndrewRT 19:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Article now has excellent sources on the PLO so thanks very much if it was you, or otherwise please ignore the above comment. --AndrewRT 20:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Bint Jbeil

The dispute has been steeled in favor of 18 casualties by the ruling of the administrator RyanGerbil10 if people continue to presist in removing the arbitrated version then I will allert the administrators, and have them enforce the rulling. [3][4]--72.145.156.233 20:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

3rr warning

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. we've already had one user blocked under this, we don't want another block.--Freepsbane 13:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your concern Isarig, while I have only reverted twice on the same topic, and again only twice today, I have decided to err on the side of caution and self rev. once again thank you for discussing this on the talk page. I’m glad we could be civil about all this revert warring.--Freepsbane 15:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense?

May I ask why you felt that a merge of HaIrgun and Irgun would be nonsensical? DS 22:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

...ah. I had recognized "ha" = "the", but had not realized that "Irgun" was wuch a generic term. Thank you; I concede the error. DS 11:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Casualties

The article clearly says:

 19 people are still hospitalized
 37 people sustained moderate wounds
325 were lightly injured

people who suffered from shock stands at 875.

... which sums up to 1256 which is close to the sum of 1293 the article claims.

MX44 06:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted down because people peeing in their pants because of schock is not the normal way of counting casualties. And "light wounds" are what the kids gets in kindergarden on a daily basis. They cry a bit and then you hug them, and thats it!
Excaggerating the casualty numbers only makes the Israelies look dishonest! Is that what you want? MX44 06:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Six-Day War

Isarig, I have filed a "Request for Comment" on this article, which I hope will result in the involvement of a number of other editors. If that fails we can request mediation and arbitration. I see no justification for deletion of well-sourced relevant material. --Ian Pitchford 07:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Re 3RR

Hello. Which 3RR? Where did you see me reverting? -- Szvest 17:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you answer my question? -- Szvest 17:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
You have twice added "alleged" to the captions of IDF video - Yes, that's not a revert edit.
have an additional 2 edits in the last 24 hours in which your own edit summary says it is a revert. - Yes, Check 'em out to see to what they are refering.
So please, refrain from threatening me if i am not violating anything. -- Szvest 18:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from mischaracterizing my edits in your summaries.

To describe providing an English source of multiple Israeli estimates of Hezbollah militant deaths as "removing sourced material" is misleading, please refrain from mischaracterizing my edits in your summaries from this point on. It did not go unnoticed, and was not appreciated.

Thanks, Italiavivi 06:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Your flippant invocation of Wikipedia policy belies a lack of understanding them; that, or you think I will scurry away if you threaten to "report" me on the Administrator's Noticeboard. Feel free to report me, let me know how it goes. I look forward to an administrator asking why you insist on removing (sourced) lower death toll estimates from varying Israeli ministers. Thanks, Italiavivi 17:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Your report was declared invalid. Now, let's get back to the factual merit of your repeated removals and refusal to acknowledge any Israeli minister's estimate save the very highest one. Thanks, Italiavivi 15:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Isarig

If you have a chance, would you mind e-mailing me? Jayjg (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't insist on POV sentence

Hi

I put a comment for you in the talk page[5]. Please obey wikipedia policy and try to be neutral.--Sa.vakilian 12:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions

Please continue to spot politically motivated deletions from articles like Palestinian exodus. Thanks. Amoruso 09:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Livingstone/MEMRI

You're aptly demonstrating complete hypocrasy and blatant bias, Isarig. You seem happy to use the word 'contoversial' when its a Muslim scholar, but you repeatedly removed the same word from the lead when it referred to MEMRI's practices. I bent over backwards to make that paragraph acceptable to the various parties. Don't pretend to care about scholarly rigour when you obviously just want to push your own view. Famousdog 14:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Censoring disclosure of Argentine prosecutor's Jewish faith

On October 25, 2006, Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman filed warrants for a number of Iranian leaders. Someone edited an article on the event to note tht Mr. Nisman is Jewish, and cited it with a credible link. For some reason Isariq didn't want this information disclosed and edited out that information. I added it back in and will monitor changes to the page. 75.17.183.177 04:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

what relevance does the alleged Jewishness of the lead prosecutor have to do with the article? Other than to push the POV that it is religiously motivated, that is?Isarig 06:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
First of all, how dare you give yourself the authority to decide what is and isn't relevant on Wikipedia. You are nothing more than someone with enough free time to spend hours a day censoring articles.

Second, in case you have been in a cave, there is currently a global dispute between Iranians and Jewish people. The prosecutor's religion could have very likely played a role in his discretionary decision. Even if it didn't play a role, there is no need to censor that information. I don't want to waste my time disputing this with you further. Please call a responsible Wikipedia moderator. --183.177 07:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Isarig - if you stop accusing people of jew-baiting (based, as far as I can tell, on a nasty piece of OR), then people of good faith will attempt to stop the likes of 183.177 from introducing the fact of someone's Jewishness into articles.
If, on the other hand, the most important weapon that the Zionists have left is to defend Israel for it's (debatable) "Jewish-ness", then they must be largely to blame when people like 183.177 act as if "the Jews" are the enemy. The likes of 183.177 will feel fully entitled to label those following the Jewish religion - potentiallly right up to and including the yellow star.
Is that what you want? Because your behaviour at the moment suggests that it is!
One of my very first contributions in here some 6 weeks ago was to come to your support over not wanting the phrase "self-hating Jew" to appear in the project. I said "It's high time that a near-bar be placed on the use of the words "Jew" and "Jewish". Except, obviously, in cases where it genuinally refers to practising members of that faith, going about their affairs as regular members of a (usually minority) religious community." Your response was to go to my UserPage and (politely) warn me off for using your Userpage to ("vent any and all grievences you may have regarding WP or politics.").
A very strange response - either that, or it was calculated to incite anti-semitism in me. I didn't ask you then which explanation was correct - perhaps you're prepared to tell me now? PalestineRemembered 19:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
PS - I have been to 183.177's Talk Page and warned him against falling into the trap of the Zionists, or acting in the anti-semitic ways that they apparently want him to. PalestineRemembered 19:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul Reynolds article on BBC

Talk:Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute. Isarig, You seem to have a lot of respect for the "good faith" ethic of Wikipedia considering you have now accused me several times of lying while freely admitting that you edited my post before checking my source and trusting to your psychic powers to know what an article is about without having read it. I've explained what happened and have contacted the BBC for an explanation of when, how and why their online article was changed after I cited it. Hopefully they'll get back to me, but otherwise I'd appreciate a bit a this "good faith" you witter on about. So far, you've accused me of vandalism, sockpuppetry and lying over a simple mistake whilst carefully ignoring your own shoot-first behaviour. Hardly in the spirit of things, is it? Famousdog 19:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC) (Whoops, wasn't signed in)

rules!

You're not into rules much when your friend Lividore makes personal insults are you? Rm uk 16:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

not a personal insult; just an observation. but if u took it personally, i apologise :) Rm uk 17:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Check history on 2006 israel lebanon conflict

there is israeli link which says 53 civilians dead.

fact tag on cole page

Please read the talk page to understand why I put the tag there. I disputed the factual accuracy of TDC's summary of Cole.--csloat 00:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have spelled out in bold that I am disputing the factual accuracy of TDC's summary just so you don't miss it. To be more precise, it is not just the fact that TDC left out information but also that his summary blatantly misleads the reader. If you disagree with me, try to settle the dispute on the talk page. Otherwise you are just disrupting wikipedia to make a point (and it's not clear what the point is other than that you don't like me).--csloat 00:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

thank you

thank you on your help with exodus article. Amoruso 16:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR Warning

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Palestinian exodus. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. -- Steve Hart 04:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect Isarig, you are the one who are bordering 3RR all the time. We have (or should have) a dicussion on talk and it would be nice if we can come to conclusions there before making changes -- Steve Hart 03:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

your wikipedian opinion will be appreciated

Is it right to place Hebron under Israeli city or Israeli settlement ? Hebron What do you think ? I'm not sure, but it seems to me the final status of this city is right now cut into two sides and one part of it is clearly israeli. The basis for this is the interim agreements, but isn't this basis the reason all the cities are named "palestinan cities"? what's the basis for that, and if we want to be more accurate shouldn't it be "palestinian authority cities" (which is the hebrew version). thank you. Amoruso 19:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Since Israel has not annexed Hebron, I would find it hard to justify putting it in the category of "Israeli City" (though I note that other cities, like Ariel, have been categorized as such). I also woudl not support labeling it "Israeli settlement", since it is predominately Arab. I am fine with "palestinian authority cities" Isarig 20:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
How can we go about changing "cities in palestine" to "cities of palestinian authority" ? Amoruso 21:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Just create that new category Cat:Cities of the Palestinain Authority, and add Hebron to it. Isarig 21:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
This should be renamed : [6]

Amoruso 21:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Bint Jbeil

I am concerned about your behavior in editing the article Battle of Bint Jbeil. You have reverted thr article several times without clear reason, citing the talk page. I would encourage you to both refrain from reverting the article in the future with such vague reasoning, and to be more specific in referring people to the talk page, such as perhaps giving a section title? I see from the edit summaries in the history that I am not the only person who has has trouble finding exactly what you are referring to in the talk page. Regards, RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 16:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Warning

You continue to revert the article when told not to. If you revert again, you will in violation of 3RR. Consider this your final warning. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 23:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are way out of line. You expressed a "concern" over my edits. I explained my edits to you on your talk page. You ignored this, and without responding on my talk page, your talk page or the article's talk page, you blindly reverted my change with a dishonest edit summary. This is a wiki, and you cannot "tell me to stop editing" when I am not in violation of any WP rules. If you have a "concern" - let's hear it on the Talk page, which for some straneg reason you have elected not to do. Of all teh editors invloved in this edit war, I am th eonly one who has explained his edits on the Talk page. If anything, you are abusing your administrator priveleges to bully editors whose opinions you do not like. Keep it up and I will open an WP:ANI over your behaviour. Consider this your final warning. Isarig 23:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for protection of Bint Jbeil

The reason I have protected this page is because there is a near constant revert war over sources. I am "involved" in this page to the extent that I was asked to intervene in this page about a month ago, and seeing that it was on a very controversial topic, I thought it would be beneficial to have an administrator watch the article more carefully. Because I have been involved in disputes on this article in the past, I am therefore more familiar with what is going on. I am not involved in this article as a matter of its content- I am involved in this article as a matter of the fact that there are near-constant disputes which require administrator oversight, a "referee," so to speak, and occasionally administrator intervention, which I have had to do two times now. Regardless of whether or not I have been involved in this page in the past, or in what capacity, a revert war is going on and must be stopped. If you would like to take this issue further, please bring it to the attention of other administrators on the Admin noticeboards and I will abide by their opinion. However, as things stand now, I have no reason to believe the revert war will not continue should I remove protection. Therefore, protection stands. Regards, RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 18:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your reasons may or may not be good ones, but nevertheless, you have violated a very clear, explict and unambigous WP policy by blocking a page that you are actively editing, and involved in a dispute content over, as witnessed by your recent revert of my changes. You are acting out of line, and I have thus reported you. Isarig 21:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

vandalism on palestine page

Ian_Pitchford and Zero0000 are on with their vandalisying sourced material again, this time on Palestine. Amoruso 14:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

suggestion

what do you think of the idea of Category:Self-hating Jews (alleged), an idea that I had. Not sure about it , but it's up for deletion already. Amoruso 04:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't like it. It's got POV written all over it. Isarig 03:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it's atrocious. It's high time that a near-bar be placed on the use of the words "Jew" and "Jewish". Except, obviously, in cases where it genuinally refers to practising members of that faith, going about their affairs as regular members of a (usually minority) religious community.
It's particularily ludicrous to allow the supporters of Israel to use this term whenever crimes (real or imaginary) are alleged against Israel. Doing so can only be for the purpose of inciting hatred or disgust of the Jews - and I'm sure there's a word for such behaviour. Have these poor people not suffered enough from false allegations in the last 2000 years? PalestineRemembered 17:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Please try not to turn wikipedia into your private discussion board. Amoruso 21:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Bint Jbeil

Are you still claiming to be a disinterested editor, follwoing your two recent edits to the article? Please use Talk before reverting again. You are out of line. Isarig 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I am no longer a disinterested editor, nor will I claim to be in the future. Also, I did not revert the article, I actually added content. Any administrator actions, besides simple reverts, I will ask other administrators to do. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 02:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
re you comments on my talk page--As an admin, sometimes you gotta do stuff. that's how it works. Ryan now says that he is no longer disinterested; he also says that he will no longer use his admin tools on the page, and i trust him to do what he says. Nothing in the history of the article or the talk page has led me to believe that ryan has been "abusive"; rather, he has seemingly tried to maintain a neutral article to the best of his abilities, past the point where many of us would give up and walk away--and i expect he will continue to do so on this article in the future. --heah 07:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please be mindful of 3RR.

Thanks, Italiavivi 16:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC).

(Also, you may be interesting in noting that articles also have a "Talk" page, where discussion on edits takes place. Thanks, Italiavivi 16:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC) )

You only participate on Talk when reminded of 3RR, it seems. Ah well, whatever gets you working with WP:CONSENSUS again. So far as "that's enough for me" goes, your trivial use of 3RR reports for consensus-avoiding purposes has been noted in the past, and I would discourage you from trying to use the same tactic twice for the same dispute. Italiavivi 16:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This has been brought up several times, not by anons, even discussion on my own talk page relates to it (I have not "archived" my Talk page when disagreement took place, unlike yourself, so you are welcome to view those dates). Other editors and contributors have discussed it without problem, you simply seem to prefer reverts and invalid 3RR threats. Italiavivi 16:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You are blind, apparently, if you are unable to see discussion of casualty ranges immmediately above my discussion with you. You ignored this dispute once in the past, by reverting and filing invalid 3RR reports, and I hope that does not happen again. I have nothing more to say, as you have ceased your reverting spree and are now (finally) participating on the Talk page. Have a good day. Thanks, Italiavivi 17:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your continual filing of invalid 3RR reports.

You do not have grounds for a 3RR report. Make one, it will be dismissed just like your last one. Perhaps I was wrong about your ceasing this tactic, Isarig. I will see you at the 3RR report page should you choose to file one. Thanks, Italiavivi 17:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I am saying that you either 1) do not understand the 3RR policy or 2) understand it, but invoke it to frighten away users from editing. Go make your report, instead of threatening me. I will see you at the 3RR Noticeboard if you choose to do so, afterwhich your report will be declared invalid (just like last time you tried this tactic for this dispute). Italiavivi 17:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your sockpuppet, User:WaysAndMeans[7].

Am I to believe that an account which has not made an edit since mid-July (which was used to edit two articles and file a 3RR report) suddenly showing up to affirm your revert-warring is coincidence? Italiavivi 17:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who User:WaysAndMeans is, nor do I know who User:Flayer is, but I don't find it surprising that your continuous disruptions are attracting the attention of many editors who are interested in making this encyclopedia better. Isarig 17:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Only in the world of vandals are WP:SOCK accounts "many editors." 17:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

blind reverting

Please explain this revert at the article's talk where the editing disagreement is being discussed. Thanks, --Irpen 22:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

check out the Lehi page

User:Zero0000 (again, can't we propose his banning? ) is trying to push his WP:POV and WP:OR to slur the group in a non wikipedian fashion. Amoruso 05:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

p.s. sorry that the wrong version of bint jbail was protected - hope it is fixed soon. Amoruso 05:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Thanks for your support on the BJ page. I look forward to editing it together once the protection is removed. Isarig 05:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
when you have time, please also check out Folke Bernadotte . Amoruso 08:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Lehi (group) : Note that the page is infringing on many wikipedia policies, and the recent one is extreme WP:POV of opinions stated as facts and in the intro page ! many other issues were addresed by me but are being reverted by a few members. Please take note of this ! very annoying no doubt. last good version on 16:28. Amoruso 16:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Ian pitchford and Zero are again deleting sourced material this tame on Patria disaster. Amoruso 16:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Lack of ability to count higher then three

If you knew your single digit numbers, you would see that I reverted the Fox News page three times, not more then three. By trying to make me look stupid, you've merely done so on your own behalf.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spazik007 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 5 September 2006.

You have 3 reverts on Fox News Channel , and that is what I wrote on your Talk page: You currently have three (3) reverts on Fox News Channel for 05 September 2006. . The above is known as a "warning". If you violate 3RR after being warned, you will be reported. And also review WP:CIVIL. Isarig 23:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks for that then, it sure is a good thing you came to my page to notify me that I had made three edits, because I surely had no idea. Spazik007 23:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You are most welcome. It is only fair to warn users and remind them of WP policy. That way they really have no excuse when they are reported. Isarig 23:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Stalking

Wikistalking as you have just done on the Brian Wilson, Brit Hume, Neil Cavuto, and Shepard Smith page is a very serious offense. Do it again and you will be reported. Spazik007

Pie chart

watch that the pie chart is also in that article :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict

So can you give a hand to remove it from there?83.130.19.249 15:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Next time, talk first if you have concerns

I note that you filed your report on RyanGerbil at the Administrators' noticeboard [8], and even brought it to the attention of an admin you thought would agree with you [9], but did not bother to actually talk to Ryan himself. In the future, if you have concerns about another user's actions (admin or not), the first step is to discuss it, not to attempt to have that user discplined or reprimanded. You may have noticed that the concern on the noticeboard was discussed and resolved quite reasonably; you can use this as a model for handling future issues. -- SCZenz 05:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Maale Adumim

They're trying to say it's not a city in Israel. Ma'ale Adummim Amoruso 13:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Carbonate 11:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Israel

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. This policy does apply to POV disputes. The only exception to this policy is reverting blatant vandalism (which is not the case here) and reverting yourself.--Konstable 05:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to say thank you for promoting a fair POV on wikipedia. If needed, I have found another source for the annexation material, as well as personal e-mails from Mitchell Bard, a prominent historian. Thanks again. --Shamir1 00:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Israel related issues

Posted somethings here, wonder if it's accessed regularly by users. such as this [10]. Amoruso 01:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation has been filed

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Neo-Fascism, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. - DNewhall 05:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

our recent discussion

Hey, I need to take most of the responsibility for our recent discussion over at West Bank. I think things got started when I saw your edit: rm redundant details. Yes, to become a neutralized citizen of a country you must swear allegiance ot it. There is nothign unique here to Israel and the Palestinians.) What happened is I thought "rm" was "rv", and I assumed you had reverted rather than making further edits. So I got involved without having seen your latest edit (since I assumed it was just a reversion). It also didn't help that I was late getting clued in to the "conditional" problem. Anyhow, now that I've gone back and looked at the history I think I owe you an apology since this all got started between us by my misread of your edit summary. So, I'm sorry. On the plus side, I think the edits are better now -- I've come to rethink my original view about the citizenship conditions, and now I believe that listing them is less POV than leaving them out because of the uniqueness of the situation. However, if you go back later to remove them I doubt I'm going to feel strongly enough to get involved. Finally, if you can convince Shamir1 or someone to actually cite sources for the rest of that annexation section it would be really helpful. I sympathize with his position, I understand his point, and I'm sure that the stuff is true, but given the heat that goes with all-things-Israel around here I think it will be better if material on all sides needs to be sourced and cited. Dasondas 06:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Your accusations of "poisoning the well"

Regarding [11]: If you equal "stating someone's position" to "poisoning the well", then there is obviously something wrong with your attitude. If I had called Dershovitz a liar or fanatic (which I obviously didn't), *that* would be poisoning the well. But there is a big difference between poisoning the well and putting a statement into relevant context, even if you find that context unfavourable for your own POV. Kosmopolis (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What's with this Kosmopolis guy? He continually edits the "targeting of civilian ..." article to sympathize with Hezbollah and demonize Israel? Why? Also, Dershowitz's opinion on Arbour's statement is really not that much more "fanatic" than any one else's opinion on the U.N.'s counterproductiveness in the Middle East, including the citizens of Lebanon. I'm sure Dershowitz would also disapprove of the two Barnstars Kosmopolis has "for maintaining high standards and neutrality" on articles pertaining to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict for similar reasons. In short, thank you Isarig for fighting against bigotry and disinformation. --GHcool 05:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This Kosmopolis guy is keeping *you* guys from inserting false quotes all the time. The Dershovitz accusation has *nothing* to do with the UN or Amnesty, and you mix them all up to put the words coming from an evidently extremely non-NPOV source (with a minority opinion on international law) into the mouth of the United Nations and Amnesty International. That's just bad. I am not against including the quote at all, but I am strictly against inserting it without naming the source. I have been going back and forth with Tewfik over this exact quote forever, not knowing where it was from, as Tewfik did not qualify it as a Dershovitz quote. All I knew was that it was far beyond the UN and Amnesty human shield accusations, so I removed it. Now that I know the source, it shows that this was the right thing to do, and if you are not able or willing to see the difference between the two variations of the "Targeting" article, then Wikipedia is definitely not the place for you. Kosmopolis (talk) 08:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what Kosmopolis is referring to here with Dershowitz, as I never misrepresented anything. In response to your comment about the barnstars, you should realise that these types of awards are unregulated, but two barnstars from users with minimal editing under their belts (Hossein.ir has 105 mainspace; Will314159 has 375 mainspace), but who seem to usually agree with your edits (as these two have), should be taken in the appropriate context, and stand in contrast to recognition for good editing from someone who was on the sidelines or actually disagreed with you. Don't be discouraged - as long as all parties work with policy in mind (including WP:IAR at times), the project will only improve. Cheers, TewfikTalk 04:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Isarig, I am familiar with the term. Like I said, I did not put forth an argument that would subsequently make all of Dershovitz' arguments invalid. But you apparently got it wrong. How can *stating* the subject's views "pre-emptively discredit his views"? This is a contradiction. Kosmopolis (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Background to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Your opening sentence is somewhat less accurate, as Israel was attacking Lebanese villiages as early as 1968, at least according to Fisk. Lebanese civilians were already caught in the conflict at that point. -- Kendrick7 05:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right, I'll try balancing this. -- Kendrick7 06:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
If you're trying to provide balance about Israel's attitude to Lebanon, then you need to consider what David Ben-Gurion is supposed to have said about the place: American Committee on Jerusalem
.......... it wasn't simply Palestine the Zionists wanted. In 1937, David Ben Gurion said, "The boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." In 1938, he was even more explicit, "The boundaries of Zionist aspiration," he told the World Council of Poale Zion in Tel Aviv, "include southern Lebanon, southern Syria, today's Jordan, all of Cis-Jordan [West Bank] and the Sinai" (cited by Israel Shahak, Journal of Palestine Studies).
Ten years later (ie 1948), Ben Gurion revealed his plan for the Arabs of the Middle East: "We should prepare to go over to the offensive," he told his General Staff. "Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria, and Sinai" (Michael Bar Zohar, Ben Gurion: A Biography). PalestineRemembered 21:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't Counterpunch a WP:RS?

I never heard of it until I typed up the ref. It is a newsmagazine right? Or are they owned by Hebollah too or something? -- Kendrick7 22:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying Counterpunch espouses socialism through violent revolution? Er... I don't know about that. -- Kendrick7 03:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, a reliable sourse is not merely a source whose political views everyone can agree with. There's no reason to just throw away sources, especially from stub articles, because they may give future editors ideas for how to expand them. -- Kendrick7 04:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Anti-Zionists often get tarred and feathered as anti-Semetic. But I hadn't appreciated that the article google served me, past my initial skim, devolved into a somewhat radical, though in no way extremist, viewpoint. Leftists do tend to do that -- I am actually little whiplashed by the segue from dead civilians to corporate fastfoodization. I didn't do a close reading, but actually found the passion somewhat refreshing. At the same time, some of the statistics in the article stretch credulity. You win. -- Kendrick7 05:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Neo-Fascism.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 12:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

I think you accidentally reverted to the POV version. Take a look at the page history. Cheers, TewfikTalk 20:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Israel always intended to seize Lebanon

You've deleted a clip from David Ben-Gurion in 1948 "Our aim is to smash Lebanon ...... The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine."? (Comes from Michael Bar Zohar, Ben Gurion: A Biography, I didn't bother including the cite, I didn't think anyone would attempt to deny it).

It's not as if the Zionists weren't doing this years and years earlier - eg Ben-Gurion in 1937 "The boundaries of Zionist aspiration," he told the World Council of Poale Zion in Tel Aviv, "include southern Lebanon, southern Syria, today's Jordan, all of Cis-Jordan [West Bank] and the Sinai" (cited by Israel Shahak, Journal of Palestine Studies).

Can we please put back the evidence that Israel always intended to seize Lebanon (even if we fudge the implication that it's current behaviour is based on the same thing)?

lol. Amoruso 01:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the care and attention you apply to having high-quality information in WP, and the patient, considerate way you respond to the fumblings of beginning editors in this great enterprise.
PalestineRemembered 18:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No, no, we're the People's Front of Judea, Reg!

(With apologies to Monty Python) OK, you're right, the DFLP is a part of the PLO -- I didn't read the article closely enough, and was about to revert. The PFLP-GC left the PLO in 1974 though, it seems. It is all little confusing, Pythonesque even.... -- Kendrick7 01:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There's still some wikifusion here, where it says, in passing, the DFLP left the PLO circa 1970. I'll probably have to hit the books on this one. -- Kendrick7 07:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Mohammed Deif

Wikipedia about assassination: "Assassination is the deliberate killing of an important person, usually a political figure or other strategically important individual." In what sense does it not fit what israel did to Shahade? You have reverted the article 3 times. Please consider 3RR rule Nielswik(talk) 16:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

JUST wanted to wish you a nice day Isarig. Cheers.Will314159 19:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Dispute in Fox News

I'm still having a dispute with some of the editors over in the Fox News talk pages over the wording of the introduction. Since you were previously involved in the RfC, I wanted to ask you to take a look and comment if you disagree with my position. My position, specifically, is that a prominent critic should be cited specifically in the introductory sentence, instead of just saying "Many critics..." - I believe the change would more clearly adhere to the WP:NPOV policy. Cbuhl79 18:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Report for 3RR violation

Hi Isarig. I have reported you for a 3RR violation for your repeated reversions of valid edits at Arab citizens of Israel article, and repeated reverting since. Please see WP:AN/3RR for more information. Thanks. Tiamut 00:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Isarig. I think you should read 3RR too before making bad faith accusations and anyway, it is up to the admin to decide whether the report I filed indeed qualifies. It is possible I misunderstood the policy, but: "Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark). Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention." Tiamut 19:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Al Manar

Look WP:RS -- "Reliability is a spectrum, and must be considered on a case-by-case basis." You can't "make-up" low flying jet planes. -- Kendrick7 04:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I told Niewfik not to use the source in the future, and to stop antagonizing you by doing so. However, you could remove the sourcing and put a [citation needed] tag in and make your point. A modicum of AGF wouldn't be off the wall here, given the history of what this editor has added before, AFAIK. -- Kendrick7 05:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA FNC

Cbuhl79 has opened a Request for Arbitration about the Fox News Channel intro wording. Somehow he forgot to notify you. I am requesting you visit the RfA and add your $0.02. Current RfA Page. Thanks! /Blaxthos 20:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not notify Isarig because he had not taken part in the discussion in quite awhile (since Oct 13th I think) and I asked him two days ago (prior to the RfA) to comment on the issue, and he did not respond, so I assumed he was not interested. Cbuhl79 03:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Thank you

Thank you for helping me deal with this edit warrior and removing POV. --

As I have mentioned on several occasions, you are in fact allowing the continuation of POV.Nwe 15:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Strothra 15:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon

If you have a problem with my edits discuss them with me on the talk page.Nwe 15:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not pushing POV, I am sailing close to the wind on 3RR but in order to push NPOV, and I do not make personal attacks, I was making a comment on the fact that that editor was making repetitively reverts and refusing to justify his them in discussion.Nwe 15:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you doing taking out a sourced, unchallenged (and very credibly stated) fact?

Can you explain why you've taken out this unchallenged 'fact' from Kafr Qasim massacre?: "the "Black Flag Defense" created has never been successfully invoked by Israeli servicemen in the 50 years since this case eg [12]".

Surely the web-site (contributed to by dozens of Israeli servicemen, all aware of the harm it could do them), is entirely WP:V. The likelihood of their claim being wrong is vanishingly small - they'd be cock-a-hoop if there was any chance that the "Black Flag Defense" could stop 100s of them going to prison.

In scientific terms, what I'm saying is "falsifiable", a single example is all that's necessary to render it worthless. If you cannot provide such an example, it would appear you have no reason to dispute the statement, making it even stranger you've taken it out.

PalestineRemembered 15:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The web-site is not WP:RS of course. But it's irrelevant. The Black Flag is frequently mentioned by the High court of Justice when cases are brought in, for example whether destroying houses, deporting terrorists, neighbour use etc is black flag or not. Very admirably, no order of a massacre ever took place again since Kfar Kasam so that particular black flag didn't have to be invoked. Amoruso 16:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you a sock-puppet for Isarig?
If so, perhaps you can tell him you're only confirming the validity of my edit. The "Black Flag Defense" has never been successfully used, despite the many massacres that have taken place since. Never even used to defend any other cases of refusing to obey orders, from what I see posted by other Zionists.
PalestineRemembered 18:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR Correction

You've jsut corrected your previos block with the comment " I misread the diff at 12:29, October 28, 2006 as October 29. There are only three reversions proper here. My apologies" - but there is no diff for "12:29, October 28, 2006" . Isarig 23:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct. The diffs listed were not enough (one was a correction to a previous and should be considered the same). I was basing it on the edit history of the article and the user, and that is where I made my error. -- Avi 23:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
But there ARE 4 reverts in less than 24 hrs on the page by Nwe, at 18:39 [13], at 22:01 [14], at 22:16 [15] and at 23:28 [16]
Oy vey. At this point, it may be better to have another sysop review it before I make an even bigger mess. -- Avi 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil and assume good faith

  • "just back from your 2nd straight 24h block, and you're alreday edit warring. keep it up, and soon you'll be banned, along with your sockpuppet 'oldroy" Violations of WP:CV and WP:AG. Please stop. It doesn't make editing difficult article easier. I'm sure you agree. Regards. OldRoy 15:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
You've been editing here what, 3 days? Take a rest Neilswik. Isarig 15:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey please stop accusing me. I have no idea why you keep saying it is my sockpuppet. Assume good faith. Thanks --Nielswik(talk) 16:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • diff) (hist) . . 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict‎; 15:52 . . Isarig (Talk | contribs) (restored well sourced information. Stop your vandalism.) Another WP:CV and WP:AG violation. You wll be reported. Regards. OldRoy 16:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • (cur) (last) 19:21, 2 November 2006 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (See TAlk, and stop wikistalking (and take your sockpuppet with you))" WP:CV and WP:AG violation. You wll be reported. Regards. OldRoy 23:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA

I have posted an RfA here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Israeli_POV that lists you as an involved party Carbonate 03:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do to add myself. Elizmr 22:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What's this about?

I put the following into the Ze'ev Jabotinsky article - why did you take it out?

Surely clips from the guys own book is very pertinent to understanding him! (About the only thing I could have done wrong is to label it "Controversy", which it's not, really).

From his book, "The Iron Wall", 1923: ....... A voluntary reconciliation with the Arabs is out of the question either now or in the future. If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison for the land, or find some rich man or benefactor who will provide a garrison on your behalf. Or else - or else, give up your colonization, for without an armed force which will render physically impossible any attempt to destroy or prevent this colonization, colonization is impossible, not difficult, not dangerous, but IMPOSSIBLE! ... Zionism is a colonization adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important ... to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot - or else I am through with playing at colonizing. PalestineRemembered 22:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to seriously calm down, and very closely review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. The reason I came here is because that's the convention on WP - you answer people's queries on their page - that way the get a notice that there's a response. If you want to add the Jabotinsky quote under a section labeled "quotes", go right ahead. Isarig 22:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
All of what you say may be true, but none of it makes sense.
I've only just discovered that you reverted my (fairly well-sourced) edits because I'm still struggling to find my way around. How come you're answering on my page here "so's I know I have a reply", when you did nothing to indicate you'd removed the material you now claim is perfectly acceptable (just wrongly headed)?
And it's you who has removed the material, if it's perfectly acceptable (just wrongly headed), now that I've reminded you, why not just put it back?
Finally, rightly or wrongly, I do feel as if I'm being [WP:BITE].
PalestineRemembered 23:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
You have two hands and the ability to type- if you want something in an article - hop to it.Isarig 23:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Do I have your word that you'll not revert well-sourced material without good reason and/or an attempt to discuss it - and that you'll correct minor mistakes or stylistic faults and not simply delete the well-intentioned edits of others?
PalestineRemembered 18:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! You're welcome to discuss my edits on my Talk page, but please don't use it as forum to vent any and all grievences you may have regarding WP or politics or other editors. Isarig 19:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought you'd behaved very honourably, putting my well-sourced edit back into the article, just adjusting the section to better reflect what was going on.
I won't mention your name as I invite other editors to respond in a similar fashion. They took out good, well-sourced material? I won't edit-war with them, I'll invite them to put it back. Won't necessarily work, of course.
Or .... do I have you mixed up with someone else? PalestineRemembered 19:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, you're reverting a whole lot of well-sourced material, here is more from [First Aliyah]

Why are you taking this material out? Serious historians claim that (at least some of) the Zionists of the First Aliyah intended to seize whole swathes of land and empty it of Palestinians.
Such evidence most definitely belongs in the article - and the sources are so well known it's barely worth adding them, though you've forced me to do so here.
Top Israeli historian Benny Morris writes that all the arriving Zionists (even from the First Aliyah) intended to seize the lands of Palestine and expel most or all of the natives. Forcibly if necessary.
From [1] - October 1882 Ben-Yehuda and Yehiel Michal Pines write a letter to Lithuania: "We have made it a rule not to say too much, except to those we trust ... There are now only five hundred [thousand] Arabs, who are not very strong, and from whom we shall easily take away the country if only we do it through stratagems [and] without drawing upon us their hostility before we become the strong and populous ones." [2]
Benny Morris quotes two other letters written by Zionists in the same vein (one of which proposes "buy, buy, buy" the land, but also of "arms in hand (if need be)"). Morris writes [3] ...... For decades the Zionists tried to camouflage their real aspirations, for fear of angering the authorities and the Arabs. :They were, however, certain of their aims and of the means needed to achieve them. Internal correspondence amongst the olim from the very beginning of the Zionist enterprise leaves little room for doubt.
Note that the concept of Zionism is usually ascribed to Theodore Herzl and dated 13 years later, 1895. Herzl's diaries mention "try to spirit the penniless population across the border" and "the process of expropriation", though his other published works and speeches do not. [4]
PalestineRemembered 22:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
PS - I'd prefer you answered here for actions that you took against the edits of others. It's confusing and unhelpful to go over to my page and escalate with un-referenced and impossible to follow accusations of OR. You made these accusations in the first few days after my arrival (one month ago), it looks a lot like [WP:BITE].
I've explained my edits on that page. some of it was removed because it was about the 2nd aliyah, while the article is about the 1st. part was removed because it was OR, and part because it was unsourced. Feel free to discuss any of these edits on that article's talk page Isarig 22:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
What I've put back is well-sourced and almost certainly very relevant. I trust people will not simply come along and take it out for reasons of their own.
PalestineRemembered 18:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


3RR on Palestinian refugee

Hi. You know about WP:3RR, so I'm being polite here and warning you, even though I don't need to. I suggest you seek consensus for including the disputed section. I also suggest you cease referring to content disputes such as this as "vandalism"; it doesn't justify your 3RR violation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • You don't get to game the system by doing 4 reverts in 25 hours, either. The point of 3RR is to stop edit warring, and that's what you're doing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  • OK, you're unblocked. Just cool it on the edit warring; talk pages have a purpose. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

email

feel free to use. Amoruso 12:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ian Baruma

on allegations of Israeli apartheid Talk: you wrote: "No, he's a primary source, and the Guardian which quoted him is a reliable secondary source." I am new here and kindly ask if you could explain that to me in more simple terms. It doesn't seem to me that he is "primary" as per the definition. Thanks.

Hezbollah

Hi,

I moved some part this article to sub-articles because it is bigger than 100 kb(VERY LONG). I put POV check on that part and put a comment in the talk page. But it will be NPOV if you confirm it. Because your viewpoint is very different . Please put note in the talk page if you find my eddition POV.--Sa.vakilian 10:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Deir Yassin was far outside the area set aside for Israel, so the reason for [Lehi and Irgun's] objection is unclear

What reason do you have for removing the above statement from Deir Yassin massacre, and stigmatising it's inclusion as POV?

You've also put back in an absurd propaganda statement from Emanuel Winston, a political commentator who has no qualifications to meet WP:RS and is a proud advocate of ethnic cleansing. In fact, were it not for WP:BLP I might be free to describe his views in much more colorful language.

Is it your intention to incite an edit-war over this article?

PalestineRemembered 22:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It is my intention that sourced material not be blanked by POV-pushing users. I removed the statement about "Deir Yassin was far outside the area set aside for Israel" for two reasons: (1) It is false (2) It is irrelevnt and most importantly (3) it constitutes Original Research. Youhave been asked sevaerl times to familiarize yourself with WP:NOR. You really should, as it will save you much anguish when your OR edits are reverted. Isarig 22:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm baffled by your claim that Deir Yassin was not "far outside the area set aside for Israel". Suggest you familiarise yourself with the geography of the region and the history of the period.
I'm baffled by your claim it's not relevant - armed Zionists were roaming far and wide months before a single Arab army moved .... Deir Yassin is only the best known example of their ethnic cleansing, which had de-housed c. 380,000 Palestinians by the 15th May 1948 (figure from Dr. Ilan Pappe, Israeli historian at Haifa University [5])
I'm baffled by your constant allegations that my material is OR and not fit for the encyclopedia - when over and over again it seems to be much, much better than your own.
And you've failed to answer my question - is it your intention to incite an edit-war over this article?
PalestineRemembered 23:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I am quite familiar with the geography and history of the area. Please do not use that condescending tone with me, as I am more than able to return the favor. Dier yassin was roughly 20Km from the Easternmost boundary of the territory proposed for the Jewish state by the partition paln, which is not "far outside" in my book. The precise location is inany case irrelevant, as a civil war had been raging for months, and was not limited to the territory proposed for the Jewish sate. And it is OR, as it represents your personal opinion as to what justifies an attack. I renew my suggestion that you take the time to read WP:NOR. And finally, I did answer your qeustion with regards to my intentions- it is my intention the you and your fellow POV-pusher not be allowed to revert well sourced material that you don't like. Isarig 01:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou - you apparently agree that Deir Yassin was 20 km outside the boundaries for the new state of Israel that the Zionists had supposedly agreed to.
Please explain why you posted: "Deir Yassin was not far outside the area set aside for Israel" because "It is false".
Then explain the justification for your claim that "It is irrelevnt"
And "most importantly" explain why "it constitutes Original Research".
Then explain why you failed to comment on the allegation that Deir Yassin was peaceful and freindly to the new Zionist entity, and was attacked for this very reason.
Then comment on the fact that 8 out of the 13 ethnic cleansing operations carried out by the Zionists before 15th May 1948 were also outside the region set aside for the apartheid state.
Then explain why you seem not to have commented on the fact that some 380,000 Palestinians had been ethnically cleansed before a single Arab army moved.
Of course, if you fail to provide any form of WP:RS evidence for your assertions, I will need your word that you will not summararily reverse well-sourced edits to the encyclopedia.
Failing which, you will force me to explore means to escalate this contravention of WP:NPOV. As I've told you, I'm still a newby, please check out WP:BITE.
PalestineRemembered 21:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
PS - you didn't answer my question - is it your intention to incite an edit-war?
I've answered all your questions. Please stop trolling on my Talk page. Isarig 21:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit War on a User Page

I would not continue to revert the warning on CSloat's page. This used to be called vandalism, but against many objections, it has been removed from the topic of vandalism -- by some over aggressive Admins. If you get in trouble over it you could appeal on the basis that it was removed without consensus -- and I would support that. But I also think that reverting one warning like that repeatedly is probably not a wise or good thing. --Blue Tie 17:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[17]

I need your opinion here please, seems a lot of reversions by Thestick, you know how to file the 3RR correctly. Cheers. Amoruso 06:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please join us ...

You are invited to join WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build and maintain an extensive and neutral database of Israel related articles on Wikipedia. To join, simply add your name to the members section of WikProject Israel.

--GHcool 07:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Personal attack

Please do not make personal attacks on other people as you did at the rocketed vehicle. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create such pages will be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Thank you.

Mr. Zero didn't seem to inform you of this...

[18]Amoruso 21:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Trolling and personal attacks on PalestineRemembered Talk page

I'm a newby and I'm attempting to get from you (because you seem to be a WP administrator) how the policy of the Wikipedia operates.
Is it the case that people "should not be labelled as "Jews" - as I posted to you within a few days of my first arrival in WP, and you seem to have confirmed with the case of the Argentinian prosecutor? (If you stand by that position, then I'm not sure why you expressed such resentment of my support for you on that occasion).
Or is it the case that the followers of Judaism must be granted recognition as such, as you seem to be saying when you post in here that Juan Cole is a "jew-baiter"? (his offence seems to have been pointing a finger at people who might be guilty of "dual loyalty" - I take it that those people have made their religious persuasion public - otherwise it's not aimed at "the Jews", and the considerable number of Christian or non-religious Zionists would be just as vulnerable to the accusation).
I don't see how you can have it both ways. Either people's religious persuaasion is private, or it is public.
There is a possible intermediate position, ex-President Bill Clinton wanted to enforce on the gays "Don't ask, don't tell". (Though that seems to have been a complete failure, leading to increasing number of members of the minority being sacked from the military). I have to assume you don't want "the Jews" anywhere subject to a policy that I gather is quite badly discredited.
I'm entirely content to go along with Wikipedia's policy on this - but I'm not sure I appreciate your bullying assertion that I should know what it is I'm supposed to do. (And I'm a member of a different and oppressed minority myself, so I'm personally interested in your considered position).
PalestineRemembered 23:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
People's religion should not be mentioned unless it is relevant to the article's content. Isarig 23:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Isarig, I need a proper answer to my question - is people's religious persuasion public or private?
Because the intermediate position you've presented here seems calculated to incite anti-semitic comments. eg if a person I know or suspect to be Jewish makes an edit to an article concerning Israel, then I'm entitled to break normal accept good faith and accuse him of being Jewish and presumably presenting a POV.
According to what you've just told us, Juan Cole is entitled to accuse any Jew in America who speaks up for Israel of having "dual loyalty" - and presumably, you're entitled to accuse him of being a jew-baiter (readers of this exchange may wish to click on this link [19] "Cole is a jewbaiter, so his jewbaiting quotes are in. thsi was moved to v&C, but you've deleted V&C, so it's back here")
In your private life there are probably any number of ways around this dilemma, but as an editor (and administrator?) in Wikipedia I think newby editors like myself are entitled to have some consistency and principal applied to this situation.
As I've told you, I'm a member of a minority myself - I'd not dream of throwing a hissy-fit over a mis-understanding, but I think that's what happened when I came to your defense over a new category for "self-hating Jew".
And your position seeems extremely difficult to sustain. There was an atrocity carried out against persons of the Jewish religion in Argentina. (If I've got this right, for some reason neither party to this dispute bothered to link to the actual article, I'm forced to rely on my memory of the news). Indictments are about (?) to be handed down. Is the fact that the Attorney General in Argentina is Jewish relevant to the article here or not? You told this anonymous editor it wasn't, but you're now telling me that it is.
My position is consistent and defendable - it's wrong to label the AG of Argentina as "a Jew" in (very nearly) all cases. So why are you doing it for the defenders of Israel that Juan Cole is (perhaps quite understandably) rather angry about?
PalestineRemembered 01:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian Political Violence

Isarig, You have deleted material sourced to Israel's Border Wars, 1949-1956, a significant work by Israeli historian Benny Morris [20]. Could I have an explanation as to how you believe your actions are consistent with the key policies on OR, NPOV, and verifiability please? --Ian Pitchford 19:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean that is not actually you above deleting everything from Morris, including the title of his book? --Ian Pitchford 20:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
So basically, you have no justification for removing material from a peer-reviewed book and of favoring propaganda from a neoconservative blog and from the Israeli government. --Ian Pitchford 20:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not up to me to restore the material that you deleted without justification. Frontpagemag and the Israeli government are not WP:RS for an article on Palestinian political violence. We use verifiable sources, such as good peer-reviewed books by Israeli historians. Now please restore the article. --Ian Pitchford 21:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't even follow what you're saying, e.g., you write: -- "Contrary to this view however..." (And as an aside, the material you added after that editorial does not contradict the previous sentence.) Isarig 20:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC) -- and yet Frontpagmag claims "From 1949 to 1956, Egypt waged a terror war against Israel" whereas Morris writes: "following the IDF's Gaza Raid on 28 February 1955 the Egyptian authorities initiated terrorist infiltration while continuing to oppose civilian infiltration". How is that not "contrary"? Morris is perfectly clear that Egypt did not wage a "terror war" during this period - a fact confirmed by Moshe Dayan. --Ian Pitchford 21:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Good, you agree that Morris contradicts the claims of Meir-Levi writing in the neoconservative blog. We don't present history according to the views of Frontpagemag, the Israeli government and the Anti-Defamation League. Now please restore the material in accordance with WP:V. --Ian Pitchford 21:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Cole mediation

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

MOSSAD or Aman (IDF)?

Hi. Hey re: this Carmon states up front that he "He served in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Intelligence Branch from 1968 to 1988." -Just to clarify -that's not MOSSAD but Aman (IDF), yes? <<-armon->> 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Juan Cole.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 04:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Your RFM

Should yourself and the other involved parties agree, I have decided to take the case. Could you please indicate your acceptance on the mediation page? Thanks Martinp23 18:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

personal attacks

I identified three prior personal attacks here and here, and you removed those warnings. You have accused me with an NPA3 tag (without a corresponding 1 and 2), so I assume you are referring to old (and equally specious) charges you made a month or two ago. So it is now time for NPA 4 for the several attacks you made against me in the Kramer discussion. Allow me to list them:

So, how about you cut out the personal attacks and we try to live in peace on this encyclopedia? Thanks. csloat 04:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Casualties

regarding the casualties of the al-Aqsa intifada, the ones that B'Tselem have reported include those killed in this recent war in the Gaza/Negev as wells as other battles after the "truce". I don't think casualties should continue, or if it does than both should be stated (before truce and after). There is already an article on the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict and its casualties. --Shamir1 22:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/s/a/User_talk%7EIsarig_Archive_1_ab28.html"