User talk:Beit Or/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Hello you recently reverted me

Hi there, I noticed you reverted me here. I'm sorry if I took any of your time. I don't like making controversial edits, and I take it personally when someone reverts me. Now, none of this is your fault. My understanding was that at the time, my edit seemed as though nobody would blink at it. Apparently, your watchful eye would say otherwise. That's ok with me, that's all I needed to know. Smiles. --0rrAvenger 11:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, maybe I'm being too asking, but could you please offer more explanation than "this is a talk page" when reverting? I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. Apologies.

0rrAvenger has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

We tolerate on talk pages much more than in articles. Generally, we do not remove comments unless there are very good reasons to do so (revelation of personal information, personal attacks etc.). The comment you removed was unproductive but not evil, so it can stay. Beit Or 12:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
0rrAvenger is a sock of Kirbytime, see[1].Proabivouac 06:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shibli Nomani

Beit Or, I seek your opinion on the validity of treating Shibli Nomani as a non-partisan academic historian.Proabivouac 00:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, he is not. Beit Or 11:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
This is currently being debated at Talk:Battle of Khaybar.Proabivouac 19:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judenfrei

You might be interested in knowing, that Judenfrei is now is now nominated for deletion. -- Petri Krohn 19:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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/Islamophobia.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
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: 12:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Content forking

Please see Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles. Content forking isn't automatically bad - it's a perfectly legitimate way of dealing in more depth with a topic that's too substantial to be covered in an overview article. -- ChrisO 09:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The fork in question mostly copies the original article. It's as bad as you can get. Beit Or 09:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
You're overlooking the circumstances in which I rewrote the original article. House demolition was originally almost entirely focused on the I-P conflict, which I felt was inappropriate due to the topic having a much broader scope, which is why I rewrote it in the first place. However, the I-P angle is sufficiently distinct and complex to justify a spin-off article on the issues which arise with this particular use of house demolition. It's certainly well documented by reliable sources; Google Books returns 153 separate works which cover the issue. If you don't like the current article, the way to deal with that is to improve it, not by blanking it. That constitutes vandalism - please don't do it again. -- ChrisO 10:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Har Homa

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. Certainly myself, Ramallite and other editors who had tried for a long time to keep the article on Har Homa in a relatively NPOV version rather than one reflective of the pro-settlement position gave up in disgust. But I still think it is worth making the point that it is far from neutral. Actually, the ridiculous bias of the text of the article, in the form it has now held for some time, is of far more concern that the categorization. But the fact that the proponents of the pro-settlement position aren't even willing to make the small concession to NPOV of allowing the categorization to reflect the internationally accepted position, does rile me. I suspect you and me aren't going to agree on this, but thanks anyway for commenting. Palmiro | Talk 21:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation update

Please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Islamophobia#Parties.27_agreement_to_Messedrocker.27s_offer. ITAQALLAH 14:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bahira

Moved the talk page as well. I had thought it would move automatically. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Sheer nonsense"

I'm a bit confused by this edit. Your comments on the first FAC were the reason it was put there in the first place. -- tariqabjotu 19:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the publication of The Caliphs and Their Non-Muslim Subjects: a Critical Study of the Covenant of Umar by Arthur Stanley Tritton in 1930, the consensus of the academics has been that the Pact of Umar was a later development with many of its provisions originating only in the reign of Umar II. The endnote created an appearance of a dispute where there is none. Anyway, this issue may be relevant to Pact of Umar, Umar, or dhimmi, but not to Jerusalem. Beit Or 19:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification tags

Hi, Please pay attention to my comments and the talk page(talk:Islam#hierarchy of religions) before removing the tags.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Beit Or Thank you for the kind endorsement for admin. I also feel - though we disagree occasionally - that you are an outstanding editor and a real asset to the project. Thanks again, old windy bear 21:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bahira

I wonder if other reliable sources are available on this topic. It just seems to be contentious, given the discussion on the talk page. Your content seemed neutral to me but it may be easier to defend if more sources are available. Rigadoun (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. For example:
    • F.E. Peters A Reader on Classical Islam, p. 46
    • F.E. Peters Muhammad and the Origins of Islam, pp. 134-136
    • W. Montgomery Watt Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, p. 1
    • Adel-Théodore Khoury Polémique byzantine contre l'Islam (VIII-XIII S.), pp. 76-87
    • George F. Nafziger, Mark W. Walton Islam at War, p. 1
The disputes centered around the lack of reliable sources about Bahira, which is surprising, since the story is rather famous. Beit Or 19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Do they all basically have the same information? And do they all discuss the variety of sources? I would recommend adding more inline sources around the claims in the article. Also, any more detail you could provide would be good. Rigadoun (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Of the above sources, the EoI article is the most complete, which is the reason why I used it. The expansion raised no objections in spite of the disputes in the past. Is there anything in the article that you're objecting to? Beit Or 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Updated DYK query On 12 July 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bahira, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Andrew c [talk] 00:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim inventions

Considering that you were the one who removed the information, you may already be aware that Jagged 85 has re-added the Flight and Gunpowder sections, and is currently re-adding other sections as I type this, with additional sources and seemingly improved wording. As this article seems to be his primary focus, I can assume he'll continue to re-add sections and add sources in line with his specific POV. Either way, I think I'll be bold and move the article to the NPOV title right now. I wonder if any of the sources he lists have been verified, or could be considered reliable?--C.Logan 02:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a new task force that might interest you

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Early Muslim military history task force Greetings Wandalstouring 16:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Warring on Infidel

If you have a particular issue, be civil and contribute to the discussion on the talk page.--Tigeroo 21:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

A discussion is onyl possible when both sides present their arguments in a meaningful and comprehensible English language. Beit Or 10:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring reminder

Regarding the ongoing edit war on House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which you are involved, I'd like to remind you of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule's prohibition of reverting as an editing technique. Please note that "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." I would request that you bear this in mind and use the article discussion page or dispute resolution to resolve your dispute. -- ChrisO 15:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Instead of posting threats here, you'd better take care of removing the attacking comments from the article's talk page. Beit Or 13:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad

I think you should say "three Meccan goddesses." Arrow740 10:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Beit Or 10:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, "three pagan goddesses" would be more accurate, as they were worshiped outside of Mecca. Arrow740 11:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding what you said at Pro's page, we also run the risk of creating false oppositions between the scholars, as they will not always say everything the same way even when they agree. You might want to comment here. Arrow740 11:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

We'll have this problem as long as we rely on secondary sources, which are anyway mostly recensions and interpretations of the primary sources. Sticking to the traditional siras, however, will result in a smooth and clear narrative. Beit Or 11:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Where it really is just others rewording a single original narrative, it would seem most principled to cite the primary source, followed by its interpreters. It's definitely not necessary to reify these restatements as independent findings whose nuances are to be treated as genuine disputes.Proabivouac 11:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Interpretations are only necessary in some exceptional circumstances and only if there is a genuine dispute. Otherwise, they will just clog the article. In most cases, though, such disputes are best reserved for subsidiary articles. Beit Or 11:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Lewis is currently being quoted to the extent that a state of conflict existed before Muhammad's raids, when I have presented evidence from Watt, Lewis, and Cook that Muhammad provoked the hostilities. What do the primary sources say? Arrow740 11:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Beit Or, all I meant to say was that there is no harm citing prominent academics who have discussed the text alongside the original source - but admittedly, this goes beyond mere verifiability to an "index of mentions" approach - the question is if references are only minimal verification, or also bibliography (as a researcher following up on a paper, you might want something in between.) There is still an element of verifiability and reliability in showing that something is credited in the literature.Proabivouac 11:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The Guillaume ref about the Satanic verses seems to be on pages 189-190 of his book Islam, can you check that for me? Arrow740 22:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ras burqa

May I ask what your agenda is in reverting edits to an article which is full of garbled information and mistakes?? I was contacted after the incident, to care for the one child who survived until her father arrived, so I can assure you my version is correct.--Gilabrand 19:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, peacenow.org is not a reliable source. Your question on my agenda is a violation of WP:AGF. Beit Or 19:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undo's

Please be civil. When issues are raised please comment on the talk pages beyond the occasional, brief and terse comments. Please at the least explain your edits. You leave no edit summaries and appear to use the undo tool to merely revert. Without commentary there is no way to address any concern you may have or come to any amicable resolution. No collaborative solution is then possible and it just serves as continual aggravation and at times feels like a personal campaign when one has no idea what you are thinking of and you turn up undoing a majority of the edits.--Tigeroo 21:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

i was actually intending to bring this up myself. to at least an outside observer you did three straight reverts of Tigeroo in just over three minutes flat,[2][3][4] including one on an article you hadn't previously edited which may very well be perceived as entering WP:STALK territory. please consider taking the measures mentioned Wikipedia: Dispute resolution. ITAQALLAH 22:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems likely that all these articles were on Beit Or's watchlist. Uzza is salient due to the Satanic Verses dispute.Proabivouac 22:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It could be. I am sure the editor can speak for himself, it's pointless to make assumptions and guesses on someone else's state of mind. Partly what I am encouraging the sharing of.--Tigeroo 23:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Tigeroo, you know the problems with your edits very well, since you have returned to pushing the same issues on the same pages. Beit Or 07:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
That attitude doesn't help come to a solution, where I voice my position and arguments and hear no valid rebuttals. With that I just hear you saying its my way or the highway.--Tigeroo 09:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Tigeroo, your arguments (whenver they are written in the language other people can understand) are in all cases replied to, then replied to again, and again until everyone is tired of repeating the same responses to the same claims. Beit Or 18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific papers per capita

In regards to your revert, see Talk:Israel#Scientific papers per capita. -- tariqabjotu 13:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] settlements

Certain editors are trying to monopolize this page (Israel) and push an Arab agenda, but I think you are jumping the gun, as it were, in getting upset about the word "settlements" in the context of the Second Lebanon War. Settlements are also "yishuvim" - not just "hitnahluyot." So yes, Israel attacked Lebanon to safeguard its northern border settlements, which are not settlements in the political sense as you are assuming.--Gilabrand 17:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is in English, where the word "settlement" when applied to Israel has easily recognizable connotations. Beit Or 17:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that is being overly touchy. These yishuvim are not large enough to be called towns or cities. The Israeli English media uses "northern/border settlements." --Gilabrand 17:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion of Peace

I am working on a rewrite of the Religion of Peace at User:Mike Young/Sandbox2 would value your comments on this, and especially any references you can add. Mike Young 13:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikistalk much?

Hi Beit Or. In the last half hour you have gone to a number of articles that I added material to and removed the material or otherwise undid my edits:

I am going to ask you to revert all of these edits and discuss the specific problems you have with each one of them. I'm also going to ask that you stop using my article contribs as the basis for you editing choices today. Otherwise, I will report you to WP:ANI. Thanks very much. Tiamut 19:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, you know that your editing is problematic, that you edit from a strong anti-Israeli/anti-Jewish POV, do not use reliable sources, and engage in original research. I have witnessed all these problems on Palestinian people and other articles whenever our ways crossed, including those that you have linked above. And now I am very serious: you must change your ways if you do not wish to be community sanctioned or brought before an ArbCom. I strongly urge to reconsider your approach to editing and start following Wikipedia policies for a change. Beit Or 19:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Please bring me before ArbComm. I am sick and tired of these baseless accusations and want the chance to clear my name of the noxious cloud of dust kicked up by people like you and Itzse (talk · contribs) who have no qualms making personal attacks. You were wiki-stalking and blind reverting on top of it. (Don't tell me that in half and hour you were able to read all the edits and sources you deleted in those five articles.) At the Facts on the Ground article you even reinserted material that was clearly WP:OR and had already been debunked on the talk page. So please spare me your tough talk and try to be more honest with yourself and others about what motivated your editing in that half hour. It certainly wasn't Wiki policy. Tiamut 00:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
PS. You went back and reverted again at three of the articles in question in three minutes:
  1. 19:46, 12 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Palestinian people‎ (rv per talk and ocmmon sense)
  2. 19:45, 12 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Nadia Abu El Haj‎ (Undid revision 157441724 by Tiamut (talk))
  3. 19:44, 12 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Bethoron‎ (rv biased edits, please state the case for inclusion of this material on talk)
This was followed by another revert at Arab Jews deleting everything again without discussion.
Please use the talk page to explain your deletions of sourced material. Thanks. Tiamut 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 12:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Hey Beit Or,
Welcome to WikiProject History! It's reccommended that you watchlist our talk page. Hope everythings going well!--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 21:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Massacre

Interesting that you consider the killing of 900 people to be a massacre, yet the killing of 100,000-200,000 is not.[6]

Bless sins 16:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nachtigall Battalion

Updated DYK query On 7 November 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nachtigall Battalion, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Request for comment/involvement

The normal method would be simply to leave a comment at WT:MILHIST and/or the associated task force pages. Kirill 20:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

Nishadni called me Imbacil and alithein called me and others fanatics. where do you think is the propre place to file a complaint ? Zeq 09:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I is probably the best place. Beit Or 19:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit war on Shiraz blood libel. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Mercury 21:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Mercury 21:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am speechless. Beit Or 22:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked. I do not believe it will happen again. Mercury 02:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "it"? Beit Or 22:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Could someone explain what happened here. Mercury blocked out of nowhere, unblocked, spoke of some "it". Maybe there was some discussion at ANI or elsewhere that I missed? Also, who is Mercury? Where is his RfA? --Irpen (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THANK YOU!!!

...for your excellent comment. I thought no one cared. sNkrSnee | t.p. 23:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Torah judgement reloaded

You were once involved in the discussion about whether the Banu Qurayza were massacred based/in line with/etc. provisions of the Torah. Some editor has reopened that can and I think you may want to comment ar Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Torah_issue_reloaded. Cheers, Str1977 (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at this. Str1977 (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 00:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Puzzled

Could you elaborate on this? Where's the attack? Catchpole (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To imply that Wikipedia is better off without a certain user is a personal attack. Please do not repeat it. Beit Or 22:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
okay, are you going to warn Jayjg about this mailing list post then? Catchpole (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
No, since it was not on Wikipedia, and he is not editing, anyway, so posting anything on his talk page is, at best, pointless. You do edit, though, and may be held responsible for policy violations. Beit Or 22:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About your comment

In the edit summary at this page, I used the talk page more than once. You don't seem to have even read it. Please do, and then bring your specific objections to the talk page so that we can come to a consensus version instead of having an edit war. Tiamut 19:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Holidays


Beit Or, Happy holidays, and Happy New Year See you next year.
Yahel Guhan 23:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

Hello. You may have seen that some Wikipedia articles lack sources to given dates, timelines and chronologies.
If you feel that you could like to help in making all articles more reliable and well sourced in this regard, we would like to encourage you to use, as part of your daily editing and when {{fact}} is not enough for requesting clearly and specifically a citation or source for dates, timeline or chronology, the following inline tags:

{{Histfact}} displays {history source needed} for requesting sources for historical claims and history context. Click here for more information
{{Timefact}} displays {chronology source needed} for requesting timelines, dates and chronology sources. Click here for more information


At WP Timeline Tracer, we thank you for using these tools and for helping to make Wikipedia articles more accurate and reliable.

Daoken 11:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] coordinator election

The Wikiproject History is going to elect 3 coordinators. As a member you are invited to participate. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)