Jump to content

User talk:Humus sapiens

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Republitarian (talk | contribs) at 03:17, 26 August 2006 (→‎Req for assistance: diction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Home Talk List Tools Policy Cmmn Puzzle Ubx Nav
Welcome to my civilized talk page.

Archives
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, ...
...
...

Please scroll down to append your message at the bottom or start a new topic.

?
  • Four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message would automagically sign and date it.
  • Unless asked otherwise, I may respond on your Talk page or on the Talk page of the specific article. If the dialog gets interesting, a link to the other half can be added here.
  • The puzzle is discussed here.
  • To send me an email message, see the left-hand panel, but I prefer to talk in the open.
  • Please follow talk page guidelines and wikiquette.

Resolution 242

The edit you have just omitted was not irrelevant at all. From a legal perspective, the ICJ ruling of July 2004 asserts that: 1. The whole of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem are occupied territories. 2. Under the principle of the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war, Israel has no right to change the reality on the ground in these territories. That includes building settlemens and the partition wall, all of which are illegal. 3. Israel should withdraw from all of these territories or else those agreed upon with the Palestinians.

Thus, the ruling makes it very clear that legally speaking, the interpretation of 242 which calls for a full withdrawal is the correct one. However, the debate over the interpretation remains of value from a political perspective, not a legal one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rearticulator (talkcontribs)

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1929 Palestine riots

Humus, I hope you don't mind but I have moved this back from "1929 Hebron massacre" as the 1929 disturbances included much more than the events in Hebron. The massacre itself should have its own article in my view. Perhaps you'd be interested in starting the article? --Ian Pitchford 21:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were a couple of dozen incidents during the 1929 disturbances, including the murder of Jewish children and elderly at Safed. Describing the events as the "Hebron massacre" implies that none of the other incidents were important. This is wrong, as the Shaw Commission report explains. --Ian Pitchford 07:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jude. My edit

  • "notoriety" is an inherently negative word. In this case, it is from the editor; not attributed. I first changed it to slightly positive "fame", then to "attracted attention". You rejected both...?
  • "Although claiming neutrality", insinuates that the names of the headings are not neutral. Listing them says enough.
  • Elders of Zion: I have a ton of excuses for that, but only concerning the content. But, if the protocol was cited as if it was authentic... I digress.
  • "Neo-Nazism" encompasses fascism, racism, anti-Semitism etc. Not just anti-Semitism, although you may see it that way. I really don’t think they qualify. They don't call themselves Nazis either.
  • "unintentional (or intentional)": empty statement, X or not X... nothing left.

And, you really should only mark vandalism as minor edits when reverting. Lastly, it was not my intention to hide my revert by editing twice (just read about rollback).

--CAD6DEE2E8DAD95A (hello!) 23:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Maps

I am flattered by being awarded this barnstar, thanks :)

I use CorelDRAW for making maps, but it may take you a long time to make that Peel map from scratch. I recommend using my full map of Israel as a basis, if you want to do this, please message me and I will send you the CDR version (or AI/SVG if you're going to use Adobe Illustrator).

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 02:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have since created this map of the Peel Commission proposal. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to Plan A.[1][2] However, the other plan, Tel Aviv is part of the Jewish state.[3] Or is that 2nd map just wrong? If you know, please shed light on this. I will also update the map to include Nazareth as a mandated enclave. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

What? I only made 3 reverts, the same as you. Deuterium 10:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which edit do you mean in this section? .[4]. There are far more edits than I remember. Also, if you object, can you specify your objection? It would help me in answering your question. Thanks. Politis 11:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humus, in wikipedia it is best to ask direct questions and hope for reasonable explanations, because it is prone to misunderstandings. I look forward to reading your precise question - if you wish. Thanks. Politis 11:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Article on terrorism

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

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

--Robcotton 01:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome message

Thanks, that was very receptive! I hope I can help! Cheers

maybe of interest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metula_Farms

David Ben-Gurion

Please add your support to David Ben-Gurion on the Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Respectfully, Republitarian 16:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Germany-Israel relations

I saw you created Germany-Israel relations. I'd like to get your perspective/knowledge on New Zealander-Israeli relations and Venezuelan-Israeli relations. There's a discussion on Talk:New Zealander-Israeli relations you may be interested in. Respectfully, Republitarian 00:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response. I'm not sure how to correct its blog-like reading... if there's something more specific I can do to improve the article, please let me know. I've moved the article to Israel-New Zealand relations and trimmed the spy scandal section with a link to a new page on the incident. Respectfully, Republitarian 14:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you discuss this Category matter on the talk page? Thanks. (Netscott) 06:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my Talk page

. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Humus, No problem, my pleasure....Also, as an aside, do I have to go through speedy deletion to delete one of my own user pages, specifically Old watch list page? Or can I just delete it myself since I created it as a subpage? I am not sure if I will ever learn all that Wiki entails :). Aside #2, User:Historymike has written his OWN bio and has added HIS own blog site to about 20 articles. I deleted these "sources" since MY understanding is that blogs should be avoided unless there is a very unusuall situation. I have referred him to many Wiki policy pages and will remain civil and encourage him but wanted to make sure I wasn't doing anything wrong. Anyways, I always appreciate constructive imput. Cheers! --Tom 19:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Why did you remove the following section from Ethnic bioweapon?

In November 1998, the Sunday Times reported that Israel was attempting to build an "ethno-bomb" containing a biological agent that could specifically target genetic traits present amongst Arab populations.[1] Wired also reported the story[2] [3], as did Foreign Report [4]. Expert reaction to the reports was skeptical towards the scientific plausibility of such a biological agent. [5] The New York Post, describing the claims as "blood libel", reported that the likely source for the story was a work of science fiction by Israeli academic Doron Stanitsky. Stanitsky had sent his completely fictional work about such a weapon to Israeli newspapers two years before. The article also noted the views of genetic researchers who claimed the idea as "wholly fantastical".[6]

It seems very well cited and appropriate to me. Thanks, Deuterium 00:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Why are you replacing this

According to David Albright of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "Faced with sanctions, South Africa began to organize clandestine procurement networks in Europe and the United States, and it began a long, secret collaboration with Israel." although he goes on to say "A common question is whether Israel provided South Africa with weapons design assistance, although available evidence argues against significant cooperation." [7]

with this

According to David Albright of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "... available evidence argues against significant cooperation."

Surely the larger quote is more accurate and representative of what he actually says in the paper, rather than a misrepresentative sentence fragment? The sentence fragment is not evidence against a joint programme but only applies to "weapons design assistance".

Secondly, why did you remove the fact that Chris McGreal wrote in the Guardian? That's a relevant fact regarding the credibility of the story; he did not self-publish his article.

Thirdly, why did you restore the sentence "Israeli ambassadors spoke publicly against racism in apartheid South Africa." despite the fact there are no citations that ambassadors did do such a thing?

Fourthly, why did you replace "Israel developed a relationship with South Africa during the 1970s and 1980s." with "There are controversial claims that Israel developed a relationship with South Africa during the 1970s and 1980s."? Are you denying that Israel and South Africa did have a relationship during the 70s and 80s, against the many sources in the article? Do you have sources that claim this?

Thank you, Deuterium 01:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming a blog?

Thanks for promoting the I-NZ and I-Ven relations pages and for cleaning up the I-Jap relations page. I don't mind cutting down the fox journalists-kidnapping section with a link to a main page, but I dont understand why you want to get rid of the section altogether. I also dont understand why you feel this story is bloggish. I agree the story has excessively been hyped by the media, but for one thing it's the mainstream media doing the hyping, and the kidnapping is still an important story.

I could see an arguement that the kidnapping has more to do with New Zealand-Palestine relations than Israel-New Zealand relations. Please respond on the Talk:Israel-New Zealand relations. In regards to the naming style for the bilateral relations pages, I honestly had forgotten about moving U.S.-Ven relations. Respectfully, Republitarian 16:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, I saw in your edit summary that you put "that's PNA not Israel," but the PNA page is peptic nucleic acid page, not Palestinian National Authority. :) Republitarian 16:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Humus sapiens. Are you familar at all with the story of Jonathan Pollard? Deuterium (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) is editing on it and given his edit history I'm a bit concerned about neutral point of view being maintained on the article. If you're familiar with the Jonathan Pollard case then maybe you could take a look? Thanks. (Netscott) 06:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I appreciate your thanks, I find that we agree on some matter when it comes to POV. It is always nice to have WikiFriend. --Shamir1 06:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Palestinian-Israeli conflcit

Hi there,

It strikes me that this timeline, while I think is mostly quite neutral for the most part, certain sections do not state facts. Many entries in this section I believe do not conform to a NPOV.

a) The details of Camp David in 2000 are heatedly debated. b) It is important to note that Arafat walked away from the 2000 talks, but it is equally important to note that Sharon walked away from the 2001 talks. c) The violations of the cease-fire in 1982 along the Israel-Lebanon border are not accurately described. There were 2 violations in 11 months, 1) an IDF truck hit a land mine, and the assassination attempt. The shelling of Israeli boder towns was not during this period. And 2) there were Israeli violations of the cease-fire as well. However, the description made it sound as if the PLO violations were shelling Israeli towns preceeding the war, with no Israeli violations, inaccurate.

I know this is a heated subject, but some of the edits being made here I feel do not present the fact accurately.

A student of history 16:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem

I added it to the page because Ge'ez is the Liturgical language of the Ethiopian Orthodox and Eritrean Orthodox Churches. I would just limit the name to Arabic and Hebrew as those are the languages of Israel, but if the Latin and Greek names are to be included due to their status as liturgical languages, then languages like Ge'ez and Syriac should be represented as well. — ዮም | (Yom) | TalkcontribsEthiopia 01:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

apparently, User:A student in history and I will be working together on the Timeline, due to some disagreements (and agreements which he thinks I disagree on). He has messaged me and tries to correct me as if I had solely created the article. I think he misunderstands. He feels I put POV but everything I contributed has been sourced and true. I have encouraged him to add on rather than remove my statements, however I am dubious that he will actually do that. I am willing to cooperate in this manner, however I think I may need some help. I am wondering if you would help me monitor the article, and keep the timeline as complete as possible. I have some outside Internet resources if you should need them. Get back to me. Thanks. --Shamir1 07:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indef block of User:Freiheit94

You marked User:Freiheit94 as being blocked indefinitely on his user page, but his block log only shows a 31 hour block. Something seems to wrong here... --Wasell 17:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't! My bad! Apparently User:Yujn added the indef block template to User:Freiheit94's user page. Sorry 'bout the misunderstanding. --Wasell 17:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Methinks we have a vandal on our hands! I looked at Yujn's contributions, and they seem to demand a revert/delete spree. Would you, beeing an administrator and all, like deal with that? --Wasell 17:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, methinks NOT! Can I do anything right today? But still, User:Freiheit94 doesn't seem to be indef blocked... --Wasell 17:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the welcome. I've been a constant reader here for some time, but have only recently begun tentative edits. Is there any way to view the contents of a deleted article? I realize that the "Constantinople" text seems to exist in two versions, according as whether the petitiioners are said to be in Spain or France.

Samhook 13:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GREAT FREEOM FIGHTER

There lives an Ahmed Yassin in all of us. I saw the edits user Freiheit94 made. He spoke the truth. I also demand freedom for Palestine. Great Palestinian freedom fighter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Yassin

There is a dispute there. Can you please join the discussion. --Reza1 22:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Req for assistance

Recent events have led me to believe that most if not all administrators on Wikipedia are worthless, destructive elements. I could appeal the case in question to WP:ANI, but alas, that seems to be a neverending trainwreck.

You can demonstrate that my estimation of administrative incompetence and malicious intent is incorrect by deleting Scientology Public Relations and indefinitely blocking two obvious vandal accounts - "Lord Xenu" and "tluc a si ygolotneics". The first is an obvious reference to Xenu, the second is "Scientology is a cult" spelled backwards. Their actions are sustained by administrators. Republitarian 03:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Israel planning 'ethnic' bomb as Saddam caves in". The Sunday Times (UK). 1998-11-15. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ "Israel's Ethnic Weapon?". Wired. 1998-11-16. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ James Ridgeway (February 2, 1999). "Ethnic Warfare". The Village Voice.
  4. ^ "UPI report".
  5. ^ "Debunking the "ethno-bomb"". Salon.com. 1998-12-02. Retrieved 2006-07-11.
  6. ^ "Now Playing: A Blood Libel For The 21st Century". New York Post. 1998-11-22. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  7. ^ "South Africa and the affordable bomb". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 1994-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)