User talk:Humus sapiens

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,
...
...
...

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.

IDF

Hey, let's suppose that what I added to Israel Defense Forces article is not appropriate to be put in the intro, why did you delete it completely from the article? -- Marquez 14:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just skimmed the entire article, and don't see under what existing or possible other heading such content might be appropriately included, as it's not intrinsically about the IDF. It pertains more to something along the lines of "Israel in world opinion", section: "foreign media" subsection: "Arab world". HTH, Deborahjay 03:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

On the Jews and Their Lies

I would appreciate you looking in on the recent additions Doright has made to the article, my improvements, his reverts, etc. I'd like your opinion on my actions in the matter, and, if you find his behavior out of line, having you say something to him. Thanks! Bob--CTSWyneken 19:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Death Valley Driver Video Review

Hi! The entry for Death Valley Driver Video Review keeps being listed for deletion by one user, who refuses to abide by the previous consensus determinations. He has listed the article AGIn for deletion, depite the last one being held only 11 days ago that he also listed. This user User:JB196 has a personal situation with the people who run the site that this entry refers to, and is the only real reason he keeps trying to have the article deleted. It keeps surviving the attempts, and it is getting VERY tiring to have to go through it all again. I forgot to mention that JB196 is also the creator of the entry for TheSmarks.com, which is a direct competitor to Death Valley Driver Video review Please advise or quash the Afd. TruthCrusader 08:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

DVDR

Hi. I will not bother responding to TruthCrusader, as he has violated WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF many times in the past. TheSmartMarks.com is in no way a "competitor" to DVDR. Nor do I have a "personal situation" with DVDR. The reason I am contacting you is because I saw your message on the afD and I am inquiring as to when it will be allowed to relist it for nomination? Thanks in advance.

EDIT: Sir, also note that your message says "unless a discussion had no consensus and a marked lack of contributors." I am the only contributor to DVDR so there is a "marked lack of contributors." Regards.JB196 10:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Caleb and the Jew Watch article

Caleb has been warned again and again (and again and again), yet he continues to make edits that are POV/Vandalism. Some edits seem like they may be slightly POV, but good intentioned, while others, like changing "Jew Watch is a website that claims it reports accurate information..." to "Jew Watch is a website that reports accurate information..." are obviously not. At what point is it appropriate to move forward, and give him more serious warning, with the threat of a ban? _si»abhorreo»^T 11:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Caleb Here

you have my reply at my talk page.

Caleb Parks 19:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

CrazyRussian's RfA

File:Motherussia.jpg

Hello Humus sapiens, Shalom Chaver, Zdorovo Drug, and thank you for your support at my request for adminship, which ended with an awe-inspiring 86/1/2 result. I plan to do much with my shiny new tools - but I'll start slow and learn the ropes at first. Please deluge me with assignments and requests - I enjoy helping out. For Mother Russia!! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mohammed Ahmadinejad

I see that I recently received a kind of backhanded but unjustified praise -- in the form of an absurd attack for "vandalism" -- for your recent, excellent edits to Mohammed Ahmadinejad. See the Talk page, bottom.--Mantanmoreland 15:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Humus. Fruitless, Usenet-style debates such as the one on the Ahmadinejad talk page make me want to run back to my novel stubs! I now see why people avoid the hot-button topics.--Mantanmoreland 00:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo

has seen fit to start making threatsover a user dispute at Oleg. I have done my best to be reasonable but his trollism and pattern of vandalism (see also Oleg of Novgorod is driving me to distraction (to the minimal extent it's possible to be upset by virtual interactions with people I've never met). Your counsel and assistance would be greatly appreciated. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo is a continuing problem from what I've seen. His edits reflect a rabid, jingoistic, and parochial Russian and pan Slavic bias. 71.199.196.105 03:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

JE citations

any thoughts? --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Doright deletes three formal warnings from his talk page

Would you please warn Doright that he should not remove formal personal attack warnings from his talk page? If he attacks once more, I intend to put a note on the Administrator's intervention board and these warnings are required. I am tired of these personal attacks on me and others. --CTSWyneken 21:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I'm not sure who deleted the info. But its back now... --CTSWyneken 00:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll look in on Rosin's page. I sure hope he'll play by the rules.

On Doright, one more personal attack I see from him, I will list him on the Personal Attacks incident board. It is about time an admin takes action against his slash-and-burn methods. --CTSWyneken 00:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Israel Delisted as GA

I was wondering if you had any input on the delisting. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 23:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops....

I guess I neglected to "spam" you! My apologies.-Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Better late than never --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

My Comments on Rosen's Page

Dear Humus: My comments on his page are intended to convince him to play by the rules. I am not at all making any kind of antisemitic comment. Can you imagine what Doright would say to his POV? Or what PTMcCain might say to a Christian apostate, if I cannot keep him away from his dark side? I suspect that, to say the least, you have a negative reaction to Rosen. Much the same as I would have for Christian becoming a Mormon sharing his views on the superiority of the LDS. The true test of tolerance on Wikipedia is to treat them fairly, if not warmly. In his case, open advocacy of his POV is likely to test the limits. So I intend to watch him to see that he stays within the lines if he stays at all. --CTSWyneken 00:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

DVD+R/W's RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which ended with the result of (74/0/0). If there is anything I can help with feel free to ask. Also, if there is anything I am doing wrong, please point that out as well. I look forward to working with you in the future. Highest regards, DVD+ R/W 01:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Heads up

Heads up on this user[1].Timothy Usher 01:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, for that among other things including vandalizing my userpage. One week. When the block on the IP expired, he returned under the new username.Timothy Usher 02:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

He's not a sockpuppet. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What's with the new username? Why did he choose to take down the alternate account notice? The puppetmaster template is inappropriate here.Timothy Usher 03:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

He is not using his new account to do anything that is against policy or any other questionable activities (such as trying to go around the 3rr rule). BhaiSaab ^talk 04:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, what is it for? And why did he take down the alternate account notice? The current template simply doesn't apply, and crucially does not show the name of his other account. If I had to guess, I'd say he was running away from his block log, as suggested by this comment.Timothy Usher 04:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to call your attention to this link which BhaiSaab wanted to use to make an article "neutral".Timothy Usher 11:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You really have some problems, Timothy. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Bantustan again

Please don't keep adding pro- or con- arguments to the section on usages outside of SA. The section was only ever intended to document the existence of these usages, not to present articles for or against them. WP:RS doesn't apply in this context - everyone agrees that the term is used (which is all the paragraph in question says) so there's no "opposing POV" to present. Unless you're arguing that someone denies that the term is used at all in an Israeli context? I'd like to see your evidence for that proposition!

You should have noticed that the section doesn't make any comment at all on whether the Israeli usage is justified. If you add an argument against the Israeli use, you're favouring your own POV, because you then haven't presented the opposite POV. That's just a recipe for creating yet another forked article and another Israeli-Palestinian edit war. It's also very inconsistent to have arguments presented for just one of the examples listed. I'm trying to keep the article focused - if you want to add arguments for or against the usage of the word, please take them to a more relevant article, such as Israeli apartheid or Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Bantustan is not an appropriate article in which to debate the merits of the comparison. -- ChrisO 02:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding an acceptable compromise. But I have to say that I'm perturbed by your approach to this question. You clearly have a strong POV on the issue but you as an administrator, of all people, should know by now that WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox: "Wikipedia articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind." It's simply not our job to "refute a slanderous accusation" or for that matter to promote it. All we are here to do is to describe neutrally what others say about the issue. WP:NPOV#A simple formulation states it better than I could - "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves".

This is really basic stuff. Frankly I'm surprised and dismayed that I'm finding myself having to explain it to a fellow administrator, even a relatively new one. Wikipedia has more than enough partisan editors - as administrators, we should be pushing for objectivity, not pushing our own partisan POVs. If you hold a strong POV on an issue, that's all the more reason for consciously trying to avoid letting it colour your editing. -- ChrisO 09:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Response: [2]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The most useless type of edit

This tag means nothing. I'll e-mail you why: [3] Zeq 13:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hafrada

I have done a potential rewrite of this article in my user-space here. Please tell me what you think. The history starts with the current "live" version so you can compare the changes. In fact if you think it will work with some tweaking, please feel free to do so right on that page and then let me know. 6SJ7 17:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There is some elaboration in your e-mail. 6SJ7 19:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hanukkah.

Hello, Humus Sapiens. I have many questions about Hanukkah. I know that Hanukkah is celebration of Judaism. It is usually between November and December. I'm just curious about Hanukkah. In my opinion, Hanukkah is like Thanksgiving day because both Hanukkah and Thanksgivingday is in November of December. Did I guess right? I'm not sure about Hanukkah. What kinds of Celebration is Hanukkah? Or What kinds of food do they usually eat in Hanukkah? Could you explain to me everything that I asked you about Hanukkah in my discussion's page? Thanks. *~Daniel~* 06:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The tag really helps solve Homey's article - not

[4] Zeq 03:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Israeli propaganda

Hi Humus: Meet the new Category:Israeli propaganda. All the best, IZAK 08:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I need to e-mail you

tnx. Zeq 03:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Persistent vandal

Please take a look at Nagara373's activities. I also suspect there is an IP sockpuppet. --Dweller 10:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltar

I would like to ask you a favour. Could you please have a look at the talk page and history of the article on Gibraltar. Over the past few months a number of users, including myself, have been in conflict with user:Gibnews. We feel he has taken over the page as his pet project and has imposed a NPOV pro-Gibraltarian point of view. I feel his attitude and utter refusal to acheive any form of consensus is contrary to the rules of wikipedia. He accuses everyone of Spanish propaganda even on issues which are not directly related to the Anglo-Spanish dispute over Gibraltar and reverts pretty much everything which is not written by himself. Although I am not Spanish, I sometimes wonder if I may be slightly biased towards the Spanish perspective. I do not however believe that Gibraltar should be Spanish and I try to remain as neutral as possible. I do not have a problem with Gibnew's views. I simply do not approve of his way of discarding other people's sources, opinions etc... You should perhaps consult other users for their opinions such as user:ecemaml and user:asterion.

That is why I ask you, as an uninterested party, to mediate or atleast give your perspective on this issue.

Please look at the talk page over the past few months. Conflict with user Gibnews seems to go a long way back.

Thankyou very much for your help. We would really appreciate it. There is nothing worse that when articles are hijacked by individuals with political agendas. --Burgas00 13:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150355528268&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Hey

(Now if I've understood this correctly, I'm supposed to reply what people write to me in 'their' talk pages and not my own, right? Anyway, I've now replied both here and in my own talk page.)

The reply:

I apologize for making the assumption. You expect me to behave a certain way because of how the Germans practiced National Socialism. Everyone has their own interpretation of the ideology and mine is a lot more liberal than most. I believe in the Holocaust and that the German National Socialists commited such atrocities, and I could never do the same. But I do question the number and I pretty much agree with everything in that "spam link" I posted before. Paulus Caesar 05:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an outragous edit

Humus - why did you do that . [5] you know that there is no "apartheid" in east jerusalem and that all/most palestinians just want to become jerusalem residents see how many of them file petitions against the wall to make sure they would be included in the israeli side of the jerusalem wall.)

everything you added there in analogy section is a bunch of propeganda. If you want to NPOV - please NPOV each sentence don't leave this whole section to stand out like this please. Zeq 10:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I respect what you do

but this was a mistake. you should be repsonsible for your edits no matter where they came from.

we spent weeks analyzing the sources and in one minute you restore one sided POV claims that some come from non-WP:RS sources. Zeq 20:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Comment To Me

Despite what you may consider "nonsense", my comments and edits are based on FACTS. I can back up every single thing I post here. So, if you have a question on anything, feel free to contact me with evidence backing up your position. --Jtpaladin 03:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

My comments are factual

I don't know where you are getting your information but I would I appreciate you giving me a source to support your conclusions. Please, no Israeli or Jewish sources. We can go around all day with that nonsense. If you are going to use Dio Cassius, then please show me a link from a historical source.

Despite what you may consider "nonsense", my comments and edits are based on FACTS. I can back up every single thing I post here. So, if you have a question on anything, feel free to contact me with evidence backing up your position. --Jtpaladin 03:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I verified your info and I would ask you do the same

I'm going to quote the "Jewish Encyclopedia" in the case of Cyrene and Cyprus regarding Gentile deaths, as per Cassius Dio.

Also, can you please tell me how to add a "TALK?" after my signature so it links to my talk page? I have followed the proper format but all I keep getting is a non-hyper link "TALK?". Any help would be appreciated. Lastly, I hope we can be friends. Thank you. --Jtpaladin 16:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Response: [6] ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism

Dear Humus sapiens! I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. Please put it on your watchlist, and please add relevant AfD's as you find them. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Homeontherange_reported_by_User:Zeq_2

And if Humus were to act on your specious complaint he'd be in a conflict of interest. Homey 06:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, this is paranoia. I Never wanted Humnus to act I wanted him to know what is going on. I informed him and another editor you reverted (the other editor is not an admin but that is irelevant) Zeq 06:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hidden History

If you follow the link to the online book you'll see the following:

"Reposted here by permission"

Thus, no copyvio. Homey 22:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hate speech?

Where is the hate speech? Give me a quotation. Homey 22:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Buthelezi

I don't think Buthelezi thought apartheid was apartheid so his views on Israel do not come as a surprise:) (Buthelezi was widely considered to be a collaborator with the apartheid era government). Homey 01:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid proposal

Thanks for asking - I'll certainly support this proposal as far as it relates to the South African pages. I would suggest rephrasing it so that it's purely a factual proposal, rather than expanding on your opinions on the very controversial issue of the Israeli Apartheid article. You can always add those comments below in the voting section, but if you keep them separate from the proposal itself, all sides would be able to support your overall proposal without being seen to endorse a particular view on that sub-issue. Zaian 10:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added my voice. I thought hard about this, and decided to abstain from the debate about the Israeli Apartheid article, but this shouldn't reflect on your proposal. Zaian 11:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Humus, thanks for asking. I'm putting some thoughts together this week and I hope to submit them on the weekend. It's a good thing Kim has given us two weeks to do deep thinking. Su-Laine Yeo 07:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Humus, thanks again for asking. I've put up a new proposal and I would appreciate your feedback too. I'm going to let it speak for itself now and get off your talk page before someone accuses me of being part of a religious faction ;) Su-Laine Yeo 23:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This is not NPOV:

""Israeli apartheid" is a highly controversial expression: its proponents use it to compare Israel's policy with respect to the Palestinians on the West Bank and, to a lesser extent, its own Arab citizens to apartheid-era South Africa; according to its opponents, it is misused to isolate and condemn Israel. [1] (See the criticism section below.)"

There is no point just saying that it's opponets say it is to condem israel after all if Israel is anapartheid state ity should be condemed. Zeq 04:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Gender apartheid

I think your proposal is generally good. I think, however, that Gender apartheid may be viable as a stand-alone article. As an experiment, I've copied and pasted gender apartheid material from Jay's article to the Gender apartheid article - I'd be interested in your thoughts. Homey 04:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Some category namings

Hi Humus : Please see:

• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 29#Category:Orthodox educational institutions to Category:Orthodox Jewish educational institutions and
• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 29#Category:Orthodox Jews to Category:Notable Orthodox Jews

Thank you. IZAK 05:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

better wording

Israeli apartheid is a term used by those who oppose israel's right to exist as the homeland of the Jewish people. The proponents of using this term claim that there is a analogy between Israel's policy toward Palestinians (inside Israel and in the Palestinian territories) and the apartheid regimen policy toward blacks while opponents of using the term point out that it is not accurate historically and that even critics of Israel's policies should not be using a term that is offensive and used as justification for attacks on Israel's right to exist with a goal of turnning Israel to a country rulled by Palestinians.

The accusation is often found on webs sites of all ranges of new anti-Semites – from neo-Nazis to extreme left.

See :

http://www.mideastweb.org/israel_apartheid.htm

http://www.zionism-israel.com/issues/Apartheid.html

http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000117.html

see example:

The homosexual agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used by those opposed to the LGBT rights movement, especially conservative Christians and other social conservatives in the United States, to describe what they see as the attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from what they consider traditional morality. The term is considered offensive by many,[1], particularly those who see the goals of the movement to be equal rights. Often, those who would be offended by a serious reference to this term still use it satirically or sarcastically.[2][3] Zeq 09:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you thougfht about it ?

Do you have better wording ? have you read the articles I attached to the more NPOV lead ? Zeq 19:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The June 2006 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. Kirill Lokshin 05:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks

I was somewhat irritated that it seemed like nobody'd even bothered to read my complaint. I couldn't find the offending templates in {{Torah portion}}, not that I couldn't find what the problem was, I mean I couldn't actually find any evidence that the offending templates actually exist. That you narrowed it down to the ==Templates== section was immensely helpful, not only in finding the final culprit, but also in giving me the impetus to do so. Anyhoo, I just wanted to drop you a note saying "thanks". שבת שלום. Tomer^talk 00:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Bantustan India reference

I think the section on India you inserted is actually referring to South Africa, the NP in South Africa, and the fact that the NP changed the terminology from Bantustan to Homeland. It certainly makes minimal sense to me in an Indian context, but perfect sense if it's about South Africa. I think the India reference just means that in South Africa, the -stan ending was used by analogy with the name of the newly-formed Pakistan. If so, the reference doesn't belong under the section about Bantustans outside South Africa... can you convince me your reference is actually about India? Zaian 21:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I read that reference, but I'm still sure it is referring to South Africa (not to mention that the paper is about South Africa). The India partition reference simply implies that the South Africans mirrored the name Pakistan. There wouldn't have been apartheid apologists in India, and the anti-apartheid circles were in South Africa, and the NP that changed the name to Homelands is not the Indian National Congress but the South African NP. Zaian 07:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalizing?

Excuse me, but how did I "vandalize" the David Duke article? I removed an irrelevant sentence, more accurately paraphrased Duke's statements in the Current Issues interview, and changed one of the sources from an Anti-Defamation League article, which is a very biased source, to a link to video footage of the interview itself. Construing my minor and accurate edits as "vandalism" and threatening to ban me from Wikipedia is nothing short of outrageous.

--Ryodox 04:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If I may make a comment

Just an aside, I thought i'd note, Jesus being the Messiah to someone actually doesn't technically make them a Christian. It turns out that to Muslims, Jesus actually is the Messiah as well, but their definition doesn't entail Jesus being the actual son of God, atoning for anybody's sins, or really as far as I know much of anything that helped anyone at all. It's in the Messiah article, I don't plan to revert you or anything because I don't know much about the Jews for Jesus organization, but I just thought i'd point it out. Homestarmy 04:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose, but still, I just thought you might want to know :) Homestarmy 17:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome messages

Hi colleague, this is regarding [7]. We usually use {{anon}} to invite IP users to register. Also, it would be good to check their contributions first: do we really want to invite spammers and vandals? Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Usually {{anon}} is used, yes, but I like to give a more informal, friendly welcome. The few edits I checked through looked on the surface looked fine to me (since adding the template the user seems to have made more vandal-like and spam-like edits), and a quick lookup suggested that the IP may be used by more than one person, and I assumed good faith: in my mind, an IP user should be treated no differently from a registered user- some of our more established members started on the rocky side of editing before converting from the "dark side"!

Surely a warm welcome is more of incentive to add constructively than a "stop it" message with little explanation? I do agree that some users on Wikipedia are malicious and will probably never add anything meaningful, but remaining civil doesn't cost anything, and without anyone to annoy, they may go tired of adding spam anyway (it's a long shot, but hey!).

I can see your point, but, as I said, I made efforts to check the user's edits (although I somehow missed their edits to Creampie) and IP address and believe all users deserve the same warm Wikipedia welcome, registered or not. I know your message was posted in good faith, and so was my welcome message, so we have something in common!

By the way, pretty off-topic, have you considered joining Esperanza? We're always looking for new members who are as active and as you seem to be, and it provides a nice break from editing if it all gets too stressful.

Regards,

EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 12:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing you around Esperanza! Love your name and the explanation on your userpage, by the way! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 09:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thank you

Thank you! Thank you, Sentient Chick-pea Salad, for your support in my RfA. I appreciate your trust and support, and I will do my best to further help this great encyclopædia and community of ours. If there is anything that you feel I can do to help, please let me know. -- Avi 02:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

IP 82.26.29.46 sockpuppet?

Could you please check if 82.26.29.46 is actually Ulritz, who had the same Modus Operandi and was obsessed with the same section of Zionist political violence? Thanks,--Leflyman^Talk 03:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Funny thing: for some reason I had thought you had CheckUser privileges. Must be sleep-deprivation. (Addendum: aha, now I realise why! I've somehow confused you for Jayjg-- D'oh.) --Leflyman^Talk 04:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

your opinion is NOT fact

Thanks for your comments on my edit. Clearly you are confused - you are not the sole arbitor of wehat is fact and what not no maytter how pompously or dogmatically you may say something. 82.26.28.24 22:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Apartheid arbitration

The move/revert war issue for Israeli Apartheid has been referred to arbitration. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Move and revert warring at Israeli Apartheid --John Nagle 00:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't me & Thankyou

Hi Humus sapiens it wasn't me that did disruptive edits, I only correct VW stuff and Car stuff.

BTW thanks for unlocking letting me adjust stuff. --VWphaetonfan 09:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli apartheid

I suggest you actually read the complaint - you may want it to be about me but John Nagle's complaint is about the revert war over the name. And I'm sorry, your statement was not only a personal attack it was also contradictory and nonsensical. Homey 15:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see it the complaint is about *you* arbitrarily deciding to rename the article when there was no consensus to do it. Frankly, it's not very impressive that rather than take responsibility for your actions you're scapegoating me, a person who wasn't even involved in the revert war. Homey 15:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin 3RR Report on BHouston:Response

(Copied from 3RR incident report)

It is important to note SlimVirgin's portrayal is simply inaccurate. The main problems with her portrayal are:

1. In the edits she points to above, I clearly added information that the founder was "Dr. Andrew Marks, a Columbia University professor" -- accurate and sourced information which SlimVirgin blindly reverted 3 times. Jayjg eventually added it back himself after her third removal of that information.
2. The organization did not mention in any way, in any literature, that the boycotts where examples of New Anti-Semitism, instead the group in question said they were anti-Semitic -- which is something different. SlimVirgin is pushing an OR linkage -- it is not a coincidence that SlimVirgin has dozens upon dozens of edits to the New Anti-Semitism article in the last few days -- it is her pet article.
3. I also added information that the organization is a "American non-profit" -- to SlimVirgin this is another of my sins as she mentions above. But the organization is clearly registered as under the IRS code 501(c)3 as a non-profit -- it says so on its website. So my sin here is adding accurate information.

I stand behind my edits. To call me and my accurate edits disruptive while ignoring SlimVirgins blind reverts of true and sourced information is wrong. SlimVirgin has framed my edits in a negative light, a light that the facts do not support, because that is more effective getting action. Unfortunately, it seems that with Humus Sapiens, SlimVirgin found someone willing to unquestioning believe her. --Ben Houston 21:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

RfM

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)