User talk:Tegwarrior

"claims that the 1949 line is not a valid border form a fringe opinion"

I don't want to embarrass you, Tariqabjotu, but this comment from you betrays that you are pretty ignorant of the subject. Please do a little research before you make such claims. Tegwarrior 15:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For fun, you can try to find the 1949 line on this map from an Israeli government website: [1]. Does the Israeli government count as a fringe group? Tegwarrior 15:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For more fun, you can try to find any map from the Israeli government that recognizes the Green Line as a valid border. Tegwarrior 15:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize we are talking about the 1949 line, not the 1967 line. Right? -- tariqabjotu 15:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am well aware of that. Here is something else for you to peruse: "The agreement states that this is a necessary step towards reestablishing peace in the Land of Israel, and emphasizes that in no way is the armistice line to be interpreted as a political or territorial border, nor does it constitute interference with the rights, claims, or positions of any side vis-a-vis the final settlement of the question of the Land of Israel." [2]. Let me know when you've seen enough. Tegwarrior 15:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... that's a primary source from 1949. It's 2007; times have changed. -- tariqabjotu 15:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tariqabjotu, the words that carefully point out that the 1949 Armistice Agreement does not regard the armistice lines as borders are current words on an Israeli government website. They are not words from the Agreement. It is the Israeli government's position that the Green Line is not an international border, and they are on that up-to-date web page pointing to the 1949 Armistice Agreement to support this position. It is not a position that the Israeli government publicizes broadly, but it is their position, and it has been their position since 1949. Times have not changed as much as you think. If you doubt me, find some statement from the Israeli government to the contrary. Tegwarrior 16:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the website you mentioned:

The agreement states that this is a necessary step towards reestablishing peace in the Land of Israel, and emphasizes that in no way is the armistice line to be interpreted as a political or territorial border, nor does it constitute interference with the rights, claims, or positions of any side vis-a-vis the final settlement of the question of the Land of Israel.

That sounds to me like that's talking about the agreement. -- tariqabjotu 16:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[3] made on September 22 2007 to Israel

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.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: This third revert was done to undo user:okedem's fifth revert of the day, which I had asked him to undo himself in order to avoid being blocked (he wouldn't) and which I had reported him for an hour earlier (no action taken in that hour) and after I pleaded with several other editors involved in the article to restore just the POV flag I had placed and that okedem had removed with his fifth revert of the day (none of them would).

Diff4 (partial revert; POV tag removal is what I counted)

FWIW: This fourth "revert" was to place a POV flag on an article that had changed and that in my opinion had become more biased than the article on which I placed my earlier POV flag, which this POV flag was allegedly a "reversion" to. I note that any deletion of a POV flag while the person who placed it is still involved in discussions over the matters of alleged bias is a clear violation of the direction on the POV template: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."

Diff5 (this edit is essentially equal to the previous POV tag removal)

FWIW: This fifth "revert" was to add sectionPOV flags to all of the sections I believed had POV issues after another editor replaced my article POV flag with a sectionPOV flag that he decided, without consulting me and without any apparent regard for comments that I had made to him about my concerns about bias, addressed every concern I had raised.

Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia

I see you've waded into the Israel article. You are going to have a tough time there getting any changes effected. They will require pages and pages on writing on talk to get one sentence changed, often only to have a far less NPOV version inserted overtop it. I don't want to discourage you, though it seems you've already noticed it. If you have the patience for endless and often fruitless dialogue, by all means carry on. If you get tired of it, know there are lots of other articles that need help. Palestine Liberation Organization for example is in dire need of a rewrite and Defense (Emergency) Regulations and Palestinian literature need expansion, as do lots of Palestinian towns like Sebastia, West Bank and the like. Anyway, if you need anything or any advice, let me know. Breathe deeply, take it easy, and remember Wikipedia is not a battleground ... even when it feels like you're fielding sniper shots overhead. :) Regards, Tiamut 21:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After screwing up and posting the above message to your user page, I come here and notice your block. I guess you didn't know about WP:3RR. Don't worry, it happens to best of us. (Its happened to me four times - Three times I was reported by the same adversarial editor who was gaming 3RR, but that still doesn't excuse my repeat offender status.) Don't get discouraged. Just remember that even though it feels like you just have to restore whatever it was you wanted to have in the article, no matter how right you may be, you should just put it off for a bit when things descend into edit war territory. Go to another article. It's not worth and you can't be productive in that kind environment anyway. See you soon I hope and don't forget to smile. Tiamut 21:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome, Tiamut! I've already received another "welcome" of sorts, but my proctologist assures me that I'll be able to walk without pain in another day or so. ;-) Tegwarrior 01:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look at your user page, Tiamut. I am sometimes torn between hoping that the world will be forgiven for what we have done to the Palestinians and hoping that we will not be, because we clearly do not deserve forgiveness ... at least not yet. On behalf of myself, my family, and my nation (I'm American), please know that I am deeply, deeply sorry for our role in the torment of your people. And at this time, I am particularly sorry for the horror that is about to be visited upon Gaza. There seems to be not very much that I can do for you, but I hope it at least gives you some meager comfort that there are a few of us yet who have not forgotten you. Peace be upon you. Tegwarrior 02:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My dear dear Tegwarrior. Your message brought tears to my eyes as my heart smiled. Of course we know that there are wonderful people in the world who still harbor a sense of responsibility for their fellow human beings and sense some culpability at the largesse they enjoy while others suffer. But we also know you you suffer too. We all suffer when any one of us suffers.

I don't blame American people for what is happening to my people. I blame a system that is manufacturing death instead of life, prisons instead of parks, and so on and so forth. We are all victims. Including those for whom the emperor still wears clothes.

Thank you for you kind words and your expression of concern. I feel just as helpless as you do. Gaza might as well be on the moon. There is no way I can visit there. You need to have immediate family there and get a permit if you are a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship. It's nearly impossible otherwise. And anyway, what would I do there? They hardly have enough food to feed themselves, let alone a relatively pampered person like myself. It's shocking, isn't it?

I have hope though that the light that shines from people like you will one day triumph over darkness. Peace my friend. Tiamut 21:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP Warning

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at David Littman (human rights activist)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Littman (human rights activist). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Qaddosh|^talk|contribs 03:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is a historian?

Your edits recently seem to imply that no-one without a Ph.D. in history is a historian. That may be your point of view; but such personal opinions have no place here. Please cease such presumptuous claims. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC) (B.A. (Hist.) magna cum laude, UW-Milwaukee)[reply]

I apologize for any misconceptions which I hold about you and your views. I was going by an edit you made in which you stripped the term "historian" from a subject, and stated in the edit summary that his Ph.D. was in a related field, not in History. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Littman

At least two editors (Canadian Monkey and myself) object to your moving the article from David Littman (historian) to David Littman (human rights activist). You must first gain consensus for moving an article to a new title before actually implemeting the move. Move-warring is generally considered disruptive. Beit Or 12:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring on David Littman (historian). 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. Trebor (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.

AfD nomination of David Littman (historian)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is David Littman (historian). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Littman (historian). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]