User talk:GHcool/Archive 2

Mediation note

(copied from talk page.)

Dear Sm8900,
Again, thanks for your interest in the mediation I am involved in. However, I would appreciate it if you would not make comments directly on the mediation talk page. As JaapBoBo said on 23 December, you are welcome to leave comments on either my or his user talk page, but the mediation page itself should be reserved only for me, JaapBoBo, and the mediator. Thank you for understanding and I trust it won't happen again. --GHcool (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi. thanks for your note. i understand your concerns, and I don't mind you making that request. however, i'm not sure i understand. Aren't other editors allowed to generally post in a mdeiation? Sorry, but this was my understanding. could you please explain why that is such a problem? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it is a problem is because we have had experience in this mediation with a user that inappropriately tried to influence the mediator against my position. All sides agreed that it was best to keep the mediation talk page between the two actors involved and the mediator in order to avoid suspicions of unfairness. See here for details. --GHcool (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that sounds fair enough. I think i can respect your request, thanks very much for your explanation and details. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Intifada RfC

Hi, can you respond to this RfC for me, please? Thanks. ← Michael Safyan^(talk) 01:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer not to comment. Both sides make legitimate points. Thanks for calling this to my attention though. --GHcool (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gelber

Hi, the link between the table of content of Gelber's book and the description of Gelber's theory in wikipedia (and how to title this) seems logical to me. They must fit to each other. And if they don't, it means wikipedia doesn't introduce Gelber's theory properly. And As I explained in the talk's page, Gelber doesn't try to find excuse or has not apologetic approach to the events of april-may 1948. You can be convinced of this in reading his book, if not, in writing to him or in reading his book table of contents if you don't agree proceeding to former two steps. Rgds, Ceedjee (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C'est amusant d'effacer sans discuter ? Le grand avantage à connaître plus de langues que l'autre, c'est de pouvoir mieux comprendre. Ceedjee (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I don't speak French. Also, the title is in line with Wikipedia policy. If you wish to discuss it, please use the talk page of the article instead of my own personal talk page. --GHcool (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C'est ce que j'ai fait mais tu ne sembles pas très ouvert à la discussion. Aurais-tu un problème avec les Juifs ? Ceedjee (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I don't speak French. All future French statements will be ignored. --GHcool (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorant ? Ceedjee (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, just not fluent in French. Please refrain from personal attacks. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Defender of the Wiki Barnstar" awarded, for being a defender of the Wiki

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I hereby award you the "Defender of the Wiki Barnstar" for your tireless effort and brilliant execution; (sometimes with both hands tied behind the back); in defending Wikipedia in maintaining a neutral point of view on the most contentious articles regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict; (recently in Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus). Let others learn from you (me included), how it can be done with class. Itzse (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page nominated for deletion

He doesn't seem to have told you, but Timour Derevenko has nominated your userpage for deletion. You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GHcool. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I had forgotten. This is the first time I have nominated for deletion. -Timour Derevenko (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GHcool

I thought this might interest you. --GHcool (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for calling my attention to this attempt to curtail your ability to design your own user page. As you can see, I have taken approriate action. I hope the defense goes well. Screen stalker (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting Keep in my MfD poll. With your help, the debate ended with "no consensus" (although a large majority voted to "keep"). --GHcool (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad. It is your user page, so logic tells me you should be able to design it. Screen stalker (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Jewish coinage

Hi GHcool; I've just started something that has been on the great part missing in Wikipedia; and that is ancient Jewish coinage. I'm not good in formatting; so can I please ask you to organize it neatly. The articles so far affected are Hashmonean coinage and List of historical currencies with many more to come; time permitting. Thank you for any help you can give me. Itzse (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I know nothing about ancient Jewish coinage and wouldn't even know where to begin to look for that kind of information. I don't think I'll be much help on either of the two articles you asked about. I wish you the best of luck. --GHcool (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now ur talking ^^ =

GHcool, u may find that strange, but i want to thank u for ur recent edits in history of arab israeli conflict, and camp david accords article, that ended the disputes we've had there. i hope u continue solving these matter the same way, and thanx again. One last pharaoh (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Camp David Accords

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mystifying deletion needs a self-revert.

Hi GHcool - I really think you should explain yourself and self-revert this according to this. Not mentioned there is that you appear to have stalked me to an article you'd never edited in 3 years. As you appeared to have stalked, and reverted, another article only 24 hours earlier. PR^talk 00:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having removed excellent modern scholarly information pertaining to the actions of the Romans, calling it "Fringe", you've now added a reference which, according to Amazon, is sub-titled "Why Israel must maintain exclusive control over Jerusalem".

I don't have an objection to your reference (though its highly partisan nature needs to be displayed), but removing the modern and academic majority position is wholly unacceptable to policy, as you know. I call on you to self-revert Haaretz's review of Prof Shlomo Sands book back into the article. Your alternative suggestion, to remove the entire section/topic, is also very puzzling. PR^talk 08:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

At a recent complaint I've raised on ANI, editors have accused me of going against consensus. I request that, on top of editing the page with a (somewhat vague) direction to my discussion,[1] that you add a comment on the talk page that you agree with my statement. Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edits do not reflect that I agree with your statement. Sometimes my edits reflect that I independently come to the same conclusions as you. (I apologize for answering you this way, but the way you worded your statement on my talk page forces me to in order to avoid accusations of canvassing). --GHcool (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the response. Regardless, the time stamps tell a different story though. i.e. that you've come to your own conclusion and that I only afterwards requested you also leave a talk page comment regarding your edit.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVAS

Your recent comments on WT:Israel (e.g. this) are pretty much in violation of WP:CANVAS as they are clearly requesting intervention on a certain side of the debates. Please refrain from making such comments in the future. Thanks, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not ask anyone to intervene on a certain side of the debate. It states my own personal opinion and invites people to add their own if they wish. --GHcool (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are clearly prejudicing the request for comment with statements such as "clumsily worded statement" and "he believes that the 9/11 attacks were good for Israel". A neutral intervention would have been along the lines of "There is currently a discussion on the inclusion of quotes by Bibi in article X. Please comment here." However, something like that should probably still be posted on both WP:Israel and WP:Palestine. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to word my requests more neutrally in the future. --GHcool (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massacres

Please take notice of my comment here. Imad marie (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mufti's lead

Hi GHcool,
Yad Vashem is not a WP:RS for Mufti's antisemitism. Benny Morris is a better one. Yad Vashem is taken explicitely as exemple by Idith Zertal (who is a wp:rs) as exacerbing this picture... Whatever, per wp:npov, we cannot write that he was antisemite given the is no consensus among historians concerning this. See the section I recently wrote in the article concerning this.
For the remaining, I think it is better to have a "short" lead. I don't see the importance of anything more. There is currently in the lead an exemple that illustrates each of his main traits : nationalist - antiZionist - alleged antisemite due to his collaboration with Nazi.
I suggest we discuss this when Nishidani is back. We have both agreed to work on this article.
Regards,Ceedjee (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

I am quite he asked indeed this to Nazi leaders (maybe to Eichmann and not Hitler; this must be checked).

In the lead, we don't have to source; we are assumed to take information from the core of the article.

Would you mind if we remove Mitchell G. Bard as a source... This is not a WP:RS ? (even if I have his book).

Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep Bard as a source, but I've also just added this article as a source too. --GHcool (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

For historical articles, neither Bard nor the new source are wp:rs.

And there should be no references in the lead but this should only summarizes the core of the article.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

about you saying hezbollah being anti semitic

i beleive hezbollah has arab members, and arabs are semitic and their language is semitic, so you cannot accuse an arab of being anti semitic unless they hate themselves.RestoreTheEmpireSociety (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While Arabs are indeed Semites, anti-Semitism refers specifically to hostility toward Jews.[2] --GHcool (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Check Wikipedia:User_page#What may I not have on my user page?, point 9 to be exact, you are posting false information about me in your user page. Here is what I'm protesting to:

Not once in the Jerusalem discussion I have claimed that "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel".
"even after this claim had been exposed as a falsehood" is a perceived flaw.
(and too complex for [the] dictionary [definition of the word 'capital'] to handle) was actually Ceedjee's argument, I only quoted him.

Please remove those points, if you don't I will remove it myself. And before you rush to revert or report me I suggest that you read the above wiki guideline well. Thanks. Imad marie (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the change, I'm still protesting against points (2) and (3), specially (2). Imad marie (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a "perceived flaw." It is just an accurate summary of the sequence of events. --GHcool (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a "perceived flaw". Let's not have an edit war in your user page or going to the admins for it. Imad marie (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proof by assertion combined with an appeal to force. Imad marie might do a better job of convincing me that his views are correct if his arguments were free of logical fallacies. --GHcool (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Imad marie (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note this. Imad marie (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About that user page....

While I'm not sure it specifically goes against policy, I've always personally felt that your practice of attributing the quotes to the specific editors who made them is a Bad Idea. In some ways, it strengthens your argument (then you know the quotes aren't "straw man" quotes) but I have harbored concerns about the compatibility of this practice with the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.

I seem to remember overhearing you telling someone else than an admin or group of admins had vetted your User page and found it to be acceptable. Am I remembering correctly? If so, would you mind terribly referring me to who was involved in that, so I could speak to them? Don't worry, I'm not going to start a campaign to get your userpage changed :D I just want to talk to them and understand the reasoning. This is the second time your userpage has come up at WP:WQA, and I frankly am not sure what to tell people. If the admin involved previously could allay my concerns, then it would be a lot easier for me to address alerts such as this one.

Thanks! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry it took me a few days to get back to you. Here are a few past discussions about my user page: [3], [4], [5]. --GHcool (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll take a look. I appreciate your openness very much :) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed (I echo what Jaysweet said). The part about your page that concerns me is the naming of users - seems as if you're also trying to have a go at them in particular, but I'm not sure if that's actually your intention. You already provide links to the relevant pages, and the date/time at which the accusations are made - however true or not they are is not something I am in a position to comment on. Is there a need to include names? Would you agree to (at least) remove wherever it says "Imad marie"? If you can remove the mentions of that name, then I'd be willing to mark this as resolved. Please let me know, and thanks for your openness - Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to remove the names if I hear a good argument in favor of that position. I won't remove them just because somebody's whining that someone's calling him on his bunk. I believe in public accountability for false accusations made on Wikipedia, and so I believe the names are important. Otherwise, I could have made up those accusations and the page would be worthless. --GHcool (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your rude uncivil attitude is just nonstop. The presence of someone like you here is a loss for wikipedia. Imad marie (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I specifically asked for "a good argument in favor of [Imad marie's] position," not an ad hominem. --GHcool (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The accusations aren't considered made up as you link to the page where it was made and date/time at which the comment was made, so I reject that argument.

Although I'm very concerned, it doesn't affect me in any way, and I have no reason to make any arguments or to turn you into a convert, if you believe otherwise. But I'll leave you this last note to be clear, because in the absence of this being resolved, this will continue up the steps of dispute resolution, probably concluding at arbitration.

In the end, it comes back to those users who are unwilling or unable to comply with the purpose of Wikipedia: "to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited."

You've indicated that you're furthering your belief of holding users accountable for statements they've made which you consider false - this seems to be a smear campaign (in other words) against users who've made statements that you feel are inaccurate, then it'spointy and does not comply with the purpose. It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another in an attempt to besmirch their reputation.

By logic, you can't possibly know how it is interpreted or if the user themselves care for how their name is being used - but you are aware now that Imad marie does. There is a legitimate concern, and now it's your choice in how you deal with it - but stronger measures may be imposed at a later time to prevent (very avoidable) problems. On another note, I'll be warning Imad marie for the personal attack. Good luck! Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GHcool -- I hope you don't mind that I opened this thread to try and get more comments from admins and other experienced users about this situation. I would appreciate if you would limit your comments in that thread somewhat, so that we can get external opinions, although if you'd like to make a statement regarding your position, that would be fine and appreciated.

I am not trying to turn this into a witch hunt; I legitimately feel very uncertain as to whether certain aspects of your user page cross the line, and I need help from admins/other experienced editors. There is no offense intended on my part, and I am sure your User page is done with the best of intentions. I continue to feel that if the user names were removed (they would still be accessible via the diffs, just not broadcast on your page) then it would satisfy pretty much everyone's concerns, but if you really feel we have not made a "good argument" for this, that is okay. It just means I need to get additional opinions, because I'm at a loss! :) Anyway, hang in there, we'll get this sorted. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Whining" personal attack

Hey, apart from the user page issue (still thinking about that one), I did not care for parts of this edit, particularly where you use the word "whining" and link to the funny picture. It's not helpful to disparage people in this way when we are trying to reach a compromise, and it could be construed as a personal attack. Please try to be more careful of this. Thanks!

In regards to the User page, as I said, I'm still thinking about that one... --Jaysweet (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how someone could interpret my reference to Imad marie's "whining" as obnoxious, but I disagree that it was a personal attack. Whereas I criticized Imad marie's conduct (i.e. whining), I was disturbed to see Imad marie attacking my person (i.e. that "The presence of someone like [me] here is a loss for wikipedia [sic]."). I promise not to insert funny pictures of wambulances in further correspondences. --GHcool (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your user page

I have deleted and salted your user page following this discussion and WP:SOAP. Please feel free to comment as you see fit. I know you have been editing in good faith and do wish you all the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i disagree with this action taken unexpectedly against a user who has not even made a single edit since July 1. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Unexpectedly"? I would point you to the discussion two sections above, where concerns were clearly stated. I would comment that the concerns raised do not subside on the basis of whether the editor is active or not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This editor acknowledged these worries before becoming briefly inactive. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the link above tells me is that you have acted in total disrespect of GHcool's not unreasonable request that action, and if possible, discussion, be put on hold until after his return. This leaves a bad taste with me regarding the mistreatment and ingratitude WP is capable of showing earnest, responsible editors, who are, of course, volunteers donating their efforts. Also, the page in question disappeared so quickly and completely that there was no time in which to comment on the specific issues. I urge you to restore the status quo ante, at least until mid-July. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you may be missing is that he quoted many other editors out of context. I wouldn't do that. Likewise, most other editors don't do that. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be able to review the circumstances of that, but it is not presently possible, nor do I think his alleged offense justifies the summary judgement and execution in absentia. This all sounds like a misunderstanding and consequent overreaction to a situation that could be handled better through communication and a few adjustments. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't a summary judgement and execution. This is Wikipedia, which has a policy called WP:SOAP. Let's wait for GHcool, who isn't editing now anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GHcool posted offensive material in his user page, and declined to comprise or discuss the material. Imad marie (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a no-consensus MfD; so why, while this editor; and I should add, a respected editor is away, and said, that he'll be away, does his head get chopped off?

If it's ok for his user page to get deleted, instead of getting a consensus on deleting it; or at least tell him to change it; or even better yet, change it for him; then I will resign from Wikipedia and ask everyone to follow. Editors who give their valuable time should be respected. Administrators shouldn't be Judge, Juror and Executioner. I'm dismayed that so few dare speak up. Itzse (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His head hasn't been chopped off, nor has he been blocked or "punished" in any way. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself in strong opposition to GHcool on virtually every page we co-edit. Yet I think, given his request that any action be delayed till he can defend himself, a mere three days wait, and his expressed readiness to remove material deemed offensive, that the action taken is unfair. This, regardless of the merits of the case, which I have no time or wish to examine. There is a principle at stake, of giving anyone subject to punitive action a full opportunity to defend him/herself.Nishidani (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GHcool is not being punished. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I have to declare a bias here. I have a very strong bias in favour of free speech, and that includes speech I don't like or find offensive (otherwise I'm not in favour of free speech at all). That means, for instance, that I think editors should be allowed to display userboxes supporting Hizbullah, even though I disagree with its violent tactics. I find it quite extraordinarily offensive when I see an admin removing such a userbox without the owner's permission. It feels like a burglar entering my house and taking away something valuable - and then being given official sanction to do so. I think GHcool has every right to be offensive (whether or not he intends the offence) on his user page.

I do not follow Gwen's assertion that GHcool is not being punished. If someone removed my userpage in that fashion, I would be very upset, and would regard it as a punishment. I also agree with Nishidani's point that GHcool should have been given a chance to defend himself.

So, with one important proviso, I am in favour of restoring GHcool's user page. The underlying reason is so obvious that I'm surprised nobody has mentioned it before (maybe somebody has - I haven't looked through all the past discussions). The proviso is that GHcool should remove all discussion of other editors from his user page. He has the right to express disagreement with other editors, but he should do so on the appropriate talk pages, where his targets (and others) can reply on equal terms. That way he can avoid the intrinsic dishonesty whereby casual browsers may not fully appreciate that GHcool is applying his own filter as to what part(s) of the argument appear on his user page.

If GHcool agrees to this proviso, I will support the restoration of his page.
--NSH001 (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has the right to have anything on "their" user page. Particularly not offensive material. I have restored the obviously non-controversial material, and protected the page. GHcool, when you return, we can discuss what can and cannot be restored. Neıl 龱 16:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)

The free speech argument doesn't ring true to me, because GHcool isn't paying for the server space. The Wikimedia Foundation provides free server space for a specific purpose, and there is a question as to whether GHcool's user page may actually be destructive to that purpose, since it may run afoul of the collaborative spirit of a Wiki. (I'm not saying for sure that it does, there are just concerns) GHcool is more than welcome to put whatever he wants on his website, but this is not his website.

That said, your suggested proviso sounds pretty reasonable to me. My primary objection all along has not been with the use of his userpage to host his arguments (although it is still debatable whether that runs afoul of WP:SOAP), but rather the fact that it calls out specific editors and criticizes their views, without giving any means for them to provide context.

As far as Gwen's very bold action, one thing I can say that will be a positive for everyone is that it certainly has helped stimulate discussion :D GHcool's page is highly unusual and I don't think the community really has a consensus as far as how to classify something like that. Like it or not, Gwen's move to delete the page has definitely gotten folks' attention! ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just like GHcool isn't paying for the server space; Wikipedia isn't either paying GHcool for his brains. It's the social order of Wikipedia, which is a mutual agreement. Everyone knows that although WP:SOAP says that even user pages aren't to be used as a soapbox; I've yet to see it being enforced. Selective enforcement is WRONG. Remember if Wikipedia's soapbox rules really applies to user pages, which I think it doesn't; then I expect ALL user pages that are used in any way, shape or form as a soapbox to be deleted. If that should happen then I'm sure that at least half of the most productive editors will disappear. NOBODY WORKS FOR NOTHING!!! Got it? Itzse (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, interesting theory... we contribute to Wikipedia, and the Foundation gives us free server space to do whatever we want? Umm... huh, I didn't think it worked that way, but that's cool! How many contributions do I have to have before I can host songs by my band on Wikipedia?? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None. Itzse (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the material in question to a sub-page of yours for now, so that all can view it and assess it, and so that your thoughts aren't arbitrarily deleted outside of any process like MFD. The rest will have to be sorted out when you get back. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just make sure that discussion actually takes place and reaches a conclusion. The more I read this page, the more concerned I am. The views themselves don't bother me, even if they are a bit WP:SOAPy. It's the calling out of other editors. Excerpts from the page read like a draft WP:RFC/U, except WP:UP makes it clear you shouldn't have those in user space for more than a couple weeks or so. Anyway, I'll say more when GHc is back. But I really, really hope this discussion doesn't fall by the wayside... --Jaysweet (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]