User talk:Heraclius

Welcome!

Hello, Heraclius, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

By the way, a good way to keep track of Palestine-related articles that need to be written or improved, or alert others to articles that should be created which you don't yourself have the expertise to write, is the recently created Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Palestine. - Mustafaa 21:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another thing

Just made Wikipedia:Notice board for Palestine-related topics; it might come in handy. - Mustafaa 20:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Palestinian territories

They are quite relentless aren't they? In any case, sometimes it's easier to get the point across effectively if done in a manner that is most efficient and least disputed. To that end, I suggest you include a clip about the so called Road Map (including the fact that the PA accepted it fully but the Israeli government accepted it with 14 reservations - and source it) in the section entitled "Legal Status of the territories" - I think it will be a lot harder to dispute if you add it there. What do you think? Ramallite ^(talk) 7 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)

Actually it's 14 "reservations" - here's one source [1] and here's another [2] - I think it's relevant to the section it is under now, but see if you can clean it up a little to make it flow nicer and as NPOV as possible to prevent reverts! Thanks for putting that in. Ramallite ^(talk) 9 July 2005 02:57 (UTC)

They are all liars

especially that one.--Hercule 8 July 2005 05:18 (UTC)

Query

Query for you at Talk:Gaza Strip. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:31, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Do you feel terrorism is justified sometimes? Andycjp 16th July 2005 I am glad to hear you condemn it. But don`t you think that many terrorists who are Muslims draw some of their inspiration from the Koran? Andy

Palestinians and other Arabs

Not all Arabs are the same, so you can't put them all together in the same article. If you want to do an ancestry of Palestinian Arabs, talk about Palestinian Arabs. I have a question for you. Do you think that I can put the ancestry of English, Austrians and Liechtensteiners in when discussing the ancestry of Germans? Just a thought. It made the article lose focus. However, if you want to do an ancestry of all Arabic peoples then make an article for that or comment on such a page. TheUnforgiven 21:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nassar.jpg

Hi, I notice you uploaded this image earlier today, but you didn't supply any details of its source, copyright status, etc. I'm afraid that the new policy implimented a few months ago means that pictures that are not uploaded under the GNU FDL or a similar licence, or are in the Public Domain, or are arguably Fair Use (and grounds have to be available for arguing that, it can't just be asserted), are extremely likely to be deleted from the database. I just thought I'd let you know and give you a chance to add the info before the Copyright Violation Police notice! :) Regards, -- Arwel 23:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of Islamist Terrorism

Could you please explain the revert?

Zionist Terrorism

And Israeli terrorism have been modified by Guy Montag to the point where thet are pure Israeli POV. Have a look and see what you think. 62.253.64.14 00:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC for Germen

Thanks for certifying my RfC for Germen (no offense, but it was most unexpected). I think you may misunderstand the RfC procedure, though: two users who are directly involved in the conflict and have demonstrated attempts to mediate the dispute are required to certify the RfC. Other users may endorse the RfC in which case, unless you can think otherwise, your signature belongs in the endorse section. Axon 14:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, apologies. In that case, if you feel these were attempts to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point you might like to add references these deleted to the RfC. You can demonstrate proof by searching the Special:Log/delete. If you also feel you can certify the RfC it would great if you could supply evidence that you attempted (and failed) to mediate with Germen in the appropriate section. Axon 14:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the draft of the RfC. If you could review it to ensure you still endorse it I will publish it ASAP. Axon 16:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad

I am not Zeno, so please don't accuse me of being that in edit summaries or anywhere else. Thank you. -- Stereotek

Please do not engage in vandalism

Your behavior at Jihad is entirely counterproductive.

Wholesale deletion of content, whether done over a series of edits or all at once, is still vandalism. NPOV does not mean that you have authority to remove properly sourced information merely because you dislike it. Unless you can prove that it is false, your proper recourse is to find a source of your own with which to contrast the existing source.

Also, you are fast approaching a violation of revert policy. I will have no hesitation of reporting you as engaging in serial reversion as a method of POV pushing is a gross violation of policy.

Please do all of us who are actually interested in making a truly NPOV-compliant article a favor and behave within the bounds of Wikipedia policy as well as discussing your edits on the talk page.Ni-ju-Ichi 03:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your edits. You were engaging in a form of sneaky reversion, deliberately only killing certain sections of the material you had previously deleted by reversion. Regardless, by Wikipedia policy "complex reverts" or "partial reverts" still count as reversion under reversion rules. Your claim that you were "merging" the two sections is pointless: you took the section and wiped out over half of it, despite the disparate size of the two versions. You also deleted sources from the article merely because you disagreed with them. This is not in keeping with proper NPOV policy and you know it.Ni-ju-Ichi 03:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Moving" a set of private comments to a talk page and deleting them from your own is not a normal Wikipedia behavior, and would seem to be a violation of Wikilove as well. I was trying to give you helpful hints about your behavior moving out of bounds. I do not intend to delete them from the page, but I am apologizing to the readers for your odd behavior.Ni-ju-Ichi 03:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

~~You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. -Willmcw 04:50, July 19, 2005 (UTC)~~

I see that you have already been warned previously, so I am going to block your editing privileges temporarily. Please review our core policies, wikipedia:five pillars. You are welcome to edit here if you can work according to our policies in a constructive, collaborative manner. -Willmcw 04:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

sockpuppets

Hi Heraclius -- yes, the Jihad article is troubled waters, at present... I am afraid only developers can see the IPs of logged in users (I know...). But in the present case, it hardly matters: an edit warrior is an edit warrior; sockpuppets only become harmful when they try to simulate a group of editors (multiple voting etc.) regards, dab (ᛏ) 05:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iman

Hi - Let me look through it tonight, I'll see if I can make it more acceptable. Thanks for the note, I just added it to my watchlist. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I made it more neutral - not as truthful as I'd like, but harder to complain about, so it gets the points across and that's what is important. Let me know what you think!

Ramallite ^(talk) 04:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your ban

I thought your ban was very unevenhanded and complained to the admin involved. He has now banned Guy Montag also for equivalent conduct. Looking forward to seeing your edits again - I'm going to take a few days break to think of ways to deal with the Israeli POV pushers. My current guess is that we call them on POV and when they "game" the systems whilst trying to maintain the moral high ground ourselves. Honestly bad behaviour by them is our best weapon - especially if we can stay inside the rules and more importantly spirit of Wikipedia. 62.253.64.14 20:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what do you say we begin ArbCom proceedings?

Re EnviroZenoNichiExistKabongKnot? Please let me know your thoughts ASAP. BrandonYusufToropov 21:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem -- BTW, when you get a chance ...

Can you please take a look at the editor's poll I posted at the Jihad talk page here? BrandonYusufToropov 14:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Making the section more accurate"

What you have misleadlingly labelled "making the section more accurate" is actually a fourth revert, done in a more subtle way. I strongly suggest you revert yourself before you are blocked for 3RR again. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've removed the same information from the article four times in a row; this is known as a "complex revert", and people are regularly blocked for it. I strongly suggest again that you self-revert; the clock is ticking. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The information is gone, not moved, and that violates the 3RR regardless of whether or not you think it is more "accurate". For the last time, I strongly urge you to revert yourself. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You have been blokced from editing Wikipedia for 24 hours for having violated the three revert rule and failed to self-correct yourself (see comments directly above). I have placed this talk page on my watchlist in case you wish to direct any comments to me about the block. Thanks. El_C 01:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What version was I reverting to exactly and what phrase did you say I removed?Heraclius 01:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was a version/phrase containing the sentence: In the Muslim-controlled Middle East... El_C 02:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad split

I saw Zeno do a huge revision and I was too scared to look... and haven't since... as for a split... well, I don't think it should be a split exactly Jihad should still contain a neutral overview but I have no problems with there being sub articles that discuss the subject more in depth -- that will be a place to reference more obscure theorists of these. There are peaceful notions of Jihad and violent ones -- my main objective through all of this is to make sure this encyclopedia does nothing to smear Islam as a whole because there are nothing to warrant seeing Islam as a whole as violent. That has been my aim in all of my edits towards Jihad. I'd need to read more about this and since I am in my break at class I can't do that now... tell me what you think about my response so far and then I will be able to read more about your debate with Zeno. gren 23:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slave Trade

I've made some more changes. Have a look and see what you think.

Lapsed Pacifist 02:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response response

Demonizing adherents to a religion is wrong and bad reporting for an encyclopedia. There is diversity among Muslims and while some are undoubtedly scary we cannot make normative judgments about them all. People who don't like religion seem to define it and then hate what they have defined. It's funny because some Muslims say Islam is unchanging and their religion is protected and those who dislike Islam say the same thing... that Islam can't and won't change, it's just violent or whatnot. As an encyclopedia we're coming from a secular view and we don't have any belief that something can't change or that if it did change it would be illegitimate. There is no way to accurately make judgments about all Muslims and it is bothersome when people try to. gren 19:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA for Germen

Please be aware that, in light of the RfC against Germen, I have raised an request for arbitration for him. Axon (talk|contribs) 10:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD pollution

Ril enlisted Persecution by Muslims for VfD again, just 24 hours after the article withstood the first VfD. You might be interested to watch it. [3] --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{test} messages

Hi, when you drop one of these on someone's talk: page, please sign it (with ~~~~) as you would any other post to a talk: page. Noel (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Qiyamah

Thanks for the help. I was banned for making "personal attacks" yesterday by Dmcdevit for reverting similar edits by this vandal. -Freestylefrappe

Recommendation

I saw you reverted User:Saduj al-Dahij's comments a few times on Talk:Women in Islam and well, I think his comment speaks for itself but I would recomment not reverting especially with comments specially worded like that... because it becomes a close issue because obviously he will claim it to be serious... but... if I were you I would comment that you believe it is innapropriate and leave it at that (if you are really worried as an admin). From my experience it only puts you in a more tenuous situation if you revert talk pages even for good reasons... let the insults stand and reflect on the users doing them. You don't have to take my advice... but I'm still giving it :) gren グレン 18:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I left him a little message — it was referencing NPA but... removal is for personal attacks... his attack was not personal... I stated that I still believe his behavior will be frowned upon... but, that's one reason I'm not sure removal is appropriate... because his was a sweeping statement, not personal. gren グレン 18:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Islam

Speedy deleting a valid vfd that's already in the logs is not normal practice. I just closed the vfd discussion as redirect, that's all that was needed. :) --Dmcdevit·t 19:33, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Nablus

I was already working on it and reverted it already - let's see how it goes. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi :)

Take a look att the "battle of badr" article :)

Every person have their deeds recorded, it cant be all put in the main article and all persons cant have their biography filled with everything they did. I havent had time to go to the actual battle yet, but in due time will that aritcle be filled like the other ones in that series, for example Abu Jahl's contribution to the battle of Badr. --Striver 07:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accussations

I don't understand your repeated accusations of being a "strawman sockpuppet." I bet you are not even a Muslim, masquerading as one so you can defame other Muslims. You should be ashamed of yourself. Saduj al-Dahij 13:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Islam

I think you wanted me to comment on the political aspects... I agree that the political article could use some help... but I think it has better potential. Islamism states that it is fundamentalist and therefore will be biased towards that. Islam as a political movement can talk about the liberal political movements in Egypt / Turkey / etc. Since many of the users trying to advocate that article and that type of thing are the ones who want to include ex-Muslims in "Muslim" viewpoints then we could even go as far as to include the secular political movements in Egypt... although I wouldn't recommend that and there were democratic movements from and Islamic perspective... the article may need help... but. I think that it will be less balanced towards the negative aspects of political Islam (whici seem to be prevalent these days).

Accusations... Saduj al-Dahij said above you were masquerading as a Muslim.... I've never seen you claim to be one... have you? are you one? Just curious since that comment seemed odd. Oh and you might find this funny. :O gren グレン 17:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist militancy

Thanks for your note, Heraclius. I'm not familiar either with Nablus or Shechem, and there are too many changes to be able to check it out quickly, so I'll take a closer look tomorrow. As for Zionist militancy, I see you've changed it back but I'll keep an eye on it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:11, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

"Bastard"

You will immediately apologise to Saduj al-Dahij on his/her talk page for this edit in which you call them a "bastard". Doing so is a very strong personal attack, and is not acceptable. Read WP:NPA. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He did play a foull trick to Heraclius and I can understand H's reaction very well. --Germen (Talk | Contribs

) 16:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not engage in personal attacks again, no matter the provocation. As Wikipedia:No personal attacks explains, nobody has any business making them on Wikipedia. If you blatantly or persistently disregard this policy you run the risk of being blocked for disrupting Wikipedia. Try bringing any objections you have to an editor's behaviour in a polite manner. JRM · Talk 16:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed to some extent with your alleged foul language. Although I am not an admirer of islam, this kind of tactics is not my piece of cake. That guy is really sick in his head or has a twisted feeling for humour. Of course I do not take him seriously (thought I made that clear)--Germen (Talk | Contribs

) 16:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nablus

Done. Can you help to revert the anon if he comes back, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:51, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Well, if you see anything gratuitous (anti-Semitic, snarky), please revert him. He's been causing trouble since March with various IP addresses and user names. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:01, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

She just hates certain editors, I guess I am one. There is nothing anti-semitic in my edits. Read each and every one of them. SlimVirgin is using slurs.69.209.232.9 05:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heraclius: I see that you have reverted to your version. I suggest that you think about reverting to my last version, as it included about all the content that you (or perhaps even I) might prefer, plus some that was needlessly eliminated in Guy's original version and does not appear in your version either, but preserves Guy's structure and is easy to compare to it, and thus more likely of having some permanence. If you look at Guy's last version, you would see that the difference between his and mine is not large - i.e. he has moved toward agreement, and the biggest real disagreement between the two of you is the presence of the content in Nablus that more clearly belongs in and that you were right to copy to Shechem. If you don't like it, why not tag it or comment on it somehow, or make proposals in talk, like voting on whether it should be there, after reverting to my version? There are some disagreements which are really lame - e.g. the location and population of the city, and anyone who just reverts on such matters without providing references in talk just looks silly. My version also contains comments on disputed points and corrections that belong in the article for now.

One editor who has garnered a remarkable amount of justified respect in a very short time from everyone is Ramallite. Unfortunately he is not editing at the moment, but you might think about how he might act to build consensus and not get his edits reverted, while sticking to his guns about major points. The point of editing at Wikipedia is not to create a (mythical) perfect version, but to create better ones, and in such a way that the article is constantly getting better, without getting worse on major points and removing valid material. It is inevitable that you are not going to get the perfect article in your opinion, what one should aim at is acceptable compromises, which will have to be with people you might not get along with. Especially since your family hails from Nablus, I think your voice on the article should be heeded and your concerns about it listened to very respectfully; I think that someone who doesn't is showing bad manners. But I think it would be a really good idea to be big about it at this point, especially when an anon is there disrupting things and just aggravating the situation. It could easily raise you in everyone's eyes and garner more respect for you and your future edits. Yours Truly, --John Z 07:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heraclius, could you briefly summarize, either on my talk page or on Talk:Nablus or Talk:Shechem what exactly is the rationale in keeping the two articles separate from each other? In Hebrew, the name of the city "Nablus" is "Shkhem". I fail to see why the two articles aren't merged, and since you seem to see a distinction between the two, I'm wondering what your "difference factor(s)" is/are. Tomer ^TALK 11:14, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius- that explains it - I did post my draft, which you don't seem to have real problems with, and I guess you just did not see it, as Guy started editing it right away, but not too drastically, so you must have thought his newer version was the same as his older one with more significant problems. My draft was not so different from Ramallite's, so like I said above, the extra content is the only real problem. --John Z 06:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I've blocked Guy Montag for the 3RR violation, but you had also violated 3RR on Nablus, so I've had to block you too. When you both come back, I hope that you can sort something out; page protection would be an option if the edit-warring doesn't stop. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use Edit Summaries

Please use edit summaries (espcially when reverting pages) as it makes it easier for Recent Changes patrollers to realize you are not commiting vandalism. Thanks and happy editing! Sasquatch讲看 04:03, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag on CAIR

Hi Heraclius --

You put the NPOV tag back onto the CAIR article, which I disagree with. I don't think this was the right thing to do, but I don't want to revert-war.

I assume you put the tag on because you have a concrete reason to believe the article is NPOV. Instead of just wafting in to put the tag on, why don't you do something constructive, and either add information on the article, or specify your disagreements on the talk page.

Thanks.

--Sdedeo 06:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sina

Please do not make any false allegations against me in your edit summaries. I only added what was written in the article. Read it. I did not make "stuff up". Your untrue comments and allegations are highly incivil. This is what the article says: "One ‘terrible price’ currently under debate is an nuclear attack on Mecca should any 9/11 scale attack (or larger) occur on US soil. I am in favor of such planning in the event of a catastrophic strike against America..." I added: "in the event of a catastrophic strike against the United States". Would you seriously call that "making stuff up"? -- Karl Meier 19:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem then, but I still think we should use my version, because that's what he actually says... "I am in favor of such planning in the event of a catastrophic strike against America". It's more accurate in my opinion. Also, I want to ask you to reconsider the latest stuff that you have added to this part of the article. "The article also goes on to make racist comments such as "Our Persian allies in this effort need to understand that they will likely die with the Mullahs in the inevitable nuclear storm which will follow should they fail" and "Syrians are not to be trusted, and for reason." I don't think we are supposed to discuss this specific article that much, and also I think it pretty much ruin the flow and doesn't fit in with the rest of the context in this particular place. When I read it doesn't make much sense to me. Try to read the whole thing again. Also, we can't write "racist". -- Karl Meier 19:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Political epithets

Hi Heraclius, I'll take another look at the source. I thought the Zionist rag comment came from the same person. The problem with a source like this is twofold: first, we can't use anonymous sources (which is one of the reasons we can't use Wikipedia articles as sources, for example), and secondly, the sourced section must reflect perfectly what the source says. So if you want to say Muslim organizations say Islamofascism is used by Islamophobes, you have to quote a credible Muslim organization saying that. Using an anonymous source, we don't even know that the source is, in fact, Muslim. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:29, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, yes fair point. Both sections should be treated the same, with the same quality of sources, or with the unsourced sections deleted if they're disputed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:33, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Aposthia

I see you voted to delete Aposthia in its recent VFD. I've now substantially rewritten the article, removing the dubious POV statements and (I think) sourcing everything. I had to wade through several pages of Googlecruft to get any decent information about it, but it is out there. The fact that so many of the top Google results are highly biased anticircumcision sites makes it all the more important that Wikipedia has an informative and neutral article on the subject. Hopefully you can be persuaded to change your vote! Thanking you, Soo 17:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bush and the Barrier

This article in Haaretz may indirectly help tie the wall with Bush's statement, here's an excerpt: "Once disengagement was on the table, Israel enjoyed wider freedom of military action, culminating in the assassinations of Hamas leaders in 2004. From Sharon's perspective, the biggest prize of disengagement has been George Bush's letter of April 14, 2004, in which the president acknowledged: "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." Sharon portrayed this as a pledge to keep the large West Bank settlement blocs "part of Israel forever."" [4] Unfortunately it does not associate the wall itself with Bush, and it is only an opinion article. But I thought it might give you some ideas. Will post this to Aladdin's page as well. Ramallite ^(talk) 02:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a complex revert

Remove it now please, before I have to make a 3RR report. We've been through this many times; you can't quote an anonymous editorial writer on one webpage, and assign his/her beliefs to all Muslims or all critics. Quote sources accurately. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing TotallyDisputed tags

Just wanted to let you know, the administrator Mel Etitis will probably block/ban you for reverting out a disputed tag. It apparently constitutes vandalism and could lead Mel to ban you potentially indefinitely. Please keep that in mind when you next edit the Qidya incident article. Coqsportif 15:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Editing conflict at Religion and fascism#islam

Heraclius, note that I do not change the text, I just add a (imho informative) section which compares islamism and fascism. So I feel I do not disturb the consensus. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good decision at Neofascism and religion. Any chance you could have a look at Islamism where Germen is similarly skewing an article. - SimonP 15:09, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I understand fully, thanks for your quick reply. - SimonP 15:19, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Karl Meier

Hey Coolcat, I was wondering that if I made another RFC for Karl/Stereotek, would you endorse it? It seems that we have both been victims of his wikistalking.Heraclius 17:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I may, I have to investigate the nature of your dispute, do understand I have to be very careful or I will only give Stereotek an excuse to stalk further. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 17:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TShilo12

Tomer's last response to you at Eden Natan-Zada led me to seek a Request for Comment over his behavior; I would ask that you co-sign as the second user certifying the basis for the dispute. This needs to be discussed in the open, without fear of its results spilling out onto the Natan-Zada article itself. Shem^(talk) 21:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Heraclius, message for you at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/TShilo12. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:51, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Me and my POV

Regarding your comments about me having a strong POV, I don't make any secret of that fact—I just do my best to prevent it from adversely affect the way I edit articles—which is why I spend such an incredible amount of time on TALK pages. :-\ Anyways, thanks for accepting my apology—I certainly wasn't trying to offend. Tomer ^TALK 04:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

RfC again

Heraclius, if you want your certification of the RfC against Tomer to remain, would you mind saying so on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/TShilo12? If you do, you need to provide evidence of trying but failing to resolve the dispute. So far as I'm aware, your dispute with Tomer (regarding that one post) is over, as he apologized and you accepted it, but there may be other issues I'm unaware of. I'd like to delete the RfC after 48 hours if it's not properly certified, but Shem is objecting. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:12, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

kaafirphobia

Hello, I need you help at kaafir. The source is incredible and the sociologist doesn't exist. I can't revert it back if I don't want to violate the 3R rule. __earth 08:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

When U R free , can U mail me at sherfarhan@gmail.com . Thanks & Peace .Farhansher 19:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

بيت لحم

I can try but the extremist seems to have been recruiting supporters. Are we going to have to have this row on every article about every Palestinian town? Palmiro | Talk 17:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

Wanted to let you know I'm back on the scene. Hope all is well with you.

When you get the chance .... can you please take a look at this? BrandonYusufToropov 10:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you

Here. Tomer ^TALK 03:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia

HI . I have added some links to the page . If any of you have time , that article needs to be expanded . With the passage of time , it has been shrunk to nothing. Thanks . Farhansher 01:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AE's RFA

User:Anonymous editor,s RfA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor). F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال}^/c 00:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your attention requested

Please see Talk:Jordan#Blatherskyte. Tom e r ^TALK 06:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Prophet_Mosque_in_Madinah.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Prophet_Mosque_in_Madinah.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source 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 User talk:Carnildo/images. 10:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine Navigation box

Have created a template for Palestinian related stuff Template:Palestine. Hopefully it will connect a lot of the articles out there and make it easier to navigate. Please help! See talk page Template_talk:Palestine Pockets23 15:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of Arab Americans

List of Arab Americans, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of Arab Americans satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arab Americans and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of Arab Americans during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Leuko 18:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Guildbox.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Guildbox.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]