User talk:Tiamut/Archive 13

لماذا؟

لماذا تقوم بحذف اسم دولة فلسطين من مقالة ،Tiamut مرحبا*

• State of palestine
• كلما قمت أنا بوضع كلمة دولة أو
• state
• قبل كلمة فلسطين أو
• Palestine
• فالمقالة تتحدث عن فلسطين كدولة ويجب أن تكون كلمة "دولة" في المقالة عند كل مرة تذكر فيها فلسطين، وأرجو منك الرد علي في صفحة نقاشي في ويكيبيديا العربية

(Robin12hk (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

DYK for Daliyat al-Rawha'

On November 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Daliyat al-Rawha', which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Zayta, Hebron

On November 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zayta, Hebron, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Dayr Nakhkhas

On November 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dayr Nakhkhas, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

WP:DYK 08:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#AbdulHornochsmannn Zero^talk 10:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that's done, we can concentrate on the article. Can you please go to the Amazon page for Petersen's book and see if you can read page 111? (Search for "Bassa".) I'm not sure if that page is generally unavailable or I have just reached my page limit for that book. Cheers. Zero^talk 13:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems Amazon has tightened up its access quite a lot. Thanks for trying. Petersen's book costs more than $400, unfortunately, but I will get it temporarily by interlibrary loan. Zero^talk 22:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If any of you want anything from the Petersen, 2002-book: just ask me. It is excellent! (and horribly expensive...) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I sent you an email about this. And yeah; I know the "mind-set"; my threshold -level for buying books is so low that it is almost invisible ;D ..However; I suspect the price will fall if you can wait a year or three. I saw that on some of the Lamu-books; great books, but used to cost 150-250 USD 3-4 years ago; now the exact same books cost less that 100 USD on abebooks. For the moment there are so many things that can be added even without the books, just on "google-view" (say; Rachel's Tomb)...I must say though: both Petersen and Sharon are better on giving their sources that Khalidi is. And Petersen gives *all* references, even if he does not use them himself. E.g., the nice Martiti-ref. in Khirbat Jiddin is something I found in Petersen, Khalidi does not mention him at all. Of course, both Petersen and Sharon had the advantage that they could build on Khalidi´s work.

Another thing: Petersen is very good at documenting where inscriptions etc. have disappeared. And that is a frightening number. At Kafr Saba, Nabi Rubin, Iraq al-Manshiyya and Mausoleum of Abu Huraira: all of them have had Mamluk inscriptions "disappear" since 1948 (I´m sure there are more; these are just some I have come across). We are talking about the destruction of 700-800 year old artifacts. It *seriously* makes me furious. Oh well, back to documenting.... cheers, Huldra (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a note; if you are going to buy the Sharon-books: remember, there are 5 of them...so far! And he has just gotten to the letter "G"! I have collected the refs here. It is going to be a terrific (and expensive!) library when it is finished..

As for articles I would like to see developed; well, everything! But I would really love to see the architecture-articles I started in project-space finished; that is; the bridges, + the Abu Huraira Mausoleum.... Petersen has *a lot* about all of these three structures, but, strangely enough, nothing on Sheik Abreik. Take care, my dear, logging out for today, cheers, Huldra (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Petersen spells it Shaykh Burayk, something that I can't read on pp 215,216, also Figure 72. Amazon is good for searching. Zero^talk 05:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that´t the Atlit one; see User_talk:Ashley_kennedy3#Sheik_Bureik_near_Atlit. ..and I hope both of you got the email with the 1-page attachment? Rather primitive, I´m afraid...Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ani medjool

I've had a further notification of concern over this editor's contributions. Therefore I've raised the issue at ANI. Mjroots (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

MUA

Hello. Thank you for for your comments concerning the discussion on MUA. I was a little puzzled however, as to your comments concerning me. Since I started editing Wikipedia, I focused on three topics, the Gaza War, the Second Lebanon War and the Yom kippur War. I am a student of military history. I served five years in the military. The Middle East Wars (not just those involving Israel and the Arabs) are matters of great interest to me. The focus of my edits relate to technical military matters. Hence, for the Gaza War piece, I added a section captioned "Arms interdiction and the Sudan strike" as well as an additional section captioned "Post War Military Assessment." Those edits were created and researched entirely by me. With respect to the latter section, some editors made some objections and accordingly, I changed the section to address their concerns and establish consensus. I will admit that at times, I was somewhat aggressive with my edits but it was only in response to MUAs extreme provocations. I tried to reason with him but it was an impossible task. First, his poor English limited his ability to communicate effectively. Second, he seemed to enjoy provoking editors. In any event, my goal is to add content rather than revert. When there is objection to a specific edit, I will discuss that matter in the discussion and talk pages and I have been known to self-revert in the interest of consensus, even when I thought I was right. I have also had some limited interaction with Nableezy and actually, got along fairly well with him. We've had our differences and resolved them amicably. I even offered to mediate the dispute he was having with Stellar but to my embarassment, I got sidetracked by MUA. In short, I consider myself a professional who seeks only to improve the article's content with verifiable reliable sources. In Wikipedia, I am of no nationality or ethnicity. I am a wikipedian. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for responding. Yes I’ve used Israeli sources but also utilized a fair number of non-Israeli sources as well, including AP, NPR, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, The Spectator, Aviation week, New York Times, Fox news and The Daily Telegraph. I’ve also relied on Israeli sources including JPost (Israel’s leading English daily), Ynet and Haaretz. These are reliable sources and there is general consensus on this. In fact, Haaretz is a newspaper that is often times extremely critical of Israel’s policies. Concerning your claim that I push the Israeli POV, I vehemently disagree. I don’t push any POV. My only goal is to make the article concise and informative with hard facts and reliable sources. Respectfully--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Al-Azhar Mosque

On November 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Al-Azhar Mosque, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 23:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

article discussions

Hi there Tiamut. I applaud your efforts to uphold WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP at Palestinian people. please keep me posted. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Note GHcool is on a POV push at Hamas article

Hi Tiamut, thought you might want to know about this newly emerging situation. The page has been quiet for quite awhile, and I thought all sides had created a fairly fair-minded entry. But GHcool may be determined to ruin that.Haberstr (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Great work!

On Jubata ez-Zeit‎!--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sheikh Bureik

Hey Tiamut, Any news? No rush, just a reminder if you've forgotten. :) I've been pretty inactive here for a while, and don't know when I'll have a chance to contribute more. --Fjmustak (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Boletus edulis

Hi Tiamut, I'd be grateful if there were any sources or stories around Boletus edulis - apparently known as khubz el a'a or "crow's bread" in Arabic... see Talk:Boletus_edulis#Alternate_names_-_how_to_delistify - all detective work apprecaited :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Gamal Abdel Nasser lead

Marhaba Tiamut! Please, whenever you have the time, could you write up a lead for the Gamal Abdel Nasser article. I'm planning on nominating it for GA status soon (and afterward FA status) and any help will be very appreciated. Cheers and keep up the great work! --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I wrote most of what's already there up and will add info on Suez and leadership of the Third World. Still, afterward I would like if you took a look at it. I will notify you when I think it's ready. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I whipped one up, but I couldn't find a way to include Bandung and/or the Non-Aligned Movement. Your advice and criticism is sought ;) --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Simsim edit

Sir, thank you for your criticism, I accept it. Future amendments will be supported by quotations, as per WP:RS. I hope civilised co-operation between us, both as individuals and cultures, will make the world - including its oasis named Wikipedia - better.

Sincerely, Eli. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.36.250 (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Cook

Hi Tiamut, please see that a deletion discussion has been started on the above writer. I saw that you also mentioned him recently on Talk:2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jonathan Cook

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jonathan Cook. 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/Jonathan Cook. 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) 01:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Much appreciated with the barnstar. Can I dedicate it to the editors who have had to deal with all of this? I'm sorry I haven't responded also about the article you mentioned on my talk page, btw, I'm afraid it may be one more thing than I can juggle. If I have a moment I'll take a look. Best, Mackan79 (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Note

Thank you for caring re: my loss. DS (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Gazelle

My knowledge of Arabic doesn't make me anything close to an etymologist. :) Anyway, based on the etymology, wouldn't it be appropriate to have the French word as well? I don't know what the word is, otherwise I'd put it in myself. Breein1007 (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Generally the MoS suggests adding only the root from which the word is derived, rather than the full sequence (at least as far as I recall). Tiamut^talk 08:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Nazareth

No problem. It is a rather exciting discovery. And Merry Christmas to you! --Ari (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

عيد ميلاد سعيد

كل سنة وإنتي طيبة nableezy - 15:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

your opinion

Can you take a look at Mohammed Daniel? I've copyedited his article, some, but now wonder whether he is notable enough for wp, or whether this is a vanity page. tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Arab Christians

I will NOT self-revert my changes. I believe both of us broke the 3RR rule, so we're both at stake in here. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 22:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Coptic identity. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It looked like the edit-warring at Arab Christians had spilled into the new article. Sorry if I over-reacted. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

dido --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 22:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Involved

Hi Tariqabjotu. I noticed you closed the requests made regarding edit-warring (both mine and the one filed by Lanternix against me). While I'm not going to appeal the decisions you made, I want to state for the record once again, that I view you to be an involved admin when it comes to cases involving me, or the Israeli-Palestinian editing arena. I believe I have written as much to you previously. i would appreciate it in the future if you would leave any cases in which i am involved or in which i-p issues are involved to other admins to deal with. thanks. Tiamut^talk 09:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to heed your request, in particular your request to stay out of any cases related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You have tried so often to paint me as an ideologue, based primarily, it seems, on the fact that I have disagreed with you on a few content issues. I don't take your opinion on that seriously, and I'm certainly not going to take your directive here seriously. I believe I have done a very good job of keeping my opinions on the conflict to myself and off Wikipedia, and, while you may think otherwise, I'm not going to base my editorial and administrative decisions based on your grudge. -- tariqabjotu 20:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it's particularly wise to ignore concerns raised by your fellow editors, but you and I don't agree on much, so I'm not surprised you would take the opposite view. The perception of being involved is enough for an admin to be considered involved, and admins are counselled to be sensitive to this, particularly when enforcing discretionary sanctions and the like. I remain of the opinion I expressed above. You are, of course, free to behave as you please, just as I free to express that opinion agaqin in the future, should I feel it is necessary. Tiamut^talk 22:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

May your Christmas be joyous and peaceful. I meant no slight concerning the weight attached to the noun ‘Arab’ relative to its modifier, and am sorry if you may have taken my comment that way. I am well aware of the linguistic precedence relative to other occurrences on your side of the peninsula, and had already guessed your roots, but am less firmly aware of those relativities on the other side of it. As my second post indicates, I am firmly on the outside looking in, but also aware of the other view; it is now just a matter of the wording of that quirk with a quirky and AGF-less editor. On a first look, I do not particularly like the anon-suggested addition of ‘speaking’, since it makes that very noun an adjective, but I note that the ‘speaking’ is one of the defining considerations that makes the Arab League. Highest regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

clarification

thanks for the good faith effort to negotiate the revert.

i'm just wondering if you would ever consider a palestinian to be jewish, or a jew to be a legitimate palestinian, or are these facts useless relics of forgotten history.

shimon peres almost drives me insane with his desire to erase the past.

the past was erased, the erasure forgotten, the lie becomes truth.

i'd love to work on improving more levantine articles, id est maccabee-era israel, syria palestina, and the arab and jewish struggles against british and american imperialism.

בינה תפארת (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Bena Tiferet,

It matters little what I think, as identity is self-defined. However, since you asked, I do consider self-identified Palestinian Jews to be Palestinians (like Uri Davis) and I wish more Jews identified as Palestinian. I also consider Jews who lived in Palestine before Zionist immigration to be Palestinians (if they do of themselves).

Anytime you wish to have a hand at developing a given article, let me know. I'm always looking for editors interested in good faith collaboration to work with. Its much nicer to edit in pairs or more than alone. Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your note. Tiamut^talk 19:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Something missing?

I just found this edit, when the current list for Jordan didn’t seem right. I believe it should be restored, but am unfamiliar enough to do it, although I've driven past several listed. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/2010 Signups

Hey, I'm afraid Palestine has already been claimed by another editor. You're welcome to choose another flag that meets the rules, or if you wait, you will be assigned one randomly before the beginning of the competition. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Lost in translation

I don't mean to get personal, but why is the word muqawama offensive (per this) to a Palesitnian who hears it used daily (on television, radio, etc.) by his own people in reference to their own goals and aspirations? I understand fromour past converssations that your Arabic is not very good, but it is a basic word for your people (attached sample video: The main Palestinian leader, Khaled Mashaal of Hamas, uses it 11 times in 5 minutes with the context of destroying Israel). To be honest, as much as I don't want to dissatisfy any editor on wikipedia, I can't avoid it since it is integral to the converstaion. I'll still make an effort though and try to not mention it where it doesn't belong.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC) more accurate 15:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Its the way you use the word that I find offensive, Jaakobou. You bring it up incessantly, even when it is not relevant to a given discussion. You also tend to use it derisively, as in this comment, where you write: "there's quite a lot of Muslims who are not stooges for the muqawama rhetorics." I'd appreciate it if you would heed my request, and not the use the word when it is not being used by sources we are discussing and when it is not related to article discussions. And my Arabic is fine by the way, certainly any difficulties I have with fusha do not impede my ability to understand what the word muqawama means. I think perhaps it is you that may not understand its broader meaning, limiting as you do to simply the destruction of Israel. Tiamut^talk 15:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd never do something as silly as to limit it to Israel only, that would be quite silly of me when its clear -- even by the video example -- that it has a much wider meaning. I actually disagree with Israeli middle-east expert and journalist Ehud Yaary who limited it to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in one of his articles. Regardless, I'm not fully pleased with my use of the word 'stooges', I'll give you that, and I apologize for it and will make an effort not to use it again. Still, terrorists have used the "muqawama" as an excuse for constant warfare and there's really no way to work around that. You can't say that it is irrelevant if terrorist actions were inspired by "muqawama" rhetorics and iconography. That video of Khaled Mashaal makes it quite clear that the word (used 11 times in 5 minutes) has a deep significance to their rhetorics.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you for apologizing. However, my concerns about your limiting its meaning to something inherently and exclusively negative remain. For many people, "resistance" (muqawama) includes legitimate resistance in the form of non-violent actions or the targeting of military installations or personnel engaging in illegal occupation or aggressive/offensive actions. In any case, so as to avoid prolonging this discussion, which has nothing to do with article improvement, let me just say that while you are entitled to your opinion, I'd prefer if you would keep it to yourself when it is not related to article discussions. I'd also like to not hear you use the word muqawama unless it is discussed by sources that are relevant to the articles we are discussing. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 16:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be limiting the word to usage in what is deemed legitimate protest in western cultures. That is, realistically speaking, a plainly false interpretation. Certainly, in my example video, Mashaal is not talking about holding up sings and chanting 'down with Israel'. I'm not going to go into your own offensive use of language (per 'legitimate'/'illegal') since we're trying to be able to collaborate despite opposing perspectives. I'll be sure to make an effort to use the term only when relevant to the discussed issues, that I can promise.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding me, and there is little point to continuing this conversation. Thank you for your time and your pledge to avoid using that word when unnecessary. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 17:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!

Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That was quick

I'm glad I could tempt you back so easily! :) Breein1007 (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Explanation

No explanation is necessary. I was responding to a question about Nableezy. not others.Cptnono (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I see. So you are out to get editors who do not agree with you, and ignore the actions of editors who do agree with you, and as per this edit summary, you have no problem threatening them too. Congratulations, by the way, on your success in chasing away User:Nableezy. It almost shut me down too, but I wouldn't want to make your year. Tiamut^talk 22:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It was my pleasure.On second thought, having a bad attitude doesn't help anything. I disagree with your take on things and there is nothing you can say to change that. I doubt I will be changing how you feel regardless of what I say so let it die already. I know you are upset but I have no interest in continuing some sort of debate on this.Cptnono (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Cptnono (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Suheirhammad book cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Suheirhammad book cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Message re Sandstein/Nableezy

Thanks for your message. Please lay out the history clearly. My top-of-the-head understanding is that his is to do with the delete discussion for an article on a journalist where Nish, Nick and the Monkey puppeteer commented and Nableezy tried to restore Nich and Nick's stuff after they were deleted as inviolation of the ban. They were all taken to the arb-related incident page where the admin decided not to take action. Then, amonth later, Sandstein suddenly decides to take action. If this understanding is correct, then I most certainly will support any appeal and do think that Sanstein is out of line. But, as I said, please document everything, so that I can check my understanding before speaking out in a palce where real decisions may be made.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy/Sandstein

Hi Tiamut. Sandstein's handling of the situation has obviously been very foolish, but I've never dealt with him before and have no idea whether this foolishness is par for the course or an exception; whether there is a personal or clique-related background to the harassment of Nableezy; or whether he simply made a bad call and then started doubling up when criticized. Some of his responses make me think the last of these is likely. At any rate, I'd suggest waiting for Gatoclass' advice, and in the meantime proceeding coolly. Perhaps Sandstein can be persuaded to leave Nableezy's case in the hands of another admin. All best, --G-Dett (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Moments ago I left a message for Sandstein asking her/him to do just that. Let's see how Sandstein responds. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Malik Shabazz. Tiamut^talk 20:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I did the same as Malik Shabazz ([1]) but are not often enough on wikipedia to do more. I hope Sandstein will understand by himself he crossed the red line here. Ceedjee (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

ahlan ya Tiamut, thanks for your message. Yes, I was surprised by Sandstein's block this morning, which seemed to me to be arbitrary and vindictive. And yes of course, in principle I will support your appeal and RfC. I would like to see it have Nableezy's support and participation, but I think I would still support it even if not (though I'd have to consider carefully in that case).

As others have said, it's best to be cool, careful, accurate, thorough and methodical in this sort of distasteful task, and I've no doubt you are capable of that.

Funnily enough, I don't usually agree with IronDuke, but much of what he said on Nableezy's page was very wise. And thanks also to Malik Shabbaz for his wise action.

--NSH001 (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut. I left another message for Sandstein. I hope Sandstein will back away out of the appearance of a conflict but I'm not optimistic.

In terms of next steps, I'm not sure whether it's time for an RfC unless there have been other situations in which Sandstein has been accused of abusing her/his role as an administrator. A discussion on ANI may be appropriate, or you may want to let it drop this time but be ready to bring any future problems to ANI right away. Sorry that I don't have any better suggestions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut, I have not been able to catch up on the whole situation (I've been on the road driving through Central America the past few days -- and internet access in 3rd world countries is...well...irregular at best), but I did notice the block for adding information at the NoCal100 SPI. Given what I have been able to read so far, I would hope that Sandstein would elaborate on why he felt the ban was proper, as it seems a bit of a stretch to block someone due to their commenting on an SPI case. Regards --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 02:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As you know, I have been away from home, and only just returned and catching up. I missed the development of this scandal; otherwise I would have intervened earlier. I completely agree with your assessment, and will be happy to back you up and contribute in whatever way I am able to reverse this abuse of procedures and to restore Nableezy's right to edit. RolandR (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, I support your work on this issue, from what I've seen so far up to this point. please keep me posted. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy's Appeal

Yes, I saw and was planning to comment. Very busy at the moment. The recent disruption and drama was entirely caused by Sandstein's actions. In the best of faith he holds some extreme and unworkable (and worse, counterproductive) abstract ideas about how to enforce rules and decisions. Nableezy's case should be a good place to explore this issue, which not restricted to Sandstein.John Z (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please

Please do not needlessly remove my comments from talkpages.[2] Thanks. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not be purposefully provocative [3]. Tiamut^talk 14:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

My visit was indeed very interesting, and it was good to again see family, friends and comrades after a long time.But I am unlikely to pay another visit for many years. There are other places we might meet. Meanwhile, please join me in a virtual cup of coffee or tea. RolandR (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not meant as a criticism

But I think if you took your foot off the gas pedal a bit, as per Nableezy's request (as I read it), you would help, rather than hurt, his cause. Cheers. IronDuke 01:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein/Nableezy concluded.

I assume now that Sandstein himself has withdrawn the topic ban that you no longer intend to raise a Yser RfC.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I need time to think about it. I've expressed some of why I feel that way here. Tiamut^talk 19:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I honestly think it would be best to let this go, at least the part about my ban. I obviously felt Sandstein was wrong, most people who disagree with me are, but I dont think he actually abused any "powers" that he has or really showed any bias (in fact he was the admin that blocked a user, immediately without any warnings, who called me a "Hamas operative"). The canvassing accusation was silly, but nothing to get too worked up over, at least in my opinion. But I wanted to say thanks for all the support and I hope you are well. nableezy - 19:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion means a lot to me Nableezy. I'm inclined to agree with you that I should probably let it go, since we are here to edit an encyclopedia. I remain somewhat concerned though by the way Sandstein tried to dismiss the validity of those critiquing his decision by invoking our alleged partisanship. While I expect that of Jaakobou and Stellarkid (as evidenced most recently in their comments in your appeal), I don't think its behaviour becoming of someone who is supposed to be an impartial arbitrator between us all, and who is entrusted with the power to use discrtetionary sanctions to ban or block people editing here. Do you understand what I'm saying? Tiamut^talk 20:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. Thanks for the thanks. And yes I am doing well, despite the excitement of the last few days. Thanks for asking. Tiamut^talk 20:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I get what you are saying, but that is just how admins here are, and honestly its partly our (the people who work in these topics) fault. No matter what the circumstances of a particular judgment, an admin who tries to do anything in the I/P area is subjected to cries of abuse and poor judgment and often of blatant bias. Sometimes it is true, but there are plenty of times when it is not. But because we do this with such regularity, on both sides, those admins who are willing to do some pretty thankless tasks, like patrolling AE, start thinking of that as background noise and they tune it out. And Sandstein, like most of us, thinks he is right or else he would not do what he does. That doesnt make him necessarily a bad admin, maybe a stubborn one, just a normal one. The one thing that pissed me off the most about Sandstein's ban was his response after I gave him the diff from AGK and the link to the prior thread. At that point I think he should have carefully reexamined the case, not brush it off as a minor point not worthy of consideration. But again, that just makes him stubborn, and no more stubborn than I am at that. I think the way we judge admins should be on their consistency, and I do not have any reason to believe that had the AE request been about 3 "pro-I's" that Sandstein would have come to a different conclusion. Should he have listened to the other complaints at his talk page? Maybe, but there really were not a whole lot of truly uninvolved people there commenting, admin bit or not. I think it is understandable that, and I have no idea if he actually felt this way, he could have felt that he was under attack. Normal response in that situation is to dig in. One of the few things I think I have actually learned about this place is that the more people who comment in a thread the less likely that thread will result in anything usable. Sort of a law of diminishing returns for wikipedia. What I should have done was just appeal the sanction right away, would have saved a lot of people a decent chunk of time and avoided all the arguments that in the end did not do much except create deeper and wider rifts between people who supposedly should be working together. But, to bring this post with no direction to a grinding halt, I personally think it would be best for all involved to let anything left of this go. nableezy - 20:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right. About most everything you said. (Though I understand why you didn't appeal right away. It was just so shocking.) I need to learn to be more forgiving towards those with whom I have disagreements. I will drop it. I'll keep the subpage with the breakdown of what happened, under a new title, just in case some people are less forgiving towards you, and we need to rehash some of this in a future frivolous complaint. Cheers Nableezy. PS. I hope this means you coming out of retirement? Tiamut^talk 20:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not quite yet, though maybe in the not so distant future. nableezy - 20:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Take whatever time you need. Just make sure that you do so eventually. Take care of yourself Nableezy. Tiamut^talk 21:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying (a few inches of snow here, and everything turns to chaos ... and my central heating's broken down, in the coldest winter for years). I think you made the right decision re a possible RfC, and in any case I'm not a great fan of legalistic procedures, which may sometimes be necessary, but are rarely the best solution. I hope Sandstein can learn to be a bit more careful in future, and to take a bit more notice when someone queries his decision, with valid info/evidence - and maybe I made it worse by posting so angrily on his talk page. Best wishes, --NSH001 (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your note which I obviously got too late help with. I do follow these things but I'm not that knowledgable about procedure so I don't usually say anything. I guess if I'm going to edit more than one or two I/P articles I'll have to learn these things. I hope that my comments on AE were helpful. Although I doubt that I would have had anything useful to contribute if Nableezy hadn't preempted you. But all's well that ends well so maybe we should just be happy that this one has. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ya'qub Bilbul

On January 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ya'qub Bilbul, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 06:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edit warring

Please read WP:BRD - you made a bold change, removing hebrew content that had been in the article a long time. More than one editor reverted you - there's clearly no consensus for your change. Take it to Talk or dispute resolution. Los Admiralos (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. You are clearly a sockpuppet of someone I quite familiar with. Please respond to my question regarding the name of your previous accounts. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 17:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you come across the Wikistalk tool; perhaps it would help. Los_Admiralos's editing behaviour and history is peculiar to say the least. -- ZScarpia (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

To the passerby, turns out User:Los Admiralos was a sockpuppet of User:NoCal100 (a likely sockpuppet of User:Isarig, who if you have read my user page, you will know was the one who filed three successful 3RR reports against me in 2007 while he was edit-warring with me at the time). I think he still has sockpuppets here, but I'm not as good as Nableezy at proving it. All I have is my instinct. Tiamut^talk 21:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Kafr Misr

On January 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kafr Misr, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Israel (and the status of Jerusalem as capital) has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission. -- tariqabjotu 15:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Dissatisfied editor

Apparently threatening other users is much more convenient for you than handle their legitimate edits. I have a feeling that you treat certain articles as your own personal mansion, and as a tool to promote personal views. This is very deplorable, especially as it damages the reputation of the WP project. DrorK (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the content of this talk page clearly present your biasness toward the issue in question. Nevertheless you insist on presenting yourself as impartial and reject other users' edits as if you know better. This is not what I would call honesty or good faith. DrorK (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

To the passerby reading this, this is the talk page message I left Drork. Please note that despite his not reverting his fifth revert, I did not file a 3RR report. His comments were the thanks I got for not making good on my "threat". Tiamut^talk 21:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello!!

Howz things? What happened to Miss Huldra? I haven't seen her about few at least two months. A pity, I gather she is busy? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry

Hi, Tiamut. I'd like to apologize for that comment. I was more than upset for everything that was happening to me, but no matter how much upset I was what I said to you was insulting and wrong, and I am deeply sorry for that. BTW I wonder why they did not run SPI on me and the users that you suggested. Your suggestion had much more sense than theirs did. Running SPI on me, and the users, whose sole contribution was... no, not to help me, but to attack me, had no sense at all. Nothing had any sense on that day, I even would not have been surprised, if that unbelievable SPI came back with a positive results. Anything could have happened in Kingdom of Crooked Mirrors :). Anyway...--Mbz1 (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbz1. I understood the moment you made the comment that it came from a place of frustration and didn't really take it heart anyway, though I do appreciate the apology. I am sorry too, for assuming that you were a sockpuppet, based on a vague feeling, and without any solid evidence. I'm especially sorry that I contributed to an atmosphere that drove you to despair. I'm glad to see you're feeling good enough to use happy emoticons. :) Take care of yourself and remember never to take Wikipedia too seriously. It can be very bad for your health. Tiamut^talk 20:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I do feel a little better after I watched "My fair lady" Have you ever watched it? It is one of my most favorite movies.If you've watched it, you might remember the scene, when Professor Henry Higgins, Colonel Hugh Pickering and Eliza Doolittle came home after triumph at the reception? Professor Henry Higgins and Colonel Hugh Pickering started to congratulate each-other, but completely forgot about Eliza. She got very upset, and later told Professor Henry Higgins: "I wish I was dead". Then she left and met Freddy Eynsford-Hill. He asked her, where she was going? She said she was going to the river. He asked her why, and she responded "to make a hole in it." What reasons did Eliza have to wish to be dead, to make a hole in a river? Was she angry? Of course she was was not, she was hopeless, upset and desperate. When I finished watching that movie somehow I felt not so alone anymore. Some people believe that what I said at my talk page was said out of anger. Thank you very much for understanding that it was said out of despair, and maybe even the word "despair" does not have enough strength to show how I have felt.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I love that movie. I used to know all the words to all of the songs. Musicals are my favourite.

Though I understand the intensity of your emotions (as I often feel the same way here when things are going crazy all around, it really does help if you step back from it all and laugh a little before writing anything down. I don't always succeed at doing it myself, but it always helps when I do. Good luck with everything. Tiamut^talk 22:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right, except, I did step back for few minutes before I posted the infamous message, and it did not help at all. Maybe next time I need to step back for an hour or two :) Well after all, I am glad we had this conversation. It is great to know that in spite of all out disagreements we have something in common, and could understand each other at least once in a while:) BTW it might be an interesting idea, when people are getting really upset with each other, instead of arguing and hurting each other, try to find something that they share. Anyway, I said what I had to say, and I will not bother you any longer. Good luck to you too!--Mbz1 (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

UserTiamut/Jerusalem

Did you mean to create that here? If so, I could move it there for you. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 13:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've moved the page, and CSD'ed the redirect. Hopefully you get they key fixed. Cheers! The Thing // Talk // Contribs 13:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa Mosque

Thank you for welcoming; May i note that on the issue of the Mosque, it is mistkaen for a building by many today; while since its establishment al-Aqsa is the whole enclave; known today as al-Haram al-Sharif, which includes many buildings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijerusalem (talk • contribs) 17:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

lol...

...you really are quite ridiculous. Sometimes I don't have the patience to deal with your nonsense. I guess that means you win in a sick sick way! Breein1007 (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"ridiculous" ... "nonsense" .... I suppose your restoring to name-calling means you don't have a rational argument to make. Thanks for conceding that. Tiamut^talk 08:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Far from name calling. On second thought, allowing you to destroy Wikipedia's objectivity to such a degree doesn't sit well with me. I'll deal with it later today. Cheers, Breein1007 (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that's funny. Stylizing yourself as a paragon of objectivity and defender of the Wiki when instead of using reliable sources to support your arguments, you rely on the self-evidence of the WP:TRUTH as you know it. Please do some real research this time around. I'm getting tired of reading tangential OR speculation and the citing of one source that actually contradicts the argument you are advocating. Tiamut^talk 08:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tektek Mountains

On February 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tektek Mountains, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My block

Thanks for tour comment. Nobody reported me. I reported a clear single-purpose for edit-warring, after his fifth tendentious reversion in a day to Socialism; the reviewing admin blocked both of us for 24 hours, even though I had not breached 3RR. The offending editor has repeatedly introduced edits claiming that Hitler and the Nazis were socialists, that socialism is advanced liberalism, and that communism is anti-socialist. I smell a very dubious agenda here. RolandR (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

palestinian jews/uri davis

well im not jewish so i dont know the whole who is a jew thing from the jews POV but he made those statements before 2008 more for ideological attack against zionism than actual identity. its not really about identity but but accuracy. Adding his okay i guess aslong as it should be mentioned he converted to Islam. I hear the jews also dont recognize people who convert out of the religion. if your intrested in adding expanding the article more here is an episode from some program i saw on youtube that talks about palestinian jews and their families who live the west bank now, also talks about a town called Yatta how most people who lived there are originally jews. It goes on to explain that Jewish dna and a common link between Ashkenazi Jews and Palestinian Arabs were found. I dont know when the program was aired or who carried out the study. still its a good reference (theorectically) for issue on the origin of palestinian people and does refute the often claim by Israel that palestinians dont exist and were immigrants from other arab countries , when it was israelis themselves who carried out this research and test. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3gGinwyNYE&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AenISgolLe0&feature=related g'day Miss-simworld ‎ (talk) 09:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

ICTS International DYK

I commented on your DYK submission for ICTS International: see here. Ucucha 00:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Bsous Silk Museum

Hi. I wondered if you or you know somebody who could save this from deletion? ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 16:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you fix my referenece? ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 21:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If we can find a hook we could co-nominate it for a DYK. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 21:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I love you, you do things so quickly and efficiently! I was going to simply say about the live silkworms and process of hatching displays but I prefer your hook mentioning the princess! ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 21:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Any GAs in the pipeline? ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 22:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Lovely! Both articles at quick glance look awesome, particularly Nableezys article! To the casual eye they definately both look GA but I'll have a read of them later, see what I think. Qedarite, when you first see the word sounds like a mineral or something eh? I guess though the name is no different to many tribal names in the middle east ending in "Ite". Excellent work, once again Tiamut! ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 22:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You know what, I've only read the first few paragraphs and already I'm excited. I can't tell you enough how much I love reading about the Holy Land history. Ancient Egypt and Israel fascinates me beyond belief. I unfortunately don't contribute enough to the ancient world on wikipedia, my last articles from the ancient world were Naqa and Wad ban Naqa. But its the sort of excitement I get from watching documentaries by people like Tudor Parfitt. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 22:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh OK, sorry about that. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 22:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Literally a "good article". Only some small things. Perhaps you should reference the approximate dates of the rulers in the table. Also, what about cultural aspects of the Qedarites. What about their domestic way of living, clothing, working, social interaction, festivities shared etc? Is there nothing about their cultural practices in history or illustrated through archaeological inds like tools, pottery etc or are they too ancient? It would be good if the article could describe them as a people in better detail... ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 23:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Also I started Albert Augustus Isaacs. Perhaps you know more about him? ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 23:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I gather you disagree with my suggestions? ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 16:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC

Seems like a reasonable approach. Do you want to suggest some language here that encompasses both our positions, for that page? I'll see if I have any suggested edits, and then we can proceed with less disagreement at least in posting it for RfC? I will be most interested there in the comments of previously topic-uninvolved editors.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Qalqilya Zoo

On February 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Qalqilya Zoo, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Mail

Please check your mail. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.81.105 (talk) 11:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

About Qedarite

Tiamut,

For the record I wanted to commend the detail research on Qedarite. I hope that I am not offending by the nitpicking on the GA review. Dealing with topics that have religious associations can be tricky. Some editors might have different viewpoints than me (certainly I have seen WP articles related to religion that I considered very biased and yet they don't get challenged). If for any reason you feel I am being too judgemental I'd be ok with deferring to another reviewer.

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look later today or this weekend. --Mcorazao (talk)

Sorry I took so long. Though I still have some concerns about how the topic is covered I think the writing is sufficient for GA (if you want to push it to FA I'd recommend a peer review). The one outstanding issue, though, for GA is that there are still the two images that do not have sufficient information establishing that they are public domain. I can't pass it unless that is addressed (i.e. either update the image pages with the information or else remove the images). Can this be addressed quickly? --Mcorazao (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for ICTS International

On February 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article ICTS International, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

50 DYK Medal

		The 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Congratulations for creating or expanding 50 DYK articles. Fine work! Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I filed a complaint about you and Harlan

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Tiamut User:Harlan wilkerson

Hi there

Hello Tiamut!

I'm aware of your innumerable contributions, which is why I came to you for help. I was hoping to know what you could tell me about Ian Bickerton. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! :)

I just wanted to get general info on him in anticipation for oppositions against his use as a source (sigh). Nothing specific though, so thanks for your help. Cheers. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha! Yeah exactly, you know how things work :D

Thanks again for your help. --Sherif9282 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hawsha

On February 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hawsha, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I just read it, it is beautifully done and so are your other contributions. Taprobanus (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, you are a great contributer no doubt, but just a word a caution. I too was involved in conflict related articles and still do sometimes but managed never ever to get blocked or to be taken for any disiplinary actions. Reason number #1, I dont take Wikipedia too seriously, it is what it is a unreliable page of information that needs to be treated with caustion by anyone reading it. Especially for or current political events and definitions, wikipedia is not the place journalists and decison makers come to before making their minds but for history, archeology and other related information wikipedia is a good place to create knowledge based on facts that will travel around the world. Rule # 2, Try to find common ground with the so called "enemy" and things will always be calmer when you have two saner points of view about anything. Just my 2 cents. Taprobanus (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. I thought I had learned to take Wiipedia less seriously, but I guess I haven't. Its kind of against my nature anyway, as I am a rather serious person by nature. Wish I had more of a sense of humour or the ability to let things go sometimes ... I'm working on it. Its getting abit better as I age ... like a fine wine losing its tartness.

Admittedly, my own actions helped to get me blocked. However, two of the admins who blocked me early on in my editing career later admitted to me that they probably wouldn't have if they had the chance to do it again. That doesn't count for much now, since I have a long block record. My last block was over two years ago though. I stupidly lost track of things yesterday. I think the block I was given was excessive, but like I said, I was edit-warring and accept that I should not have been. You are right that if I adopted your philosophy that a page can be f_cked up without me having to save it. It can survive imperfection and I can save myself headaches and future blocks. I'm going to try to live by that in the future.

About your last piece of advice, I do try to find common ground, but I've encountered a lot of hostility, put downs, and general racism because I proudly self-identify as Palestinian. Some people can't accept that Palestinians exist (as you can see by the IP's edits I brought attention to below). I'm had my user page vandalized with very racist and offensive comments before. I've also had very alid arguments rooted in policy dismissed simply because its me that's making them. I do manage to carry on some civil relationships with a few people with whom I disagree strongly on politics. But its unfortunately not a big a number as I would like. Still, I will try to friendlier in the future. Its hard though when you feel that certain people do not accept your right to be who you are. But I'll try to smile through it, or at least ignore it more in the future. Tiamut^talk 19:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

About 105 people are watching you all the time. My count went up by three after I posted on your talk page :)) what I am trying to say is that most assuming good faith are normal people but there are few who would want to you silenced. I had and still have people who would want me gone and are watching me constantly. rule #3 is to get your opposition to agree to a set of rules. User:SebastianHelm helped me do that. Your issues are 100 times more complicated than what I faced which was a bunch of persistant vandals. So I am not sure our WP:SLR strategy would work but it is worth a try. Taprobanus (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the number of watchers the other day. Sometimes it gives me stage fright. :) I really appreciate your empathy. I will take another look at WP:SLR. SebastianHelm helped up to set up WP:IPCOLL, but its served more as place where editors continue to battle out discussions happening elsewhere, rather than a place where agreements are made on protocols that would help improve the overall editing environment. Perhaps a reiew of what you all did there would provide some fresh perspectives. Thanks again for all your advice and encouragement Taprobanus. Take care, Tiamut^talk 20:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

congrats

congratulations on your new barnstar. it is well deserved. by the way, peace is coming to the region which we both hold so important. feel free to take a look at some of the entries on recent joint economic efforts. see you! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

See this discussion in which you are mentioned: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#Articles related to Palestinian statehood DrorK (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey

thank for your msg It is sad the conflict that goes in the holyland, yes Ill be sure if i find out realible sources for articles in that portal I will add them. I think you've done a great job on editing and keeping the quality high for the Palestine articles for infomration high.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hey there Tiamut! I need to call on your assistance once again. I'm sure you've had much experience with these provocations. It's quite annoying: [4] [5] [6]

I don't want to cross any lines here, how do I react? Thanks. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I'll follow that suggestion. On the other hand how can I get more evidence on Megaidler? BTW You don't have to keep that article on watch, it really isn't necessary and it would take up your time. --Sherif9282 (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright then. I'll see what Nableezy can dig up. Thanks for your help Tiamut. --Sherif9282 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Occupied Territory

My bad on that article - when I saw the edit I thought the IP had added the "from Jordan", not deleted it. Breein1007 (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Gaza War

Your edit warring is really out of line. You know very well that you are making a controversial edit and that it will be met with disagreement by other editors. We started the process appropriately, following WP:BRD and discussing on talk. Unfortunately, you quickly abandoned that course and made a joke of the discussion by posting your justification and making your edit immediately, assuming that you would have the final say in the matter. It really is discouraging to see a veteran editor behaving in such a manner. Breein1007 (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not edit-warring. I made change which you rejected, reverting to your preferred version. Nalbeezy made a bold change, which you reverted back to your preferred version. I made another change with a compromise formulation after I posted it on talk. I presume you are angry because if you revert that change, you will up to three reverts, and I haven't made any reverts yet. That's not my problem, that's your problem. Please indicate what is wrong with the version I proposed on talk. Thank you. Tiamut^talk 22:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You really show your failure to understand the D of BRD with this last post. Cheers, Breein1007 (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I am discussing. And being bold by introducing new changes. Which I continue to discuss. BRD is a guideline by the way. NPOV is a policy. Try abiding by it sometime. Tiamut^talk 22:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, it appears that you are engaged in edit wars in more than one article, all related to Israeli-Pelstinian conflict subjects. My suggestion, as these subjects will remain cotroversial and heated, perhaps move to less controversial subjects for a while. I am doing so myself and it's quite rewarding in the long term. John Hyams (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Another note: being bold is OK, but perhaps not in controversial issues... John Hyams (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That's very funny John Hyams. Perhaps you want to follow your own advice, given that you have made bold changes to two "controversial" articles and continued to make those changes even after they were protested. In fact, you are edit-warring with me at two articles. I didn't revert your last deletion of material from Palestine so as to stop that edit war. It worked. You got your way and the edit war was stopped. congratulations. Tiamut^talk 23:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm still waiting for other editors to participate, they may accept your view (that's why I placed the tag in that section, for you). That's the whole point of resolving disputes on content. I guess you think "I won" because you had no more reverts left (and I may go to the administrators board and complain). But our little fight took place on one page, while I see you have other disputes elsewhere. It's OK, you're a pro-Palestinian writer and it's 100% fine by me, I just wish that we as writers from each side of the political rainbow could work on something together. I am a flexible person, sometimes. John Hyams (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

John Hyams, you are waiting for other editors to participated after you successfully removed the content that had been there for some time. I got blocked because I (quite stupidly) reverted your additions of the material you removed from Palestine to State of Palestine. But you should not have added that material in the first place, since as I stated to you more than once, it was already in the state of Palestine article and your edits therefore introduced redundant material to that article that should have remined in Palestine. No matter though. I can accept responsibility for my actions. In the future, I won't be so quick to remove redundant information, even if it means the article is left in poorer shape because of it. Tiamut^talk 17:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit War

Please respond to this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring DrorK (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Casualty Information at Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Hello Tiamut -- You've got a lot more experience with Israel/Palestine articles than I do, so I wanted to ask your advice on this...

Basically, I noticed that the casualty figures for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict do not include (euphemism alert...) "non-violent excess deaths" such as people dying because their ambulances were stopped at roadblocks, starvation due to blockades, infections resulting from bombed out water-treatment facilities, etc.

Most dictionary definitions of the word casualty include sickness, or harm resulting from an action, not necessarily related to violence, for instance:

• One that is harmed or eliminated as a result of an action or a circumstance -- American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, 2009
• any person, group, thing, etc., that is harmed or destroyed as a result of some act or event -- Random House Dictionary, 2010.

So I feel that the inclusion of civilian casualties that result from food blockades, etc. is warranted.

Do you know of any international organizations that have put out studies which estimate the numbers of preventable deaths in Palestine each year, as a result of the Israeli occupation? I was looking through UNHCR Refworld and trying to find something, but could only find a few things about ambulances being attacked and stopped during "Operation Cast Lead". Any ideas?

Do you feel like this should be added in a different part of the article? Or not at all?

Thanks, -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jrtayloriv. I hope you are checking my talk page, as since I've been blocked, I won't be able to respond on yours.

I think you have raised an important point. I looked around for some statistics and information and found the following:

• [7] A UNOCHA report from August 2007 notes that "The greatest number of deaths, resulting from

denial of access to medical facilities occurred in 2001 and 2002 when 74% of the 46 deaths for this reason occurred. The number has dropped since then to between 0-4 deaths per year." Of these, 4 were women who died at a result of having to give birth at checkpoints.

• [8] A list of "Palestinians who died following an infringement of the right to medical treatment in the Occupied Territories" from Btselem covering the period from 2000 to 2008. There is no total given, but each case is listed and the total can be added together. Its good for providing information on each individual case.
• [9] A Canadian newspaper report of how people in Gaza are dying from lack of medical care, a situation that has worsened significantly as a result of the Blockade of the Gaza Strip and the Gaza War which, "damaged 15 of Gaza’s 27 hospitals, and 43 of its 110 primary health-care facilities were either damaged or destroyed."
• [10] A report by the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights from April 2009 notes, "Over 41 Gazans have died for reasons that can be owed to the collapse of the referral process in the last year, while the health of hundreds of Gazan patients' is deteriorating rapidly. This is the consequence of continued conflict between the political powers in the OPT as well as the Israeli government, and the lack of their respect for the lives of Palestinian civilians and their right to health. The majority of the 41 deaths were results of the delays in, or failure to, permit the patients access to hospitals in Israel and/or the West Bank."

I hope these sources prove useful to you. When I return to editing, I will try to help out in adding them to relevant articles. I'll also post any updates here that I find before then, so keep an eye out. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 17:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Bsous Silk Museum

On February 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bsous Silk Museum, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. NJA (t/c) 08:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Notes: Fifth edit war and/or 3RR block, this time at State of Palestine. See this AN3 report. NJA (t/c) 08:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My bad. I would have self-reverted if I had been aware of having crossed the line, but I was still edit-warring. A week is a long time though, considering my last block was more than two years ago. Funny that the filing editor, User:Drork, reported for 3RR just two days after being blocked for it, got off with only a warning. So much for consistency. Gotta love Wikipedia, and I do, so I accept the sanction. I'll try to do better in the future. See you in a week. Tiamut^talk 11:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, shockingly inconsistent, as noted. The cheek involved in Drork's filing a report against you at all given his luck in getting away with stuff over the last few days is something special as well. Anyway, you've taken it well - I guess sometimes it's just not worth getting too worked up about this sort of thing really. It's all too predictable, if nothing else. Enjoy the break .. N-HH talk/edits 14:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

ps: as you'll notice, like a Marathon chocolate bar, I've been rebranded

Thanks N-HH (the new name is nice by the way. I hope it serves you well). Time and again, my experience here is that editors viewed as "pro-Palestinian" (even if they are not, as was the case for you, G-Dett, Nishidani, Meteormaker, and Pedrito) get held to a far higher standard than those who are quite obviously (and disruptively) "pro-Israeli". There have been enough cases where I've seen draconian judgements passed down to former group, while the latter gets wrist slaps for much worse offenses. Thus, I've sort of resigned myself to the idea that systems in the virtual world pretty accurately emulate those of real life, where traditionally, underdogs tend to get the short end of the stick. Perhaps that's why my response this time around is so subdued.

I've thought a lot about whether or not I want to continue contributing to this system (and the real life one), despite its obvious biases and double standards. Sometimes I think its not worth it and that for all I give, I just get a lot of headaches in return. But like User:Jrtayloriv (btw, have you seen his user page? its pretty damn cool), I don't want to see Wikipedia dominated by systemic bias, and if all the underdogs dropped out, this would just be another ethnocentric, hypercapitalist, hegemonic, might-makes-right source, rather than what is was designed to be: an encyclopedia written by the people, for the people. I think I've made some valuable contributions towards that end, and for the time being, I'd like to continue doing so. But if at some point I am permanently blocked, I do believe it will be Wikipedia's loss, not mine. Chasing away core content editors by treating them like common vandals will soon leave it without such editors, and its upon our free labour that this resource survives. I can always write somewhere else, though I will admittedly always miss what Wiki could have been Anyway, take care of yourself N-HH. Tiamut^talk 15:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wanted to hide my real name behind the initials a bit more. I'd been meaning to do it for ages, but never got round to it. I think that when it comes to "enforcement" it's more about genuinely random inconsistency - on another day, and with a different admin passing by, the situation could have been reversed. However, as far as content goes, as you point out, there is a genuine bias. On I-P issues - as with everything else - Wikipedia inevitably follows the dominant pattern of the debate in the US and the wider Anglosphere, where the discourse is very skewed, in the former particularly so, for all sorts of reasons. As I never tire of pointing out, and as of course you're aware, how many Palestinians regularly edit here? Compare that with the number of Israeli and especially American editors, whose contributions will naturally reflect the nature of the debate as it happens in those countries. Not all of them take the "Likud" view of course by any means, or even the supposedly softer Labor view, and maybe most of them don't even have much of a conscious political angle at all, but it hardly makes for a balanced global perspective on these issues. N-HH talk/edits 18:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

About randomness, there's a Palestinian-American spoken word poet I love named Suheir Hammad. She wrote this one piece entitled "Mike check, mike check" (you can see it here. There's a line in there that says: "Mic check, one, two. Mike checked my bags at the airport in a random, routine check. I understand Mike, I do. You, too, were altered that day, and most days, most folks operate on fear, often hate. This is mic check your job, and I am always random."

About your other point, I agree wholeheartedly. I don't know any Palestinian editors here who live in the West Bank or Gaza. The only other Palestinian editor I know is Al Ameer son and he grew up inside the borders of modern day Israel and now lives in the States. The two of us aren't even really representative of Palestinians in general, being somewhat "Westernized" by our experiences. Tiamut^talk 19:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

So, I hope this is not unwelcome, and delete this if it is, but... you do realize why the editors you name above were punished, right? It wasn't because they were "pro-Palesitnian" (although, do you really think they weren't?). It was to provide cover for pretty extreme sanctions against Jayjg, taking tools away from him there was no evidence he had ever abused. Now, I'm not asking you to fall in love with Jayjg, but I wonder, if you can set aside your passion for the subect for a moment: do you really think that was just? I myself defended editors who have made edits that really, really make me unhappy, and that I think are wrong on many different levels. That doesn't change that fact that I think they are valuable. There is no cabal against Palesinian friendly editors. Nor is there one against Israel-friendly editors. There is an idea on the part of some folks to have people on both sides STFU and play nice. And to make that happen, they will impose more or less random sanctions and blocks. I would invite you to contest those, even against editors you hate, if you think they are unfair. Does that makes sense to you? IronDuke 02:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thannks for your thought IronDuke. Of course I see things completely differently. The West Bank/Judea Samaria case was one where a groups of editors were adding a nationalistic POV descriptor to mutliple pages, despite the undue nature of these additions, representing as they do fringe terminology for the area in question - on the other side, a motley crew of five editors not from the region in question, and without a serious stake in the wording used beyond its obvious inappopriateness when judged against Wiki guidlines, too it upon themselves to try and stop this. While every one of them has their names included in the case, many of the J&S pushers did not (and got aay scot free) and it turned out that at least two of the editors listed were socks of an account that was previously topic banned from editing I-P articles because of their difficulties editing collaboratively with others.

I will say that I don't hate anyone here (though I do admittedly sometimes hate certain actions and arguments). I don't really want to elaborate further on my thoughts regarding the rest of your comments, except to say that if I ever did see an editor with whom I disagree content-wise unfairly sanctioned, I would say something. Tiamut^talk 09:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I'd only reiterate that however unfair it was that pro-Palestinian editors got sanctioned and not enough pro-Israel ones did (which I can't say I agree with, but taking it as read) this just underscores my point: it didn't matter whether the outcome was "fair," nor did it matter whether the content ended up reflecting the consensus of RS's, which is why it didn't matter that not all editors on the pro-I side of things got sanctioned. The case (which was about a pretty minor issue, don't you think?) was all about Jayjg. Sanctions against pro-P editors were necessary to project an image of balance. Adding pro-I editors wasn't necessary to achieve that. You see what I'm saying? "Process" gets a bad name here, but I wish there were more outrage on the part of pro-P editors regarding the deeply flawed process in this case. That's why I argued against NHH's ban. Not because I was thrilled with his editing -- indeed, I was quite mad at him for a while -- but because his punishment was ludicrously out of scale with his supposed crimes. That's just not right, and it hurts Wikipedia to run it that way. Anway, enough of my ranting. Thanks again. IronDuke 00:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I just want to say that I am one of the few editors here who has occasionally stuck up for those on the other side, on a few occasions. with that said, I don't see any anti-Palestinian bias here. Quite the contrary. Hiowever, you should realize that much of what Wikipedia publishes is not based on biased sources as you allege, but rather based on notable media outlets, many of which are notable newspapers in the Western world. Hence they reflect much of the mainstream narrative. part of that includes not ascribing all blame to Israel if occasionally some Palestinian commmunities were impinged or even displaced; but rather seeing this as two comparable communities who have been wrangling over the same area for generations; not just since 1945 as many Paesltinians allege, but rather for centuries, going back to the era underr Turkish rule and probably earlier than that. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

To anyone watching this page ...

This IP address is removing the word "Palestinian", "Palestinians" or "Palestinian people" from various articles. The latest edit of this kind is here. Please note that the sources cited use these words specifically and should be respected. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 18:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, along with several other inaccurate/inappropriate edits -- thanks for reporting. Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Despite a complete lack of consensus for the proposed move, and despite the fact that the name of the country in question is Palestine, User:Ucucha has moved Outline of Palestine to Outline of the Palestinian territories. (See here for the "rationale") The AfD discussion for this page noted that whether one believed Palestine was a state or not, that the country deserved coverage and there was a general consensus that the country's name was Palestine. I am quite amazed by this move and sad to see it happen while I am blocked so that I cannot protest it myself. Note that WP:RM states clearly, "If there is a clear consensus after this time, the request will be closed and acted upon. If not, the closer may choose to re-list the request to allow time for consensus to develop, or close it as "no consensus"." Those who believe this move was closed inappropriately are asked to request the closing admin to reverse their decision. At most, the discussion should have been relisted, but the clear lack of consensus should more likely have led to a close with no consensus. Tiamut^talk 18:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to see what I can do -- thanks again. Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Though I've seen it a million times before, I will never stop being shocked by how standard Wiki protocols are repeatedly ignored when it comes to the issue of Palestine. The virtual world emulates real life it seems. Tiamut^talk 19:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone should pass on to Nableezy that he should consider adding this IP to the Sockpuppet report on Lanternix. Tiamut^talk 19:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that one is guaranteed, but there is nothing that IPs edits that shows abusive sockpuppetry. nableezy - 19:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess not. Anyway, I noticed there are more IPs involved in reverting at the article in question since you filed your report. Those should be added too. Take care, Tiamut^talk 19:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone tell this user that I am currently blocked and so I won't be able to fix the two images in Qedarite soon? Anyone who knows how to fix them is welcome to try, or alternatively to remove the two that are causing problems. Once this is done, the article can be promoted to GA status. Help would be deeply appricated as I worked on it a lot before being blocke and would hate to lose the promotion over those images. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 14:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope this meets your needs.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting him know. I hope he accepts removing them himsel or waiting until I come back. If not, perhaps someone else can remove the pics? I don't how to bring them up to par so that they can stay. But if someone knows how to do that (if its possible) that would be even better. But thanks for at least passing message along. Tiamut^talk 15:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, he has posted this which suggests he will do something appropriate.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. Finger crossed. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 16:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

{{unblock|I do not contest that I was edit-warring, and for that I am sorry. My block was set for a week, because I've been blocked for edit-warring four times before, but I would note that my last block was over two years ago. Having sat out this block for two days now, I would like to request an unblock so that I can go back to back editing. I am participating in WikiCup and an article I have been working on for some time (Qedarite) was just promoted to GA status. I'd like to continue participating in that event and editing in general. Would it possible to reduce this block to time served? Thanks in advance for considering this request. Tiamuttalk 00:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)}}

Well how do you like that? So the block is lifted, and you go back to your edit wars.--Gilabrand (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Zero^talk 01:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

One revert to restore reliably sourced information is not edit-warring. Your removing that information more than once without discussion [11] [12] [13] is though. Tiamut^talk 18:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You have gone too far with your edit summary here. I don't care if it breaks any policies, but you are beginning to cross lines with certain comments. Breein1007 (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It was a bad joke. Sorry about that. Nice to know you're one of the 107 people watching this page though. Tiamut^talk 18:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No follow-backs! Breein1007 (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing is thta Tiamut takes part in the Wikicup has contributed over 50 DYKs and several GAs. On the other side of the debate Jayjg has contributed several GAs and FAs. The community is a lot more tolerant of editors who do contribute high-quality work in between their edit-warring than it is of ones who just edit war.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Outline of Palestine

Thank you for your message. I understand your frustration. I've been trying to stay out of the debates about Palestine, and my comments about the Outline were based only on my understanding of policy. It may be that Palestine (state) is a non-starter, but try to be creative. Palestinian state (with a lower-case s) or Palestinian homeland might be acceptable alternatives.

I wish I could be more helpful. I'm sorry. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Nice work on Assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh article :)Mohamed Magdy, Thank You! (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'm really eager to update and/or improve the article pretty much, it's just a matter of time. It's 00:44 Cairo time now :)Mohamed Magdy, Thank You! (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Nazareth? Are you Israeli?Mohamed Magdy, Thank You! (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh I know of course, and I know that you are, was just a little bit confused as you talk English almost perfectly. And tell me about them, I am Egyptian so I am totally aware of this. Shame. Well, I think you could e-mail me if you want something or a freetalk. You know, ... =\Mohamed Magdy, Thank You! (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That's creditable... Wish you luck. Thank you for your contrib's and your kind messages =) Nice talk there ;)Mohamed Magdy, Thank You! (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A swift response

... against a rather odd vandalism edit. Thanks. --Sherif9282 (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

it's soooooo cold up here....

Hello my dear, My break was wonderful..I am just trying to get used to a temperature which is 30 degees celcius lower than last week.. :-(

And my Mac doesn't like the cold better than me: it went on strike; I now have it in for repairs (I might have to buy a new one; it is getting old)...which means that at the moment I am getting by on a cheap little pc...which hurt to use, if I type too much.. In other words; I'm moving in second gear for the next week or so.

I *migh* go away, again, before the summer, but probably not for more than 3-4 weeks.

So; how are you?? I see you are doing great work (as usual!) I especially loved the pictures/ expansion on Hawsha...oh, and I'm trying to get Ash to get a commons-cat. on each of the -48-villages; with a subset of the different maps...

Also: a long time-ambition of mine was to expand the Ahmed Bouchiki & the Lillehammer affair-articles: there were several detailed books written about the case..in the local language (..which I read..)..which I could use. I was thinking about it, because also in that case there was a lot of discussion about the passports of innocent (?) real people which the assassins had used...Some things do not change.

Again, love to see you around, cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Jerusalem must be one of the most photographed places on the planet; tons of pictures over at commons..~Very nice shrine, btw; I love that type of Mamluk roof. (Also nice to see that his French 1876 book -which le Strange referred to- is fully available on the net.)

Btw, as I mentioned for Zero: I would love to expand Dayr al-Shaykh..lots in Petersen about the 6-7-800 year old shrine...and we have pictures on commons! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

I saw the talk page on Avigdor Lieberman, and the dispute going on there. I am not going to question anything you say, I do not want to start anything at all. I am just curious in your sources for HAMAS and their apparent differences in opinion as to their true mission- we were taught in class that their mission is essentially to completely destroy Israel as a Jewish state (which may be the difference of wordage in the dispute aforementioned). We were given a quote, which was quoted out of context, that said that HAMAS intended to create an Islamic nation from "the river Jordan to the sea". I am unsure if this is correct, after seeing what you have said. Of course, I am also taking your own views (IE, the Right of Return) into account, but I am interested in hearing your side of this, and bringing forward these sources to my teacher. I am rather annoyed at his choice of assignment, and I would love nothing better than to surprise him when I bring forth my arguments. :) T.z0n3 (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much for replying, although I don't know how to email you. I would if I knew how. I'm going to read your source later tonight. Mostly, I think the reason that he teaches us that about HAMAS is that the organization as a whole was founded on those principles, regardless of what direction it's moved in. Also, he said something about the word the HAMAS interviewee used to describe the 'truce' that he would offer Israel in return for the Right of Return, 1967 Borders, and an end to settlements, which was translated as 'temporary truce', or 'ceasefire'. (He is teaching us about national interest- essentially, in this sense, HAMAS is offering only a temporary truce in return for EVERYTHING Israel holds dear in their national interest- or that's what it boiled down to according to him.) In any case, I look forward to further contact with you. T.z0n3 (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't actually, but then he is rather biased. :) I must admit I used to be as well, but I'm trying to learn about the world around me. In any case, I'm stupid. I can't figure out how to email you, so I enabled mine. Please email me so I can receive your address, and then I will email you back. Sorry I'm so stupid. T_T —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.z0n3 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! T.z0n3 (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Village Statistics 1945

Hi, please see my comment with the same heading on User talk:Huldra. Zero^talk 05:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Al-Durrah

Thanks for continuing to be involved. I fear this may cause much debate. NickCT (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. But since I did not notify SV about this post, I guess I can hardly complain about not being notified by the filer of the report..;)

Anyway; my view is that there are many articles in the I/P area that it is a complete waste of time to try to do anything about: the "Muhammad al-Durrah incident" is one such article. And this is not due to any single editors/admins, but it is due to the way WP is today. Someone once wrote that WP("anyone can edit") is a great way to start an encyclopdia, but a terrible way to finish it. I fully agree with that. That doesn´t mean that we cannot do useful work (just take an example like Lajjun; AFAIK there is no "dead-wood"-information which cover the place in such detail as the WP-article..) but for articles like al-Durrah.....Normally I just say that if socks appears, then I disappear.... There are a thousand things which are horrible about that article, and some of those issues are outside the scope of wikipedia. Just take this little fact: 2 different "theories" about how the boy died:

• • 1: shot on purpose by the Israelis
  • 2: shot on purpose by the Palestinians.

Now, you can easyly find a zillion sources (which satisfy WP:RS) that writes about the "blood libel" of position 1, in short, how horrible it is even to propose this. However, how many WP:RS sources can we find that is outraged about alt.2?? Not many. To put it another way: it is completely acceptable/unproblematic to write that the boy was shot by "his own" people, but extremely problematic to say he was shot by the Israelis! Am I the only one who see an elephant in the room, an elephant nobody mentions??

Also, I have been enough in Arabic Muslim countries to know that there, when people talked about/know about Muhammad al-Durrah, it is as a symbol of the many, many Palestinian children who has been killed. In short, when they think/speak about Muhammad al-Durrah, it is always in relation to this and this ...and a thousand other such pictures, prominently published in the Arab press. Now, when we go to the WP-article, what do we see? A picture from.....the holocost..Right! Suddenly, I better understand Finkelsteins anger about the misuse of the holocost..

Anyway; in short: with the present system/rules of WP, articles like this is one that I will keep far away from. Though, I admit; I would have preferred to see it with a "banner" on top, rather than promoted as "one of wikipedias best" articles. As for the "new" users who have appared at the article during the last weeks; well, it appears that other people, besides SV, reads the "Review" ;) ....Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:A/E

Thanks for the note. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Greek Orthodox Church of the Annunciation

No problem. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mehola junction bombing

Hi, The Mehola junction bombing was in 1993. I'm looking at a newspaper archive that shows dozens of newspaper reports from 17 April 1993 onwards. The place where you got 1994 must be wrong. Incidentally, while I was looking I found a JP article from years later that placed the Mehola junction bombing in 1992! There are no relevant newspaper articles from April 1994. Zero^talk 02:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You have been reported for edit war

See here:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Tiamut reported by User talk:Drork (Result: ) DrorK (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see the result at WP:AN3#User:Tiamut reported by User talk:Drork (Result: Drork is on 1RR for six months in the I/P area), since your past record of blocks for edit warring is mentioned there. If you make any more 3RR violations on articles related to Palestine, a sanction under WP:ARBPIA is possible. EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter

Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ..

.. for reverting the hit on my userpage. I think it's the first time I've ever been vandalised. The irony is of course that in one sense I couldn't fault those IP's edits on the Sun, but they were just fairly obviously inappropriate. And I think someone should create a userbox like the one they tried to add to my page. It would sit perfectly on many userpages here. N-HH talk/edits 12:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Improve

Hello again :). News has been here and there about the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh; I have added a little bit and would like you to help add more info and news to the article. The article misses you =) Thank you, see you... Mohamed Magdy, Thank You! (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

On next Thu I'll be able to revise it all and rearrange paragraphs because it seems that it is written of semi-fragments due to the addition of paragraphs from each one who has just new info. On the other hand, I'm inviting you to create an article with me about the recent invasion of Israel of the Aqsa Masjid, as it's grabbed lot of attention among news but amongst people; since you live there so you'd be able more to search for the appropriate sources. I do not know whether sources are sufficient now to create an article like this, I'm not 100% aware of the policy and deletion criteria on Wikipedia. So, what do you think? Mohamed Magdy, Thank You! (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted articles

I have placed copies of both articles at User:Tiamut/IAS. Please leave the NOINDEX tag up. If your intent is to work on the article in userspace, please remember that it needs to pass WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:V#RS, etc. Good Luck. -- Avi (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of "Israeli art student scam" article

Hi Tiamut. Thanks for keeping me updated. I was aware of the existence of (and deletion of) the earlier article ("Israeli art students"), but the tone and focus of that article, as well as the sourcing, is quite different to the new one.

In particular I started my article as a description of the _scam_ which has become highly notable not just in the press but with many police agencies releasing warnings, hundreds of complaints across the internet, etc. The spying scandal was of incidental mention. The older article did not mention the scam _at all_ and presented the Israel art student scam falsely as if it were genuine Israel art students going door-to-door and not scammers.

It's important to note that between the time I finished editing it last night (Australian time) and the time it was deleted somebody changed the title from "Israeli art student scam" to "Israeli art student spying scandal". The earlier article title may have a greater chance of surviving since it is categorically different topic (the scam rather than the scandal).

Anyway, I'm sure that in some form the material will be accepted on Wikipedia. Thanks again :). Factsontheground (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, sorry, being an impatient, type-A individual I already filed a deletion review (which I have deleted). I'll leave the issue in your and Avi's capable hands :) Factsontheground (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup submission

Hey, sorry, can I see some evidence that Greek Orthodox Church of the Annunciation appeared on the main page? It doesn't have the usual talk page template. J Milburn (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm afraid you can't claim points until the article has appeared on the main page. You can add the page to the list in a hidden comment and unhide it once it appears on the main page, if you like. J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

I wanted to say thank you for being fair and helping to correct my wiki page. It is a concerted effort by a group led by Paul Sperry to make me look like a terrorist. They even managed to get my account blocked. Keep up the great work - Dr. Esam Omeish DrOmeish (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Just letting you know that Israeli art student scam, an article you contributed several links to, is currently in AFD. Factsontheground (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Your help is needed

Hey. I need your help with something. I previously asked nableezy to get involved in this, but there was a misunderstanding and I got blocked.

I don't know how much you know about the background of this conflict. There has been an arbitration case, I am now not allowed to change the ethnicity or nationality of a person, but I am allowed to propose changes at a talkpage.

An arb explained this situation pretty good: [14] I have now talked with the drafter of the arbitration case, User talk:Wizardman, he has told me that a third part is needed and that I am allowed to invite a neutral editor to take a look at points of corrections I have presented at the talkpage.

The article is in desperate need of neutral editors. I have pointed out 7 points of correction at the talkpage: [15]

I would like you to take a look at them and see if changes to the article are needed.

Do you think you can get involved in this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

art scam

Hi Tiamat,

I've been distracted by other things and therefore have spent relatively little time on Wikipedia in the last day. My query to User:Mailer Diablo on whether we are dealing with the same matter as the previous afd is part of my thinking on this issue.

I have read all the sources that were linked from this lunchtime's version of the article. I do still think that the material is presented in a distorted manner in that:

• The headings etc. mean that the article is presented as if the conspiracy theory were true.
• Material about suspected spy-rings such as the toy stalls are mixed in the article even though they have nothing to do with the art sale.
• Other explanations for why the DEA in particular was targetted, such as the Israeli dominance of the ecstasy trade in the US, are ignored in favour of the more senstional spy ring story.
• The 911 nonsense has crept back again in the categorisation.
• The official agency warning indicated that they thought that there might be both Israelis and other Middle-Easterners operating as fake Israeli art students. This is not mentioned in the article.
• No indication is given as to whether there were pretend art students floating around from other nations.

--Peter cohen (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that the article is likely to be a magnet for conspiracy theorists and therefore its going to be impossible to keep clear of the more fantastic elements and from being anongoing NPOV/FRINGE/COATRACK/UNDUE problem.

The continuing mixture of the door-to-door art sales scam which is reported in some of the recent articles from New Zealand etc. and the conspiracy theory. Perhaps there could be separate articles on student art scams (whatever country the "students" claim to be from), the ecstasy trade in the US (which strikes me as the most obvious context for all the activities around the DEA) and Israeli spying operations in the US (but only if we also have articles on many other nations'spying there.)--Peter cohen (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Muhammad al-Durrah incident.

Hello Tiamut,

Thanks for the invitation to participate in the discussion on Muhammad al-Durrah incident. Unfortunately I have been really busy in real life for the last couple of weeks, but I'll try to follow it more. -- Heptor _talk 17:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)