User talk:Tiamut - Wikipedia

"I am a Palestinian. Hath not a Palestinian eyes? Hath not a Palestinian hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Jew is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that -- the villainy you teach me, I will execute; and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction." Tariq Ali's take on Shakespeare in the Khaleej Times "It is not enough for the settler to delimit physically, that is to say with the help of the army and the police force, the place of the native. As if to show the totalitarian character of colonial exploitation the settler paints the native as a sort of quintessence of evil ... The native knows all this ... he knows that he is not an animal, and it is precisely at the moment he realizes his humanity that he begins to sharpen the weapons with which he will secure his victory. From Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth "A Jewish youth in the Arab countries expects from Zionism nothing other than colonialism and domination." Ya'qūb Balbūl in the 1930s, as quoted in The Arab Jews "- You can't compare them; a European Jew is something else. - How come? - Because 'Jew' just doesn't go with 'Arab', it just doesn't go. It doesn't even sound right. - Depends on your ear. - Look, I've got nothing against Arabs. I even have friends who are Arabs, but how can you say 'Arab Jew' when all the Arabs want is to destroy the Jews? - And how can you say 'European Jew' when the Europeans have already destroyed the Jews?" Sami Shalom Chetrit's "Who is a Jew and What Kind of Jew", as quoted in The Arab Jews

Archive #1 by Werdnabot /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9 /Archive 10 /Archive 11 /Archive 12

SoWhy 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

SoWhy 23:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

  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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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) Reply