User talk:Palmiro/archive3

This is an archive. Please add any new comments to User_talk:Palmiro.

Jewish-Arab conflict

Hi Palmiro. Thanks for your note. I qualified my vote and added a comment at the discussion page. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - no I hadn't seen it before. Thanks for telling me. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and LOL re section title humor. On the subj, I agree with your note. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli journalist Bradley Burston [1]

I would contend that I have "drawn a parallel between Barghouti's split from Fatah and the even greater upheaval in Israeli party politics resulting from Ariel Sharon's leaving the Likud to form Kadima", while Burston has had the opportunity of an opinion column! That is why I chose to use the word some. See also [2] for someone who is neither me nor Burston. With another source shall I change it back to "some"? You were right, thoigh, in removing "irony". jnothman ^talk 01:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my argument was a little cryptic. And yes, I shouldn't have used the POV word irony. I was too busy feeling shocked by the irony! I was not trying to state that the idea was mine, but that the parallel is relatively plain and clear, and has been picked up by multiple editorialists. jnothman ^talk 02:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LPMCOTW

You showed support for Leftist Parties and Movements Colloboration of the Week. This week Popular Front for the Liberation of Oman was selected to be improved to featured article status.

--Revolución (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

They are optional, thanks.--CltFn 06:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable Muslim reports you voted:

Delete, given that no criteria of notability appear to have been established.

I would like to inform that the article will be renamed to List of Hadith. If that answers your question regarding notabiliy, please reconsider your vote. Peace! --Striver 12:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguating Palestine

Hello,

I have been disambiguating Palestine over the past couple weeks, and most do get disambiguated to Palestine (region), and only a few to the British Mandate of Palestine. But I believe that most of those that refer to the period of the British Mandate are best disambiguated to British Mandate of Palestine because it usually refers to people moving to or serving in that region due to the British being there which was not the cause when the Ottoman's were in power. -- Jeff3000 19:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi Palmiro! Choukran for your kind support on my RfA. -- Szvest 17:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)  ^Wiki me up™[reply]

Bat Ye'or

Yes, I see! At least he has a sense of humour. James James 06:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict section

Hi Palmiro. Happy holidays. Toya wants to add the section on the "Jewish-Arab conflict in the days of Muhammad" to the Islam and Judaism article since the article itself was up for Vfd. You might have some concerns about this. [3]. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dayr

Take a look at Qamishli as well. It seems that the articles about cities in north-eastern Syria get a lot of POV warriors from every possible side changing stuff around, and since I'm not that familiar with the area, I really have no idea which side is right.Yuber^(talk) 01:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Critics of Islam category

Yeah... I think deletion might be the best option. This is one of the things way too complex for a category... the list could have use if we break it down into what was criticized... since a list would allow us to put "Bat Ye'or - critic of the concept of dhimmis" and "Ibn Wahhab - critique of folk Islam". However, categories don't allow for that leeway. I'm not sure if they list should be deleted or not... but I'm pretty sure the category should be. gren グレン 04:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allah

After reading the article Allah, I found that the article contradicts itself. Why is the Islamic conception of God featured largely since you've specified that "Allah" is not an islamic term, but an arabic one. I suggest that you move some sections into Islamic conception of God, and leave the article Allah for etymology and use of this word. CG 12:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

query

Not being partial on this I assure you. Do you mean in 1994 and 2005 or what? Sure I saw it on TV this year Jameswilson 01:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Getcha. Thanks for the explanation. Jameswilson 01:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Anti-Semitic people

Hello, just a reminder please sign off your post on discussion pages.

"Anti-Semitic People" would be "people hostile to Jews" this could include people with jewish heritage such as Bobby Fischer.

anti-Se'mitic a. (a person) hostile to Jews

Cordially Battlefield 01:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC) --[reply]

Okay with those corrections, my mistake Battlefield 01:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Incoming tide of shit

The Dhimmi article has just gone to hell. It was one of the most neutral articles as it had respected editors from both sides (such as Jayjg and Mustafaa) working it to its final version. I'm probably just going to ask for sources and slap a neutrality tag on it until things have cooled down. Yuber^(talk) 16:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About Del El Zor

Hard to tell, the D or T could simply be because of the different prounciations of the T and D, between Eastern and Western Armenians. There doesn't seem to be an official pronunciation I'd believe, but then, I haven't read much material in Armenian, and even less covering Del El Zor. I think Raffi should know, I'll ask him. Regards Fad (ix) 20:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allah and Islamic concept of god

I removed the merge request as per your comment. I didnt realize that the articles had just beens split. Although the information in them is in many ways repetitive I trust that it is the result of a compromise and will probably improve with time. Savidan 22:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

Your comments are innapropriate and a personal attack. I suggest that you learn to be more tolerant of alternate points of view. --CltFn 02:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so you do not like my point of view , it still does not give you the right to make the statement you made . Your point of view does not have any more weight than mine. Should I tell you to go elsewhere too like you told me just because I do not agree with you?--CltFn 03:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look don't worry about it, the point is you should not be going around and tell other editors to leave Wikipedia just because you do not like their point of view. I happen to believe in freedom of speech, the right to share facts freely in the markeplace of ideas unhampered by rules of you cannot say this or you cannot say that because some group somewhere is supposedly going to take offense. --CltFn 03:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are free to challenge other editors' edits on the basis of whether they are fact or not , or cited or NPOV and so on but bringing up the bigotry and islamophobia card, that almost sounds like some effort to silence dissenting opinions, that sounds like CAIR --CltFn 03:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Failed RfA

I never thought of it to be the end of the world. Actually, it resulted very humorously amongst my family members. That's right. A twenty-four year-old such as myself has a very boring life. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your RFA support

Hi Palmiro/archive3! I have been on a refreshing wikibreak for the last week, so this is a belated thank-you for supporting my adminship nomination. I hope I can be of assistance if you ever need an admin. Happy new year (if that's your kind of thing)! jnothman ^talk 18:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Hermon

Wikipedia states that Mount Hermon is under Israeli control, but a site I found seems to contradict that [4]. Here the map shows Mount Hermon being inside the UN buffer zone, which is technically part of Syria. Any ideas as to which point of view is correct?Yuber^(talk) 18:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, happy new year to you too. Yuber^(talk) 23:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new noticeboard

I've created Wikipedia:Islam and Judaism controversies noticeboard, I thought you might be interested. --Victim of signature fascism 19:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naji al-Ali

Thanks for your note Palmiro. I didn't realize that there was controversy about Naji al-Ali's birth date. I'll change it to c. 1937 as all the dates seem to be between 1936 and 1938. --Ian Pitchford 20:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bat Yeor

What I inserted is perfectly reasonable and NPOV. What is there to object about it? --CltFn 01:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa thanks

Hello Palmiro. Thank you for supporting my Rfa! :) I will try my best to be a good administrator. Please ask me if you need any help. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French Collaboration Project

Thanks, Palmiro!

Palmiro, I see that you are busy with real life at the moment, but I'd like to take a quick moment to say thanks for your support for my RfA. I'll do my best to be a good admin, and if I can help you out in any way, please let me know! Thanks again, Babajobu 16:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

muslim brotherhood??

Which ref to muslim brotherhood? --Urthogie 16:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link to the diff? I don't remember removing that, and if I did it was probably an accident.Thanks, --Urthogie 18:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I either removed it on accident or because it was unsource. If you want to add it again, please add sources to prove it was evil before, and to prove it's good now. Thanks for handling this so excellently, much respect --Urthogie 21:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

interestuing article

[5] --Soman 21:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamist terrorism

Sorry about that. I messed up your edits by mistake (or possibility a WP database error). I think I've fixed it now. --Lee Hunter 00:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bet El

Do I think "took control of" should be used? Who cares what I think? It took a lot of fighting to get the name of the occupied territories' article to include the word "occupied" and there has already been an edit war on Bet El about it. It's not worth it. "Took control of" is not grossly offensive. It's factual at least. It simply ignores the means of taking control and the fact of opposition to it. In this instance, I can live with it. If you wanted to write "took control and occupied", I don't suppose I'd mind that either. Grace Note 01:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet

Well, there seems to be some sort of consensus (for now?) not to refer to Muhammad as "the prophet". I thought it would be more appropriate to add "Islamic". ---Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 01:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French Collaboration Project

You showed support for the French Collaboration Project. This week Little boy was chosen to be translated from fr:Little boy. Hope you can help.

Cast your VOTE to select next week's translation!

Nominate a good Spanish article

al-Nahda

hey, palmiro. i like your syrian edits, and you obviously know a great deal about the arab world. i just found there was no article on al-Nahda, so i created one. so far, it's just a stub, though, and it needs expansion. if you feel like it, you would be most welcome to join in building it. either way, i would be thankful if you spread the word to whoever else could be interested. Arre 14:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and among other things we need to sort out the confusion between Pan-Arabism, Arab nationalism, Arab socialism and those other related subjects. Palestinian nationalism I haven't looked at, but I will, later. good luck with the course! i was told they were shutting down all the cultural center courses when i was there in august/september, to try to get everyone to the university etc... are they back? Arre 02:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alors, très bien. Arre 10:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i replied

I replied on the talk page. Please give arguments and reasons as to why this is a misinterpreation of policy, rather than just "No", if you want your poisition to have value on the talk page. Thanks, --Urthogie 14:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply

I'm doing this because the rules of Wikipedia say I should, and I'm not a friend of extc either-- but he's right, people are trying to prevent the rules of wikipedia from being enacted on that page, in certain aspects. So that's why im doing it(whether you think I'm right or not is irrelevant, this is an important part of my efforts in my opinion). To address your concerns: they are irrelevant. Policy dictates that even if you are correct, the most commonly used word is the one that should be used. Policy first, then guidelines. If you don't want to see me put so much time into a "nonimportant issue"(so non important that Lee filibusters it) then stop holding back consensus. Thank you, from a very stressed Urthogie 14:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please make a list under my latest comments, of the points you have arguing why I'm misinterpreting policy, so I can address each one. Thanks, --Urthogie 14:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus, that "don't over do it section", accuracy, truth, and precision are all guidelines. I'm talking policy. Please follow it, if you give a shit. This matters to me man, and I'm not breaking rules. I know that I'm right here, and I'm pretty sure you do too. So stop it, dude, either on an emotional level have some sympathy or on a logical level see how obviously correct this argument is.--Urthogie 15:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've shown you the relevant policy, and highlighted how the other rules are guidelines, I think that your decision should be obvious. Of course, I'm going to assume good faith, because I know you as an editor who respects policies in times of controversiality-- after all, wikipedia is not a democracy! Thank you so much for raising concerns you had. If you have any more, please bring them up at the talk page.--Urthogie 16:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "Controversial moves require consensus to be established; that is clear policy." No its not. Perhaps you need to read up on policies. Its a guideline, which is a popular suggestion. Please look at the appropriate pages before you support something contrary to the rules of wikipedia. Thank you.--Urthogie 16:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange edits

Take a look at User:Suryoyo's edits. He seems to think the Ghassanids and Nabateans were all "Syriacs" and that there is no such thing as Arab Christians. Even though he's from Iraq, he thinks its his duty to correct articles about Syrian history by changing all mention of Arabs to Syriacs. Yuber^(talk) 23:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

I just want to thank you for staying civil throughout that whole argument at the talk page. It meant a lot, thanks.--Urthogie 13:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you have any more concerns about my position not answering your concerns, you can read the template I posted on the talk page which addresses all arguments. Thanks!--Urthogie 15:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Abramoff's Connection to Israel-Palestine

Please consider weighing-in regarding Jack Abramoff's Connection to Israel-Palestine See also NPOV Dispute re: "Connection to Israel-Palestine". Bring a friend if you like.--DieWeibeRose 04:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSNP

Joe, do you think you might have time to do a bit of a copyedit to this? While I've added a good bit of information I'm not sure how well it hangs together textually, but I don't feel particularly up to copyediting it myself, as it can be tricky to do this with stuff you have written yourself. Regards, Palmiro | Talk 21:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the two typos I saw. Otherwise it looked decent in those terms, and I thought you'd done a great job in terms of the material you added.

I'm back to working fulltime (and then some) and I'm about 72 hours behind on my watchlist, let alone getting to several articles I'd like to write, so I'm really not seeking to take time to polish articles that are basically good. Hope that's OK. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agree that the consensus is one of those two?

I asked on the talk page if you agree that the consensus has been for one of those two-- it seems like several days have gone by on this very active talk page, with only one user(yourself) voting to oppose this move. I just wanted to make sure it was okay with us to move on; I don't want to step on your toes here. Please reply at talk page. Thanks!--Urthogie 21:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

That Alhambrapro guy is pushy. He believes he has a RIGHT to insert links. Appreciate the help. Zora 00:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for being pushy. You are correct, I have no rights. You have all the rights to 'guide' us to what is right. Thank you again. Alhambrapro 00:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back?

Didn´t realize anybody noticed I was gone ;-) ..Anyway, I have armed myself with a bottle of Lebanese red (Chateau Musar, 1998) ...which I will retire to if things get too rough...I really need a bribe/carrot to start editing with certain editors... (and no, I´m not (only) (or even mainly) thinking of Zeq..) I´m still not sure whether to spend my time adding material here, or start working for funding an independent encyclopedia ...(and not a Jimbopedia)...Huldra 17:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch... I have an extremely bad conscience with regards to Israeli Arabs and Sabri Jiryis´ book... It´s really too bad: Israeli Arabs is really the sort of article I like to work on; i.e. a factual article (unlike articles like e.g. Zionism and racism, which is nearly doomed from the start..) I just got so fed up seeing hours of work beeing reverted by someone who didn´even read my edits. I guess making an article about Jiryes book "The Arabs in Israel", summing it up, so to speak, would be more fruitful (read: not reverted so easily). However, that book is dryer that Sahara. Not a joy to read. (It is so much more fun to roam around on Lamu Islands.)

And I´m very, very p.... o.. by this: [6]. Take a look at [7] The "testing" on my user-page are all diffs. relating to the case. (The moral is in effect: get rid of hotheads, even if they are intelligent and knowledgeable if they have the "wrong" POV. Hotheads with the "right" POV can roam around totally unchecked, even when they are lacking in both.)

But yes; I´m very impressed by the work a couple of editors have done on several key articles (see also Six-Day War ...but how long will it last? ... [8] and [9])

It will be extremely interesting to see how this ends up: [10] Cheers, Huldra 19:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC) (PS: Musar was the only wine from the ME I could get here ;-) terrible, eh? )[reply]

Re yippee!

OK, here's some thoughts: User:Marskell/Islamic extremist intro. I haven't made mention of the "does-not-equal-extremist-if-people-support-motives" point but I'm trying to touch on other usage and come up with something better than the totally inadequate intro we have now. Cheers, Marskell 17:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have water? Like two or three litres? I've been foaming at the mouth because of the inanity surrounding a certain Wikipedia page and all of the moisture has left my body. This can be lethal where I live. Marskell 12:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pal exodus

waiting for your example who's contrution was allowed to "stick". Zeq 16:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Occupation of Gaza

Hi. Although not being said explicitly (i.e. "Gaza is still under Israeli occupation", and thinking of it, why would the UN do so), there seems to be no change whatsoever regarding the use of the term Occupied Territory or similar in GA resolutions.[11] Another document explicitly use the term "occupying Power" with respect to Israels obligations under international law in the Gaza Strip.[12] There are no UNSC resolutions as none have been made, but I would assume they would follow the same pattern as before, i.e. treat the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as "Occupied Territory". This was what i found in a quick fifteen minutes, you may dig in yourself if you like,[13] but Im afraid there are no documents explicitly dealing with this question, it hasnt been raised and the West Bank and Gaza Strip are usually mentioned together, and then as occupied. --Cybbe 19:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

enthusiasm

I was replying to the anon enthusiast of "anti-racism". I see that my answer concerned some of your args. For better or worse, somehow I feel that we are in agreement more often than not, or can easily resolve our differences. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't write more than a sub-sub-stub on Kul al-Arab. Could you expand it? Thanks, colleague. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hamas

uh, maybe. i'm a bit busy now, so i'll do what i have time for. but i'll check what's going on there now. Arre 23:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine

Yeah, I hope there won't be more problems... thanks for telling me. Good luck with those لجان !! Ramallite ^(talk) 19:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that was more a knee-jerk reaction to seeing English deleted by the anon just because the settlers left, as if only they could speak English and Palestinians are not educated enough. As for your question, you have a point. When I've seen similar pages I usually see something like (Arabic, English widely understood) or something like that. So I guess what goes in that category depends on what we are defining, community languages or all widely understood languages... What do you think? I'm fine either way... Ramallite ^(talk) 17:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? Ramallite ^(talk) 18:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians for Palestine

New Yahoo Group: Wikipedians for Palestine The group is described as "for Wikipedians working to combat anti-Palestinian and pro-Zionist bias in the English language version of Wikipedia." Please spread the word.--DieWeibeRose 08:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)--DieWeibeRose 08:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you

Thank you, Palmiro. Things usually work out in the end. By the way, I made a slight change to your user page, just for amusement purposes. Feel free to revert me. :) – Quadell ^(talk) (bounties) 18:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas

Thanks for the support. Sure we need to keep an eye on such a sensitive topic, not to let one of the sides bias it completely! It is really great to hear that the efforts are appreciated! Bertilvidet 23:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo needs help

Do you know how to archive a Talk page? This one needs it: Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons. I don't know how to do it but it seems that Jimbo tried to blank it and some malcontent reverted him. The Talk page should be archived, not blanked anyway, I think. just a thought. --Krukowski 00:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dhimmi

Yes I see. This version is horribly POV. I would just keep the tag on for now. Yuber^(talk)

Yeah that's getting ridiculous. I think an rfc may help but I'll ask a few other admins to check it out. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already asked an admin whose dealt with this before to check it out. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROTFL

Hey, I almost sent you a "what do you mean?" message and only then realized what that was about. What can I say, I was busy. :))) ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emblems

Not only that, but the Israeli municipal emblem of Jerusalem is now part of the template on that page, which was also moved to the top despite the discussion on the talk page. What's going on around here?Ramallite ^(talk) 13:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]