Revision as of 16:24, 22 August 2006 editRepublitarian (talk | contribs)523 edits →Becoming a blog?: PNA versus Palestinian National Authority← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:01, 23 August 2006 edit undoNetscott (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,834 edits →Becoming a blog?Next edit → | ||
Line 165: | Line 165: | ||
I could see an arguement that the kidnapping has more to do with ] than ]. Please respond on the ]. In regards to the naming style for the bilateral relations pages, I honestly had forgotten about moving U.S.-Ven relations. Respectfully, ] 16:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC) | I could see an arguement that the kidnapping has more to do with ] than ]. Please respond on the ]. In regards to the naming style for the bilateral relations pages, I honestly had forgotten about moving U.S.-Ven relations. Respectfully, ] 16:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
:For future reference, I saw in your edit summary that you put "that's PNA not Israel," but the ] page is peptic nucleic acid page, not ]. :) ] 16:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC) | :For future reference, I saw in your edit summary that you put "that's PNA not Israel," but the ] page is peptic nucleic acid page, not ]. :) ] 16:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
==]?== | |||
Hello Humus sapiens. Are you familar at all with the story of Jonathan Pollard? <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • • ] • )</span> is editing on it and given his edit history I'm a bit concerned about neutral point of view being maintained on the article. If you're familiar with the Jonathan Pollard case then maybe you could take a look? Thanks. ''(]])'' 06:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:01, 23 August 2006
Home | Talk | List | Tools | Policy | Cmmn | Puzzle | Ubx | Nav |
Archives |
---|
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, |
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, |
11, 12, ... |
... |
... |
Please scroll down to append your message at the bottom or start a new topic.
? |
|
Resolution 242
The edit you have just omitted was not irrelevant at all. From a legal perspective, the ICJ ruling of July 2004 asserts that: 1. The whole of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem are occupied territories. 2. Under the principle of the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war, Israel has no right to change the reality on the ground in these territories. That includes building settlemens and the partition wall, all of which are illegal. 3. Israel should withdraw from all of these territories or else those agreed upon with the Palestinians.
Thus, the ruling makes it very clear that legally speaking, the interpretation of 242 which calls for a full withdrawal is the correct one. However, the debate over the interpretation remains of value from a political perspective, not a legal one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rearticulator (talk • contribs)
Image copyright problem with Image:Peelmap-a.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Peelmap-a.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 08:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1929 Palestine riots
Humus, I hope you don't mind but I have moved this back from "1929 Hebron massacre" as the 1929 disturbances included much more than the events in Hebron. The massacre itself should have its own article in my view. Perhaps you'd be interested in starting the article? --Ian Pitchford 21:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- There were a couple of dozen incidents during the 1929 disturbances, including the murder of Jewish children and elderly at Safed. Describing the events as the "Hebron massacre" implies that none of the other incidents were important. This is wrong, as the Shaw Commission report explains. --Ian Pitchford 07:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Jew Watch
- "notoriety" is an inherently negative word. In this case, it is from the editor; not attributed. I first changed it to slightly positive "fame", then to "attracted attention". You rejected both...?
- "Although claiming neutrality", insinuates that the names of the headings are not neutral. Listing them says enough.
- Elders of Zion: I have a ton of excuses for that, but only concerning the content. But, if the protocol was cited as if it was authentic... I digress.
- "Neo-Nazism" encompasses fascism, racism, anti-Semitism etc. Not just anti-Semitism, although you may see it that way. I really don’t think they qualify. They don't call themselves Nazis either.
- "unintentional (or intentional)": empty statement, X or not X... nothing left.
And, you really should only mark vandalism as minor edits when reverting. Lastly, it was not my intention to hide my revert by editing twice (just read about rollback).
--CAD6DEE2E8DAD95A (hello!) 23:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Re:Maps
I am flattered by being awarded this barnstar, thanks :)
I use CorelDRAW for making maps, but it may take you a long time to make that Peel map from scratch. I recommend using my full map of Israel as a basis, if you want to do this, please message me and I will send you the CDR version (or AI/SVG if you're going to use Adobe Illustrator).
-- Ynhockey 02:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have since created this map of the Peel Commission proposal. -- Ynhockey 18:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not according to Plan A. However, the other plan, Tel Aviv is part of the Jewish state. Or is that 2nd map just wrong? If you know, please shed light on this. I will also update the map to include Nazareth as a mandated enclave. -- Ynhockey 09:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
3RR
What? I only made 3 reverts, the same as you. Deuterium 10:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Which edit do you mean in this section? .. There are far more edits than I remember. Also, if you object, can you specify your objection? It would help me in answering your question. Thanks. Politis 11:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Humus, in wikipedia it is best to ask direct questions and hope for reasonable explanations, because it is prone to misunderstandings. I look forward to reading your precise question - if you wish. Thanks. Politis 11:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Article on terrorism
You may find the article Terrorists of Pakistani origin interesting. It may be deleted soon in perhaps a few hours.
If you have any views on having such articles on Misplaced Pages, please do share them at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Terrorists_of_Pakistani_origin
--Robcotton 01:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Your welcome message
Thanks, that was very receptive! I hope I can help! Cheers
maybe of interest
http://en.wikipedia.org/Metula_Farms
David Ben-Gurion
Please add your support to David Ben-Gurion on the Misplaced Pages:Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Respectfully, Republitarian 16:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Germany-Israel relations
I saw you created Germany-Israel relations. I'd like to get your perspective/knowledge on New Zealander-Israeli relations and Venezuelan-Israeli relations. There's a discussion on Talk:New Zealander-Israeli relations you may be interested in. Respectfully, Republitarian 00:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the prompt response. I'm not sure how to correct its blog-like reading... if there's something more specific I can do to improve the article, please let me know. I've moved the article to Israel-New Zealand relations and trimmed the spy scandal section with a link to a new page on the incident. Respectfully, Republitarian 14:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Brigitte Gabriel
Would you discuss this Category matter on the talk page? Thanks. (→Netscott) 06:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my Talk page
. ←Humus sapiens 19:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Humus, No problem, my pleasure....Also, as an aside, do I have to go through speedy deletion to delete one of my own user pages, specifically Old watch list page? Or can I just delete it myself since I created it as a subpage? I am not sure if I will ever learn all that Wiki entails :). Aside #2, User:Historymike has written his OWN bio and has added HIS own blog site to about 20 articles. I deleted these "sources" since MY understanding is that blogs should be avoided unless there is a very unusuall situation. I have referred him to many Wiki policy pages and will remain civil and encourage him but wanted to make sure I wasn't doing anything wrong. Anyways, I always appreciate constructive imput. Cheers! --Tom 19:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ethnic bioweapon
Hello. Why did you remove the following section from Ethnic bioweapon?
- In November 1998, the Sunday Times reported that Israel was attempting to build an "ethno-bomb" containing a biological agent that could specifically target genetic traits present amongst Arab populations. Wired also reported the story , as did Foreign Report . Expert reaction to the reports was skeptical towards the scientific plausibility of such a biological agent. The New York Post, describing the claims as "blood libel", reported that the likely source for the story was a work of science fiction by Israeli academic Doron Stanitsky. Stanitsky had sent his completely fictional work about such a weapon to Israeli newspapers two years before. The article also noted the views of genetic researchers who claimed the idea as "wholly fantastical".
It seems very well cited and appropriate to me. Thanks, Deuterium 00:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Foreign relations of Israel
Hello. Why are you replacing this
- According to David Albright of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "Faced with sanctions, South Africa began to organize clandestine procurement networks in Europe and the United States, and it began a long, secret collaboration with Israel." although he goes on to say "A common question is whether Israel provided South Africa with weapons design assistance, although available evidence argues against significant cooperation."
with this
- According to David Albright of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "... available evidence argues against significant cooperation."
Surely the larger quote is more accurate and representative of what he actually says in the paper, rather than a misrepresentative sentence fragment? The sentence fragment is not evidence against a joint programme but only applies to "weapons design assistance".
Secondly, why did you remove the fact that Chris McGreal wrote in the Guardian? That's a relevant fact regarding the credibility of the story; he did not self-publish his article.
Thirdly, why did you restore the sentence "Israeli ambassadors spoke publicly against racism in apartheid South Africa." despite the fact there are no citations that ambassadors did do such a thing?
Fourthly, why did you replace "Israel developed a relationship with South Africa during the 1970s and 1980s." with "There are controversial claims that Israel developed a relationship with South Africa during the 1970s and 1980s."? Are you denying that Israel and South Africa did have a relationship during the 70s and 80s, against the many sources in the article? Do you have sources that claim this?
Thank you, Deuterium 01:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Becoming a blog?
Thanks for promoting the I-NZ and I-Ven relations pages and for cleaning up the I-Jap relations page. I don't mind cutting down the fox journalists-kidnapping section with a link to a main page, but I dont understand why you want to get rid of the section altogether. I also dont understand why you feel this story is bloggish. I agree the story has excessively been hyped by the media, but for one thing it's the mainstream media doing the hyping, and the kidnapping is still an important story.
I could see an arguement that the kidnapping has more to do with New Zealand-Palestine relations than Israel-New Zealand relations. Please respond on the Talk:Israel-New Zealand relations. In regards to the naming style for the bilateral relations pages, I honestly had forgotten about moving U.S.-Ven relations. Respectfully, Republitarian 16:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- For future reference, I saw in your edit summary that you put "that's PNA not Israel," but the PNA page is peptic nucleic acid page, not Palestinian National Authority. :) Republitarian 16:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Jonathan Pollard?
Hello Humus sapiens. Are you familar at all with the story of Jonathan Pollard? Deuterium (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is editing on it and given his edit history I'm a bit concerned about neutral point of view being maintained on the article. If you're familiar with the Jonathan Pollard case then maybe you could take a look? Thanks. (→Netscott) 06:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- "Israel planning 'ethnic' bomb as Saddam caves in". The Sunday Times (UK). 1998-11-15.
{{cite news}}
:|access-date=
requires|url=
(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - "Israel's Ethnic Weapon?". Wired. 1998-11-16.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - James Ridgeway (February 2, 1999). "Ethnic Warfare". The Village Voice.
- "UPI report".
- "Debunking the "ethno-bomb"". Salon.com. 1998-12-02. Retrieved 2006-07-11.
- "Now Playing: A Blood Libel For The 21st Century". New York Post. 1998-11-22.
{{cite news}}
:|access-date=
requires|url=
(help) - "South Africa and the affordable bomb". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 1994-08.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help)