User talk:GHcool

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 What are you attempting? 2 Edits of Targeting of civilian areas 3 Extraneous sources in Targeting… 4 Film edits 5 WikiProject Filmmaking changes 6 link to British 7 2006 Qana airstrike 8 Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict 9 David Wolpe: 'Why was the "Mission to Israel" section deleted?' 10 Israeli films 11 Hezbollah 12 Stop adding your incorrect POV to the Hezbollah page 13 Project 14 Hi, I've joined in the past, I'm listed 15 Overdue response 16 "Accusation"/ "The reality" format 17 Hezbollah 18 Arab-Israeli article 19 Aryeh Neier 20 new changes 21 Polls in Hezbollah article 22 PCO 23 Judaism 24 Your note 25 Pulp Fiction (film) 26 Your edit to User talk:SlimVirgin 27 My RfA 28 Hezbollah 29 Rename Palestinian people to Palestinian Arabs 30 Jewtopia 31 ZOG mediation 32 WP:Films Newsletter 33 We need your help 34 Unregistered user lecture about how to use Wikipedia (three times in one day) 35 Hezbollah's justification 36 WikiProject Films February Newsletter 37 Desmond Tutu 38 Going by and saying hello 39 Nomination as a good article 40 Kofi at Islamophobia 41 CineVoter 42 Al-Manar

[edit] What are you attempting?

"Israel warned Lebanese civilians of Hezbollah strongholds to evacuate their cities ahead of time through leaflets, however, many did not. What was intended to be a disruption of mobility of Hezbollah and their foreign allies also had the residual effect of disturbing civilian mobility."

This statement is completly bias and ignorant. You are attempting to justify Israel's bombings of civilian areas and the war crimes it is committing in Lebanon by redirecting the blame on Hezbollah and innocent Lebanese civilians who "did not escape." The dropping of leaflets is not even condoned by the UN so it is an illegeal act anyway and does not mean that once Israel has droped leaflets it has the right to strike. This is completly prepostrous. The civilians are paying the price, the LEAST we can do is mention it and not have ignorant people like you take out facts. You might be with Israel, but there are facts. I do not care. Also tell me why in the world did you take out MY statement when i wrote that the IDF disrupted "normal life" in Lebanon. Did they not with their military operations. Please do not try to justify a country's war crimes because they are not justifiable by droping "leaflets." --Doge120 04:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Dear Sir; I accept your argument that Lebanese "civilians are paying the price [for Israeli retaliation], the LEAST we can do is mention it." However, in the interest of NPOV, I ask you to accept my statement that involving the leaflets. To paraphrase your statement to me: You might be against Israel, but there are facts. Whether you or the UN agrees with the ethics of the leaflets is beside the point. The point is that leaflets were dropped and many Lebanese citizens did not evacuate and therefore are worth mentioning. --GHcool 17:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

People who left their homes in fear in 1948 have never been allowed to return to them. Lebanese people failing to leave their homes at short notice in 2006 were not somehow renouncing their rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness - nor were they granting permission to a neighbouring state to kill them. PalestineRemembered 18:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits of Targeting of civilian areas

Ive a few concerns about your edits in this article. Ive fixed some of them. Dont understand these edits:

[1] bulldozer in Bint Jbeil were doing what?

[2] parent article says 41 dead

[3] capture of Hezbollah is important in this article?

[4] link?

[5] link?

[6] description was of total refugees? the UNHCR figure refers to Beirut alone?

[7] redundancy? it introduces the section detail

[8] why the rearrange?

[9] why remove? use fact}} instead

[10] why remove the subtotal reported?

RandomGalen 18:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No response? OK I will revert and fix your changes back. Thanks. RandomGalen 14:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extraneous sources in Targeting…

Hello.

The Herald Sun link is already there as note #102, which links to the original Herald Sun article. That is the best source for it. Weblogs have a WP:RS issue, and we do not need two links to the same source, especially when one is the original article itself. Please stop adding in extra information that a) may not pass WP:RS and b) adds NOTHING to the article.

Further, the use of blockquotes is a bit frowned upon, because it tends to hightlight one quote over all of the rest. It keeps everything on an even footing to let all quotes flow in the text.

Thank you. -- Avi 17:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film edits

Well done on your recent edits to the filmmaking articles! I think that you've helped out a great deal. I had one question, though - you tagged the rough cut article as original research/unverified, but there were no notes left on the talk page. I was just curious what in particular you felt needed a more critical look; it's hard for editors to address the tag without something more specific. But once again, many thanks on your work and I look forward to your future edits. Girolamo Savonarola 19:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Filmmaking changes

New discussion has started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Filmmaking#Future project development and Ideas for your consideration regarding expansion of the project. As a member, your comments are welcome and wanted! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 22:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] link to British

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something British, please do not link to British, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as United Kingdom or Great Britain by writing out [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[Great Britain|British]]. Regards, Jeff3000 17:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Qana airstrike

Left you a message on talk regarding the lead. Kosmopolis (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Left you a message on User talk:Isarig regarding the article. Kosmopolis (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Wolpe: 'Why was the "Mission to Israel" section deleted?'

This addition was a pretext for the contributor to add vanity links to his own blog and journalism pieces. Would you consider rewriting the section without the vanity links? Additionally, the characterization of his recovery as "remarkable" seems to me POV: people get brain tumors and happily sometimes they recover. Remarkable -- I'd leave that to a physician to decide. I don't think the contributor is a physician.

--Rrburke 19:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli films

Hi, I noticed that you are interested in both filmography and Israel-related topics. While you don't seem to edit Israeli film-related topics, I strongly encourage you to do so (assuming you are in any way interested in Israeli films). Most Israeli film articles are currently stubs (e.g. Raid on Entebbe (film) and Buzz (film)), and there are scores of Israeli films without articles. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 04:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hezbollah

Thanks for your recent remarks on the talk page. Elizmr 23:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Elizmr 01:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop adding your incorrect POV to the Hezbollah page

You stupid terrorist - The above baloney was unsigned by the person with the IP address of 68.163.181.147 on 18 October 2006

The Accusation: I, GHcool, am "adding [my] incorrect POV to the Hezbollah page," that I should immediately "stop," and that I am a "stupid terrorist." The Reality: The last edit to the Hezbollah page I made was reverting an editorial (WP:OR) appologizing for Hezbollah's violence by quoting an extreme right-wing rabbi (the quote was uncited). The three before that were minor copy edits reguarding grammar, etc. No reasonable person would call any of these edits an attempt to push my "incorrect POV to the Hezbollah page." Since I was following Wikipedia standards, I see no reason why I should stop. As for the allegation that I am a "stupid terrorist," I challenge anyone to find definitive proof from a reliable source testifying to that assertion. If no such proof can be found, then this should be dismissed as an ad hominem attack on my Wikipedia editing and a bullying tactic. --GHcool 02:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project

GHcool: Thanks for your compliment. With what can I help you in your project? You can tell me here & then delete this .Itzse 22:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You're helping a lot already, but one way you could help even more is by not getting emotionally involved in an argument with an anti-Semite or anti-truth Wikipedian. Remember that most of these people are just ignorant beyond reason and that as a supporter of Israel, you must to their level. As calmly as you can, disect their accusations as I have without resorting to their straw man and ad hominem tactics. Remember that the truth is its own defense. Lastly, remember that not all criticisms of Israeli policy is anti-Semetic or necessarily wrong. Have enough courage to treat a true claim with respect, even if you do not agree with the claimer's conclusion. And keep informed on Israel and read about her history. You already exhibit a lot of the attitude I described, but I fear that not all pro-Israel Wikipedians share this attitude. --GHcool 05:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice & constructive criticism; but it's difficult to stay cool (pun intended) when the blood of your brothers & sisters are flowing like water. Nevertheless after writing I wait & take a deep breath & start rewriting to a more professional & cool style. I am not a professional debater & also I am limited with time but I try my best. Thanks for all your work; which is a noble work.

Let me tell you where I'm heading & maybe enlist your help. Whenever you try to state the truth & portray a terrorist as a terrorist; immediately the POV police arrive & with righteous indignation revert in the name of POV or NPOV depending on the situation. They will tell you that the designation of terrorist is only your own opinion (one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter) as if there isn't a neutral yardstick to measure this; and another 150 convoluted reasons why the articles must stay neutral; then in the same breath they will pontificate on how noble the Arabs are & how bad the Israelis are. As if the wickedness of the Israelis in their minds; justify just about anything. This is typical everywhere here on Wikipedia.

I am not convinced that the designation "terrorist" cannot be applied neutrally. The articles on Terrorism, Definition of terrorism and the other associated articles need to be carefully looked at & dissected; and within the confines & rules of Wikipedia; I think a neutral application can be worked out; my problem is who has the time?

Let me tell you what else bothers me. Those that couldn't care less for the truth; and those who support the terrorists fully or slightly; or those who don't care for the terrorists but it's their hatred of the Jews that drives them; for all those; I think if we stick to the truth & debate professionally we can probably overcome them and finally, truly have a neutral encyclopedia. But it seems to me that a lot of good people who do care for the truth; and among them a lot of Israel’s supporters are content with a minimum portrayal of the truth & don't mind the overwhelming misinformation presented as valid opinions; because after all; there is no shortage of anti Israel references. Those good people; I don't understand why they would settle for so little. Please enlighten me; maybe they know something I don't know. Itzse 15:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, I've joined in the past, I'm listed

Looking forward to help in any way, feel free to suggest suggestions ask for my help in something etc, also in my email if you wish. Amoruso 08:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overdue response

Thank you for great advice/suggestion at the WP:Israel. I hope you don't mind that I fixed the spelling in the header. And sure I did know the connotation between poisoning the well and well poisoning ;-P. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Accusation"/ "The reality" format

Hello GHcool, if it is okay I would like to ask you to stop using this format, while the arguments are clear, valid, and concise I think that it would be more effective if you just presented the facts without the titles. When you present it as undeniable proof people become defensive and are less likely to compromise or listen.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hezbollah

[11] was a very good edit. Now it is actually NPOV. JoshuaZ 07:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arab-Israeli article

Hi GHcool. Just wanted to say thanks for your edits to the section I added at the Arab-Israeli article. it's good to have some help. Thanks very much. Looks like you've done some good work. Hope to be able to do more worthwhile things as time goes on. thanks. see you. --Sm8900 14:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Good to hear from you. Glad to be in the Israel project. By the way, just want to let you know, when you have a chance, I made some big changes to the following article. History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It would be good if you could perhaps take a look at it at some point , and feel free to mention any thoughts which you may have. I appreciate it. by the way, I hope some people have this article on their watchlist already? I feel it's good if others are watching this article, just in general. thanks very much. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 19:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Just saw your edits to the article. Thanks so much for your help. it's good to have your input. It's good to know someone else has looked it over, and really addressed the things which needed to be changed, yet was able to leave the material which seemed good. i really appreciate your help. Thanks. See you. --Sm8900 16:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi., Just wanted to ask, could you please keep an eye on the following two articles? Maybe you have them on your watchlist already, but if not, could you please keep an eye on them? I've been editing them a bit more lately. Thanks.

Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict --Sm8900 05:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, GHCool. And thanks for your help in general. Feel free to write. See you. --Steve, Sm8900 05:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I wrote most of the section "Major Issues between the Two Sides". (I wrote it in Sept 2006.) Just wanted to let you knowe. Hopefully it is able to reflect both sides fairly. Thanks. --Sm8900 05:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aryeh Neier

Someone should create an article on him. He seems likely a clearly notable individual: [12], [13] - ran HRW, ACLU and prominent position in Open Society Institute. An article would also ensure that people like me don't make the mistake of thinking he did things he actually did (such as found HRW). Sorry about that error, I could have sworn I read that somewhere reputable. --70.51.230.6 20:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new changes

Hi. When you get a chance, Jmabel has made some totally biaseed revisions to the following article, History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She has eliminated all mention of the historical Jewish presence in the territory of Israel, as well as crucial quotes from the Balfour Declaration. If you could do anything that would be great. i will also try when i get a chance, but I could use some help. Let me know if you get this. Thanks. --Sm8900 17:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

ok, sounds good. actually, later I realized jmabel hadn't deleted what i thought; just moved it. I figured you still might as well check it though. thanks for your reply. 9i addded a bit myself. thanks. see you. --Sm8900 21:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polls in Hezbollah article

Perhaps an Outside Views of Hezbollah article would create a home for polls about the group? See Talk at Hezbollah [14] Abe Froman 00:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PCO

I left a comment on your user page; I don't know if this is considered bad form, but it seemed appropriate. Just to let you know. Best, Mackan79 21:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi GHcool. I'm sorry, but your attack on PCO is dishonest and malicious. It is a complete mistatement of what she said, by selective quoting. It's as if I said "I'm glad for the holocaust deniers' conference, because it showed Ahmadinejad's true colors and reminds the world that there are still racists out there," and then I was simply quoted as saying "I'm glad for the holocaust deniers'." Or hell, why not just take off the word "deniers'" too?

The fact that you don't agree with her sentiment does not entitle you to quote her as saying something she did not say. Don't tell me you quoted her accurately. Your quotation indicates that she agreed with purpose of the conference, which is the opposite of what she stated. There's a word for that, and it's three letters long.

You are entitled to disagree with PCO, but you are not entitled to make false accusations against her on Wikipedia, and you're absolutely right I'm going to butt in if this is what you intend to do, whether I know her or not (I don't). I wrote you very politely to tell you that I think you misinterpreted her comment. I'd be happy to tell PCO and have her deal with the situation; I just thought I'd check to see if you would do it out of your own decensy first. Mackan79 02:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

GHcool, you said this:

"The only reasonable complaint one could make on behalf of Pco is that I did not include the part where she contradicts herself by writing "let them rant and have a conference - they will eventually realize their errors." I did this because its a ridiculous statement; when have racists ever "realized their errors" before it was too late? Also, because she tries to have it both ways by calling the Holocaust denial conference "a good idea" and an "error," it leaves her vulnerable to criticism from both sides of the argument."

Do you not see how silly this sounds, though? Again, the fact that you consider it a "ridiculous statement" does not entitle you to misrepresent what it was. If her statement doesn't make sense, say it doesn't make sense. If you want to draw conclusions based on her alleged senselessness, by all means do that. Don't quote her as if she was expressing support for the aims of the conference, though, which is what you did, and which she did not do.

It's funny, you call her second statement a contradiction, but it's no more a contradiction than me saying I support the conference because it shows Ahmadinejad's true colors. Would you say "Oh, the second part contradicts the first, so I won't include it?" When Churchill said Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others out there, would you have left off the second half of his sentence as contradictory?

It's a clarification, not a contradiction. Of course, a smart politician would never split such a clarification into a second sentence, already knowing the misquotations that would follow, but PCO isn't a politician, she's simply an editor on Wikipedia. You appeal to honest wikipedians not to take her statements seriously; well I would appeal to you as an honest wikipedian to consider whether your quotation of her is truly honset, or if you haven't rather misrepresented her. PCO hasn't made a contribution since the 19th, so she may not even be logging in. If she does respond, she's likely to say something that well may get her banned (she threatened to sue earlier on the belief that someone had called her anti-semitic, resulting in an indefiblock which was later removed). If you truly believe in journalistic integrity, I think you'll remove or clarify your statement on your own, without making her come and demand your retraction, which she may not even return to do. Best, Mackan79 18:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

PCO's statement wasn't that it shows his true colors; that was my hypothetical. Her statement was that it resulted in a toning down of his rhetoric, while also clarifying that they will see the error of their ways. I'm not saying it's a good argument. I disagree with her. You simply keep overlooking my basic point: the fact that PCO is /wrong/, even if true, does not entitle you to /misrepresent/ her.

Your statement suggests PCO expressed agreement with the aims of the conference. Again, you may not agree with her argument, but I believe you do know that THAT was NOT her argument. In any case, can you really tell me you didn't take her statement out of context? I'm not saying you did this deceitfully; her writing clearly could have been clearer. We're not all Winston Churchill, whether we're involved in politics or not. But at this point, doesn't an accurate quotation kind of require you to mention that she immediately followed this by saying they would see the error of their ways? Isn't that a rather important part of the context?

If you explained her statement that it would show the error of their ways, and criticized it, and thus suggested that PCO has no credibility, that would be an entirely honest argument. To leave off that entire discussion and simply imply that she expressed support for Holocaust denial is not. Why not make it a fair discussion? Incidentally, I can very much see why PCO would not want to get into an extended discussion of whether she supported Holocaust denial with someone who is very unlikely to see her side. I'd ask again that you consider removing it, or at least providing the appropriate context. If not, I'll have to report it as a personal attack, but I wish I wouldn't have to. Best, Mackan79 21:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to chuckle at your appeal. Tattle tale? Honor? The reason I'm objecting to this is because I think your attack on PCO is dishonest, or at least wildly innacurate, and potentially very damaging. I also think it is a violation of Wikipedia policies, and certainly Wikipedia principles to post this kind of inaccurate attack your user page, urging others to discredit her. (See JpGordon's comment on SV's talk page). Also, I recognize that PCO does not appear to have signed in recently, and as I said, I fully understand why she would not want to personally engage you on this issue. An allegation of holocaust-denial can be extremely damaging, and has often been the source of defamation suits. She may well fear that if this is tied to her personally it could have damaging consequences. If I report this, it will not be as a tattle tale trying to get you in trouble, but because I believe your attack is immoral, and because I think good people have an obligation to stand up for others who are unfairly attacked.

As JpGordon noted, it is apparently frowned upon to respond on someone's user page. It is also prohibited to make legal threats. Editing on wikipedia, also, is supposed to be about the edits suggested, not about the people behind them. All of these are reasons why I do not think attacks like yours against PCO should be tolerated, even if you have a perfectly reasonable basis for not liking her. If I hear from you that you're going to remove the attack before I register the complaint, I won't file it. Regards, Mackan79 22:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The only sentence there that gets within a hundred miles of being a personal attack is, I urge honest Wikipedians not to take anything that Pco says seriously on any matter pertaining to the Jewish people. The rest of it is simply Pco's comments and GHcool's response. Pco is no longer editing, apparently out of frustration that she was unable to insert her POV into multiple Wikipedia articles. (Many editors have trouble recognizing that their personal opinion is simply not relevant in Wikipedia articles; sometimes they are convinced that their opinions must be The Truth. Political zealots, such as Pco, often fall prey to this misconception.) You won't get very far with these complaints, Mackan79; as a matter of fact, all you're doing is publicizing GHcool's homepage and his opinions. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed my mind when I saw that PCO hasn't edited here since the 19th, and for the reason you mentioned. As to the effect and so on; I simply said I'd report it. I do disagree with your analysis, though, Jp. I'm also learning how this sort of thing is dealt with here. I've also got other things going on at the moment, though, so I might not get to it right away. Regards, Mackan79 23:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You already have reported it. Administrators are aware of the situation (i.e., me.) Other admins have been watching and are also aware. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jp. I became concerned with making a big deal out of it without PCO's input, like you said, so I'm glad you're addressing it yourself. Thanks, Mackan79 21:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

While your change may be an improvement, I continue to wonder why you wouldn't just represent her statement honestly. Obviously it's extremely relevant to her statement that she said that maybe they'll learn something. Obviously, this is necessary to any evaluation of her credibility. If you're going to impugn her credibility, why not address the statement she actually made? It's your credibility, too.

As to shunning users, this is very much against Wikipedia policy. See WP:NPA, particularly "Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party. This does not mean that you have to agree with the other person, but just agree to disagree. Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is." There's no broad exception for people that you believe have bigoted views. In that regard, also see WP:AGF. Trying to seek out and shun bigoted editors really goes against just about everything Wikipedia stands for. Mackan79 04:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judaism

Hi, I put this comment here because you don't put your email. I like to becaome more familiare with Judaism. Would you please help me?--Sa.vakilian 18:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

Hi GH, probably the best thing would be to remove material about particular users from your user page. It usually leads to trouble of some kind. :-) As for the quote, she did in fairness qualify her remark about it's good to have a HD conference by saying something like "so they can learn something." It's a naive comment, because they won't learn anything and don't want to, but that is what she said, and so if she's to be quoted, it's best to do it in context. This is probably a moot point, however, as I think she's left. Anyway, good luck with however you proceed, and best wishes of the season. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I'm worried that I gave you the impression you're not breaking any rules. You may be in violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIV, and perhaps others. It's a moot point, because the user has left, but neverthless, it isn't fair to quote her selectively on such a major issue. I don't think she was saying that Holocaust denial conferences are a good thing as such; I believe her point was that she hoped people would learn something. She was making light of it, and I wish she hadn't, and she expressed herself unclearly, but I'd say it was still pretty clear that she wasn't actually applauding it.

That aside, it's not good form to post criticism of particular editors on your user page even if it's accurate, so in your own interests, it would be wise to remove the material about Pco. Would you consider doing that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

GH, as you don't want to remove the comments, I've taken the liberty of adding more of her quote to clarify what she meant. What you wrote is still accurate, because it's still clear she was making light of it. I normally wouldn't edit someone's user page, but my concern here is that it's quite easy, by looking through that editors' contribs, to see who she is in real life, and it's therefore important not to say or imply anything potentially defamatory. I hope this is okay with you, and I'm sorry again for having to go on about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pulp Fiction (film)

I reverted your moving around of the sections because they are against style guidelines... Happy Holidays! ;) Cbrown1023 03:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to User talk:SlimVirgin

Excuse me for butting in as I know nothing whatsoever about the background of your conversation with SlimVirgin, but I wanted to say that: "Anyone who tries to poison that well of verifiable truth is committing a grave sin against history and must be treated as such." filled me with horror. I seem to spend a lot of time each day reverting the edits of true believers to articles like David Irving, and that language seems unencyclopedic to me. Our aim here is accuracy, not truth, it seems to me. Best wishes and season's greetings. Guinnog 09:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for amending your comment, and for understanding the distinction I was making. Best wishes --Guinnog 19:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks for your support in my RfA. I've felt it best to withdraw on this occasion and think about the good advice I received. Thanks again, Jakew 19:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hezbollah

Hi, How are you?

As I had said before, I returned and reverted some of your deletion. [15] I think we should discuss about them more. --Sa.vakilian 17:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename Palestinian people to Palestinian Arabs

Hi GHcool. I responded to your comments about whether the Palestinians were an ethnic group. At the moment the article is not named properly and thus you are partially correct. The "Palestinian Arabs" are an ethnic group but the Palestinian people are not a singular ethnic group any more than Israelis (which is inclusive of both the various Jewish ethnicities and Arab ethnicities) is a singular ethnic group. I would push for a renaming of the article to Palestinian Arabs to better focus the article. If necessary, we can create another article for the non-Arab Palestinians to ensure that all ethnicities are properly covered. Right now "Palestinian Arabs" redirects to Palestinian people -- I suspect that this was done by a Palestinian nationalist activist but it conflates together things that are best dealt with separately. --64.230.120.196 19:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I can envision a "Palestinian peoples" article existing but it would not be as extensive as the current one, but rather focus on the imagined communities or nationalistic aspects of the group identity and would leave the ethnicity talk to more focused appropriate articles. I'll follow this talk page if you want to respond. Cheers. --64.230.120.196 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewtopia

I don't know what your credentials are, but I'm a professional writer, and there was nothing wrong with the way I worded this article! SFTVLGUY2 17:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ZOG mediation

Hi, thanks for your kind words. Exactly because there is overwhelming evidence that ZOG is indeed an antisemitic canard, I feel that it would be beneath my dignity to honor those who deny it. This is not a content dispute (increasingly looks like a case of disruption/trolling), and what really needs to be discussed is the behavior of my opponent. Mediation is not a proper place for that. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Films Newsletter

The January 2007 issue of the Films 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. Nehrams2020 07:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We need your help

Hi, How are you?

Please come and help us to finish verification of Hezbollah references.talk:Hezbollah#Verifying the references--Sa.vakilian 16:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unregistered user lecture about how to use Wikipedia (three times in one day)

i couldnt find another way to contact you - i'm not trying to deface your page. here's the thing - i dont necessarily disagree with you. you're probably right - the PLO is probably doing very little to stop peolpe from inciting hatred against israel. my problem with your contribution is that it states this claim with, at best, shaky and biased evidence with little or no fact to back it up. i'm not trying to lecture you, but to back up my argument i'm going to point you toward the wikipedia standards of content: 13.

Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented, with external sources cited.

your contribution is not factual, nor verifiable with external sources, and it is not neutrally presented. that's why i took it down. and for instances such as these, many people dont believe most of what they hear about the israel-palestine conflict because MOST of it is produced by a party with an agenda.

i couldnt find another way to contact you - i'm not trying to deface your page. here's the thing - i dont necessarily disagree with you. you're probably right - the PLO is probably doing very little to stop peolpe from inciting hatred against israel. my problem with your contribution is that it states this claim with, at best, shaky and biased evidence with little or no fact to back it up. i'm not trying to lecture you, but to back up my argument i'm going to point you toward the wikipedia standards of content: 13.

Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented, with external sources cited.

your contribution is not factual, nor verifiable with external sources, and it is not neutrally presented. that's why i took it down. and for instances such as these, many people dont believe most of what they hear about the israel-palestine conflict because MOST of it is produced by a party with an agenda. -- This well-intentioned, yet incorrect interpretation of Wikipedia was dated 2/20/07 by User:76.17.104.45

how did i incorrectly interpret wikipedia? -- This unsigned question was dated 2/21/07 by User:76.17.104.45

[edit] Hezbollah's justification

Hi, I put a comment for you in talk:Hezbollah. Please pay attention to it.--Sa.vakilian 06:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films February Newsletter

The February 2007 issue of the Films 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. Cbrown1023 talk 22:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Desmond Tutu

Are you still interested in the dispute. All statements are sourced although Halaqah seems to want to do delete it for no given reason--at all. --Shamir1 08:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. It is regarding the comment he made in a church in Connecticut, which was reported by the Jerusalem Post and can be found here. --Shamir1 19:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but that is not the point. The point is that already it had said said that Tutu has been accused of antisemitism, but it does not say WHY. It looks just as if his comments on Israel were it. When in fact, it was the "Jewish lobby" comment and the "Jews thought they had a monopoly" comment. If it was simply his arab-israeli conflict views that would be one thing, but since they mention the accusation it must be written. I too like tutu. --Shamir1 22:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. I am NOT saying that he is antisem. The article says (which I did not add) that there are those who accuse him of antisemitism per his words. However, CJCurrie does not want those words out (for some odd, who-knows reason). Excluding that he said that would be POV. The fact that it is said that he is accused of antisemitism without saying why or what he said to provoke that is wrong. --Shamir1 23:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats how it is now but CJCurrie seems to want to make it look unreliable by saying it was only by the Zionist Organization of America. It happened, he said it, and he offended people. Those accusers look like complete idiots without having that statement there and it should be there. Anyway, i understand if you want to stay out. --Shamir1 00:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Going by and saying hello

I thought as a courtesy to come by and say hello. You're doing a terrific job in maintaining some sanity on the pages concerning Israel.

I am limited in time so I don't have the time needed to fight a just battle with people who I think were hired to do P.R work. For example on the Hezbollah page, I finally got fed up and left. Now when I look at it, I don't recognize it anymore. In the Introduction which needs to be a synopsis of the subject at hand; not a word is mentioned that Hezbollah was created for the sole intention to fight Israel. Sure it eventually started doing other things; so now the "Iker" becomes the "Tofel" and the "Tofel" becomes the "Iker"; History again standing on its head. Itzse 20:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination as a good article

Salam. I think Hezbollah has reached to good article criteria and I want to nominate it. Please write your idea in talk:Hezbollah#Good article nomination--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kofi at Islamophobia

I agree with you about Kofi in the lead at that article. Can you think of a good way to include the quote somewhere else in the article? --ProtectWomen 18:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CineVoter

You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as Casino Royale (2006 film). Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

This is an automated notice by BrownBot 20:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Al-Manar

Salam. This article is nominated as a GA while it hasn't reached GA criteria. I wrote a review and put On Hold tag on it:talk:Al-Manar#Good enough?. We should improve it in a week. Can you please help us with it? God bless you.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)