Archives

Archive 1 (30 Sep. '05 − 14 Dec. '05) Archive 2 (15 Dec. '05 − 17 Feb. '06) Archive 3 (18 Feb. '06 − 5 Jun. '06) Archive 4 (5 Jun. '06 − 11 Dec. '06)

Hi Zeq: I noticed you've been very active again. Welcome back. IZAK 13:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zeq: Shouldn't the Zionism and racism article be renamed to Allegations of Zionism and racism as with Allegations of Israeli apartheid? What are your thoughts? IZAK 03:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've answered, anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would you translate "yishuv kehilati"? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please translate "yishuv kehilati" into English. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which word translates as "Community" and which one translates as "with bylaws governing who can join that community"? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshuv is Kehila and Khilati is "by the community" - so there's no English translation for "Yishuv" in this case? It's an untranslatable word? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's so strange, because the Israeli government seems to have no trouble translating it; it translates it as "community settlement". So, they seem to think that "yishuv" translates as "settlement", and "kehilla" as "community". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message last week. Yes, everybody is fine. It looks like Peretz is in hot water though, both the Left and the Right seem to hate him. That's what you get when you are both an Arab and a Jew :) Shalom, Ramallite ^(talk) 21:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the article, Zeq. I've added it to New antisemitism further reading. Hope all is well with you. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which article you mean. The last link you gave me didn't work. I don't mean it had been deleted; I mean it didn't work at all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zeq. Recently you reverted my edits to the Shebaa farms article, rewording the introduction. I'm curious – where in the map do you see the Shebaa farms bordering Israel? Thanks. — George Saliba ^[talk] 08:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow up, I've changed the statement to: "The Shebaa Farms is a small area of disputed ownership located on the border between Lebanon and the Golan Heights." I wasn't sure if you were opposed to the inclusion of the term "Israeli-occupied" or the "Golan Heights in Syria", so I've removed the mention of both to try to maintain neutrality. If readers want to learn more about the status of the Golan Heights, they can just read the wiki-linked article. Cheers. — George Saliba ^[talk] 10:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq, your Iranian involvement article didn't actually say anything. It was just a list of links. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to write that sort of thing offline or on a user subpage before putting it into the encyclopedia. I think CJCurrie did the right thing to delete it, to be honest, because it wasn't ready, and I'm not sure it ever will be with that title, which is clearly OR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what I'd call it. Your best bet is to write it offline and see what title is most obvious once you've finished, but make sure you avoid OR, because if it looks like a personal essay, it'll likely be deleted again. Do you have a copy of the links in the deleted version? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For sure that's a reliable source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Feel free to contact me to avoid breaking WP:3RR. You and I consistently edit similar articles and I often find myself agreeing with your edits. KazakhPol 06:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediators are all volunteers, and I have no place "assigning" people to cases. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not one-sided. The source is reliable, which is exactly what you asked us to concede. However, a potentially libelous claim should not be put in Wikipedia. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed compromise

A compromise has been proposed. It is toned down to simply state that the allegation was made, and that the allegation was denied. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twas Now did not provide mediation, he provided his opinion on an entirely separate, nonexistent issue. This is two to one here. If Tarc decides to remove the paragraph again, I'll revert, he'll revert, you will revert, and he will run out of 'em before one of us does. It's a result of his not having an argument to base his edits. KazakhPol 06:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bunglawala issue settled

I am glad we could come to an agreement regarding Inayat Bunglawala! Thank you for respecting the mediation process. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be opposed if I archived much of your talk page? It is quite long. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made two new archives and given them and your original two archives the {{talkarchive}} template. I also put up no this page the {{archive box}} template and put a date range on each of the archives. Yes, I am very bored. Are you willing to accept Tarc's wording for the Bunglawala article? Bunglawala does seem to be anti-Semitic, but I don't think the article should focus on that: the reader should be able to come to that conclusion on their own (especially after visiting the links). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You had filed the MedCab Case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-11 Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. If you wish to proceed with informal mediation with me acting as your mediator, please state your acceptance of Alan.ca as your mediator and your intention to proceed in the discussion section of the mediation page. This Link. Alan.ca 07:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, I'd seen that some 3rd parties had come in and removed the littlegreenfootballs incident entirely, and that you had reverted those reversions back, which I did not object to you doing. Silly me, I assumed good faith and never actually went back to read the Bunglawala article, as I just assumed you'd reverted back to the last version I'd put in as of March 5th. But what I find today is, you went back and stuck in the version that KazakhPol was trying to revert war over, a version which was most certainly NOT agreed upon in mediation. That full e-mail text has no place in this article and you good as well know it.

Assuming that you made a good faith edit was a bad assumption on my part. Trust me; that mistake will not be made a second time. Tarc 03:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just bring what the source has and what was agreed in mediation. Zeq 19:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq, you are flat-out lying. The version with the needless e-mail link was NOT agreed to at all; it is irrelevant to the article, and certainly violates BLP as it is adding serious undue weight to a charge THAT CANNOT BE PROVEN. Add it back out again, and we'll have to resort to warnings. Tarc 12:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having a reliable source is not a good enough reason to include it in an article. The information must be encyclopedic and not be in conflict with any policies, particularly Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the above to say "a reliable source is not a good enough…", which was my initial intention. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're starting to make some progress on this page, chill for a bit with the lead and focus on filling in the Israeli view point on the issues. Peace, --Urthogie 17:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are one paranoid little chap, aren't ya? I've commented on the al-Husayni dispute in the past, and found my way there once again the other day via Zero's (quite a good and reputable editor, I must say) edit history, actually.

Obviously, we have share similar interests (Middle Eastern affairs) albeit from different sides, so it is rather natural that we will cross paths on any number of articles, from Bunglawala to al-Husayni to Israeli apartheid. When I happen to come across an article where you are blatantly POV-pushing, then I will do what I can within the bounds of Wikipedia rules to correct it.

Don't pollute my talk page with tinfoil conspiracy theories again, please. Tarc 16:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a formal notification. As specified by the Arbitration Committee, any anon can ban you from an article for persistently disrupting it. Since you are persistently disrupting 1929 Hebron massacre, this is to notify you that you are hereby banned from editing it. Failure to observe this ban will lead to a block. --Zero^talk 12:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]