User talk:Beit Or/Archive 2

Happy New Year!

File:1953 S Novym Godom.jpg

Happy New Year! (Ukrainian: З Новим Роком!, Russian: С Новым Годом!). I wish you in 2007 to be spared of the real life troubles so that you will continue to care about Wikipedia. We will all make it a better encyclopedia! I also wish things here run smoothly enough to have our involvement in Wikipedia space at minimum, so that we can spend more time at Main. --Irpen

Jewish Bolshevism

It is my position that you improperly removed the tag:

  It has been suggested
  that this article or section
  be merged into list
  of political epithets. (Discuss)

I hope it was merely a mistake on your part. Otherwise it is vandalism on your part. --Ludvikus 20:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

Thanks for the heads-up. I think, however, that you have participated in creating a striking inconsistency at the Israel Shahak article. Another editor (Jayjg) removed a link to "Israel and Anti-Gentile Traditions," with the comment "the link is about the book, not about Shahak," (which I think is a very poor reason, as I noted on the talk page of the article), but when, for reasons of consistency, I removed the links to The Interpretational Errors of Israel Shahak and The Jews are Bad! (which I think are less scholarly, more poorly written, and more biased than the other article, and which are also reviews of the book rather than comments directly about Israel Shahak), you restored them. And, I note, you also repeated (unintentionally? It was coincident with another edit you made) the deletion of the link I added. Surely, if links that are about the book do not belong, then all three links should go; but if links that are about the book are admissable, then no legitimate reason has been given for the deletion of the link that I added. Could you please make sure your actions are consistent, either by restoring the link I added or by deleting the other two, or, in the absence of that, please explain at the talk page of the article why you think the two anti-Shahak book reviews belong but the neutral-on-Shahak book review does not belong? Thanks. -- DLH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.49 (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Still waiting for your response, Beit Or. -- DLH 69.19.14.44 13:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration

Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 03:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Martin Luther and Blood Libel

For the sake of the size of the main article (already overlong) and some kind of chance at peace, please move this line to the Martin Luther and the Jews article. It will save adding another paragraph to balance that opinion, since there are a number of Luther scholars who repeadly quote Luther rejecting the Blood Libel. The whole section needs to be drastically reduced in size to meet FA requirements. Thank you for your consideration. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's just one sentence as it stands. The sections appear overly long because it gives udnue weight to the minority view, which can be compressed into one or two sentences because the arguments of its adherents are essentially repetitive. Beit Or 20:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Islam

per your comments on Karl's page, yes indeed the nom was spurious. there is still significant work to be done in reforming a number of problematic sections, especially in the ones you previously highlighted. ITAQALLAH 20:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Martin Luther

I'm confused. Is there some reason Luther isn't in the category anti-Semetic people? I hate to wear my theological biases on my sleeve here — and maybe that's just because the apple doesn't fall far from the tree IMHO — but this is one I would gladly back you up on. In anycase, Luther make John Chrysostom look like a... er... saint. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added his article to that cat. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Ras Burqa massacre, was selected for DYK!

On January 5, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ras Burqa massacre, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 15:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ras Burqa massacre Question

Hi! I like the work you have done on the Ras Burqa Massacre page; however, in the process of some typo editing, I (and others, as shown on the talk page) came to feel that the balance of the coverage of the "opposition" Islamic reaction to the issue and other Islamic reactions to the issue may be a little one sided. Could you maybe take a look at this? I can also do so, if you do not have the time. Thanks much! Enordgren 20:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Muhammad

Note subsection including titles, "Jews, Christians, slaves, animals."[1]Proabivouac 07:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Melito of Sardis: Later centuries

Did "massive attacks", i.e. pogroms, by christians occur in the 2nd century? If so, were they inspired by this sermon? My understanding of the deicide charge is that it inspired pogroms in the middle ages, not the 2nd century. Rwflammang 23:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

crossbow article + Chinese editor = trouble

Could you take a look at the crossbow article again. I think it would be helpful to quote clearly Needham word for word and make this very obvious with quotation marks. For pro-Chinese editors this one sentence about the crossbow not having its origin in China seems a pain in the ass. Greatings Wandalstouring 19:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reaction. I hope this issue is solved now, but you could have implemented Needhams statement about the linguistic evidence a bit earlier. (I relied very much on my positive impression of your work in defending your edits). Wandalstouring 20:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Population of Ukraine

Shavua tov; I'm catching up on my post-shabbos watchlist and I found this edit. I'm not really sure how you arrived at your conclusion that it was OR, since the editor did include a valid reference– though she didn't use the <ref> tags properly, I'll give you. I'll also admit that the official number should be in the box to the left while the local people's estimates should be in the comments. But again, I really don't see where you found OR in this, am I missing something? Thanks! --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 01:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again; I'm guessing that in the press of business you forgot to reply to my question. I would still like to understand why you called an edit original research when it came with a reference to an article on the UJC website. Again, is there something I'm missing here? It seemed like a good faith edit to me. Kol Tov! --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 14:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to reinsert the numbers, but the comment need not be Azman's words, a paraphrase of the article's main point might be better. Beit Or 16:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll do exactly that! Have a great day!

--Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 16:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Image of Muhammad in the West

Could you please take a look at this "article" that Aminz have recently created: Image of Muhammad in the West. It's a copy/paste of the most biased version of one of the new sections that he wrote in the Muhammad article? I believe that the right thing to do is to simply redirect it to the main Muhammad article, but Aminz seems to insist on having his version published. -- Karl Meier 11:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you fill WP:AfD then? --Aminz 11:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza

بنو قريظة is the nominative case form (Banu Qurayza) which is more correct according to Classical Arabic, while بني قريظة is the original oblique (accusative/genitive) case form Bani Qurayza, whose use is more common in vernacular Arabic dialects... AnonMoos 12:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, but Classical Arabic had a contrast between different grammatical case forms, while modern spoken Arabic dialects do not have case distinctions. In circumstances (such as the "sound plurals") where dropping a word-final short inflectional ending (i`rab) did not automatically eliminate all case distinctions, the modern dialects generally use the old oblique forms in all grammatical uses -- and this feature of the spoken language sometimes influences modern written Arabic (though purists would consider such usages "incorrect"). I don't know anything about the specific etymology of the word Qurayza -- User talk:Ybgursey might be able to help you there (if he was willing...). AnonMoos 13:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Velikoe v malom i antikhrist

• What's your problem with the images of Velikoe v malom i antikhrist?Ludvikus 22:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Why did you wipe-out, or censor the Table of Contents of the antisemite Nilus?
    • Why did you do the same for the Original (not a re-typing) of the title page?
      • Please be more careful in your deletions!
• Don't you realize this is the ultimate existing source of the Protocols of Zion?
• Sloppiness is what antisemites want most of all to get their antisemitic views accross!!!

Don't do the work for them!!! --Ludvikus 22:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:REVERT Reminder

Hi. I noticed you reverted one of my edits without talk page discussion. Given that the edit was not vandalism, I feel that this inappropriate in accordance to Wikipedia policy. Please keep in mind WP:REVERT. The "Don'ts" section would be especially pertinent to this case:

• Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
• Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof.
• Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
• There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased.
• Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

Thanks! .V. (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Islamist democracy

Thanks for trying to bring some sanity to Islamist democracy.--Patchouli 23:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Barbara Plett, was selected for DYK!

On January 14, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Barbara Plett, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 00:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic minorities in Iran

I note that you felt there were problems with this article. It has now been locked in order to allow for a proper discussion. Perhaps you would like to give your input on the talk page. I have listed two of the most biased paragraphs for discussion, but I believe the entire article is a mess and is completely inconsistent. I know you have a knowledge of Jewish history, so perhaps you could give an insight into the treatment of Jews in Iran, which I have tried to mention alongside Arabs, Kurds and Balochis but have been repeatedly deleted.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 02:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Constitution of Medina

Beit Or, I wonder what comments, if any, you might have to add to the unfolding discussion. The issues are the same as on Muhammad as a diplomat and several other pages.Proabivouac 06:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Aminz did the same stuff at Dhimmitude as well, the WP:LEAD violations and tendentious editing against majority opinion. Same quotes. I'll do a write-up today.

I'm going to get the books and articles you mentioned on the talk page of Muhammad as a diplomat; are there any other sources you could recommend? Arrow740 23:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the Dhimmitude editing was different, what you think? Arrow740 02:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you voted at these AfD's, but Aminz nominated all of the articles on Spencer's books for deletion. Some of them are NYT bestsellers. It was on January 9th, the first one is here. Do you want to add this to the RfC, or should I? It would probably be better if you did it because I reacted pretty strongly in my votes. Arrow740 02:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I know about the mass nomination. I didn't vote there, only commented on one of the Afd's: I believe that non-fiction books may have their own articles only in exceptional circumstances, but the consensus on Wikipedia is different at the moment. I think that the mass nomination with the same rationale was disruptive: if an editor believes that several articles must be deleted for the same reason, he must start only one Afd, instead of making other editors voting five or six times. Beit Or 07:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand, these articles, along with countless others such as Pizza farm which have proved impossible to delete, probably should not be here, but the motive to AfD them may have been POV animus rather than encyclopedicity.

Aminz was probably unaware that he should have listed them en masse. In light of this, and the fact that a good case can actually be made for their (or at least most of their) deletion, it seems petty to keep this alive when there are a number of conscious, recurring problems to discuss. Although, Arrow, as you opposed the AfD's, you may have a different perspective. For my part, I'd like to focus on the big picture.Proabivouac 07:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis

Now, I read the added section carefully. I admit that it is a conspiracy theory and I am in doubt of the source and I don't have access to the mentioned book, "Engdahl, William. A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, © 1992, 2004. Pluto Press Ltd. pp. 171-174." If you have would you please check that if it is indeed in there. cheers,--Pejman47 21:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian history

Please, review following : Talk:Non-German_cooperation_with_Nazis_during_World_War_II#Yarillstremenog_issue.

Thanks in advance for your opinion, it will be valuable for us. --Galkovsky 09:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad and the Jews

Please keep an eye on that article. A few editors want to make it into a screed about how the Jews had it coming. Arrow740 00:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir are also in poor shape; they need to be made neutral regarding the Constitution at least. You seem to be good at that. Arrow740 01:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! We'll have to watch it. If there's going to be a showdown on Esposito, let me know. Arrow740 15:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Beit Or, your pithy comments to this ridiculous RfC are deeply appreciated.Proabivouac 08:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging Religious Antisemitism with Anti-Judaism

Hi, just curious to get your take on re-merging Religious Antisemitism with Anti-Judaism, but under the title of Anti-Judaism. The issue is being discussed on Talk:Religious antisemitism currently. Thanks, Mackan79 22:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Some anti-Judaism seems to be going on at Allah, where it is stated that Jews believe Ezra is the Son of God. Arrow740 01:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any plans to take some action on this guy? He's violating WP:CIVIL at least. Arrow740 06:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A bit confused

Greetings, I believe that you placed this comment on my talk page:

Please b einformed that a request for comment regarding an editor with whom you had a dispute on Christianity has been started

I am confused because I am not aware of any dispute I have on that page with any editor. My last edit was a comment on 12 January - 10 days ago. Lostcaesar 20:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

--Yannismarou 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As you set out for Ithaka, hope the voyage is long Knowledge is your destiny, but don't ever hurry the journey May there be many summer mornings when With what pleasure and joy, you come into harbors seen for the first time Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey And, if I, one of your fellow-travellers, can offer something To make this journey of yours even more fascinating and enjoyable This is my assistance with anything I can help.

"Islamic ethics"

I'll do the AfD request tonight or tomorrow. Arrow740 01:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Also please check your email. Arrow740 01:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

arbitration commitee

Would you join an arbitration commitee to solve an ongoing dispute? See Pontic Greek Genocide and User talk:LordAmeth#Pontic Greek Genocide for more information. Wandalstouring 13:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I'll be happy to help. Beit Or 17:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems like there is an agreement to accept the offer, however, people want to interview you beforehand. See ongoing discussion at Talk:Pontic Greek Genocide#Arbitration commitee. Wandalstouring 13:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Religious Antisemitism

Hi Beit Or, I just wanted to request your participation in finding some suitable resolution on Religious antisemitism. If you'd offer your thoughts, I think it would really help. Otherwise, I'll simply try again, but if people keep reverting, I don't see anywhere else I can go other than WP:3RR or WP:AN/I. It's such a waste of time, though, not to mention the annoyance, that it really seems we should be able to work it out. Thanks, Mackan79 22:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Khazars

Aloha, Beit Or. With the upfront caveat that I was not the author (nor do I have any idea who it was), I'm curious why you reverted the text posted by 172.129.70.39. As an outside, disinterested reader, it didn't seem like POV pushing to me at all, but rather additional and possibly relevant information. Seems to me that more information (as long as it is accurately reported and sourced, which this was) is better than less, especially when the original text seemed to give an inadequate accounting of other evidentiary sources. Cheers. Arjuna 11:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The anon added the word "tentative" at the beginning of the paragraph, apparently insinuating that some later, better study will support the Khazar origin of Ashkenazim. Furthermore, the cited study[2] does not in any way undercuts the evidence in favor of the Middle Eastern origin of the Jews, as the anons "however" implied; if anything, it provided further evidence for this generally held view. In any event, the Khazar hypothesis is already debunked in the article; further details are unnecessary. This is an article on Khzars, not Ashkenazim. Beit Or 18:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, thanks for your comments, and particularly for pointing out the singularly obvious that this is an article on Khazars, not Ashkenazim. However, as you know, the meme that “Jews are decended from Khazars” exists willy-nilly, and thus the issue is a relevant one. As one who was aware of this meme, I sought out the article simply seeking accurate, objective information with which to assess its merit or lack thereof. I do find it somewhat perplexing that this issue is clearly seen by some (many?) as fraught with political implications. Despite the Koestler view also being espoused by some with various anti-Israel political agendas, to a disinterested observer this is rather confusing, since, as the article accurately points out, it is decidedly un-pernicious either to the Jewish people or the cause of the State of Israel.

However -- and just FYI -- as a disinterested observer the discussion of this issue as it is currently written in the article seems about as POV as they come. In fact, in being so one-sided and rhetorically heavy-handed, the dismissal of the Koestler theory seems so facile that it actually comes across as somewhat suspicious. This is not particularly helped given your deletion of the material added by 172.129.70.39. That material seems relevant and, if as you point out, it does not contradict the debunking of Koestler, why was it necessary to be deleted? As for 172.129.70.39’s use of the word “tentatively”, I hardly think that is POV. Genetic mapping of global populations is still in its very early days, and there is indeed much that science does not know about the complex movement of human societies in pre-modern times. It may indeed be highly unlikely that “some later, better study will support the Khazar origin of Ashkenazim”, but to beg the question as you do is hardly scientific, is it?

In fact, I have to say that your deletion of this information seems like active suppression of information that you find unhelpful. Now, it may be the case that your position is correct, but doing it in such a heavy-handed fashion invites suspicion. The discussion of this issue as currently written is actually not very convincing, which is a shame. Instead, it reads as piece of bullying rife with logical fallacies. (Appeal to authority; ad hominem / guilt by association). Just FYI. Here’s a good compelling case that could have been made but wasn’t: assimilated peoples almost always carry linguistic traces from their area of geographic origin. If so, one would expect Yiddish to contain cognates of Turkic languages, but apparently (I’m not a Yiddish speaker so this is based on my informed understanding) it does not. This is compelling evidence that Ashkenazim are not primarily decendants of the Khazars. That’s a freebie, feel free to use it. Anyway, with all due respect, I really don’t have a dog in this fight and was simply looking for evidence one way or another. Good luck with the article, and aloha. Arjuna 03:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You should raise these issues on the article's talk page rather than on my user talk. However, I'm afraid you'll find the consensus to be against your position. Beit Or 07:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Your response

I await your response in the section Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism#Encyclopedia_Judaica. Thanks.Bless sins 18:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

your warning is same on you and Jyg

In response to your warning that I am about to violate the 3 reverts rule I have read it clearly.

However this rule apply on the people who cut my hard word edits which did not interfere with anybody's edits or cut from their edits. My edits are new addition to the subject and I worked hard to avoid original research, plagiarism, reverting or cutting other people work. If I would do I would cut Hal Lindsey, Parabiblical nonsense and many non referenced material.

some one probably you who is reverting my edits I reverted no body's edit other than their edit by reverting my edit to some one's else edit. Hence the warning goes to that person. I am going to complain to administrators for cutting my new referenced contributions whole sale after I worked hard on them. By the way I never cut any body's edit I just ADDED, The people who reverted my edits have no right of doing so.

Sincerely Sincerely71.220.89.177 08:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.220.89.177 (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Islam and antisemitism

Judith expressed your concern about your removal of the wikify tag from the top of this article. I think you might have done it as a mistake... but, in any case if you have a question as to why it was added read Wikipedia:Lead section which is not nearly met on that article. You need a bold title and a lot more work on the lead. Thanks. gren グレン 18:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The template was inappropriate and disruptive. For problems with the lead section, thee are specific template messages, such as these. The template defaced the article by creating a huge white space at the top.[3] Sometimes I wonder whether some editors actually look at the results of their edits or just follow the hit-and-run tactics. Now regarding Itsmejudith's behavior. If she objected to my edit, she should have contacted me directly. Asking a third party to act on her bahalf is uncivil. Her actions suggest she finds it below her to talk to me. Beit Or 21:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Islamic ethics

There's a dispute over there and now an anon has stepped in. Any comment? Arrow740 22:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Your claims in edit summary

You reverted my edits [4], stating that you were "remov[ing] "Jews are nasty" speculation". When did I make an edit that says "Jews are nasty"? I find your edit summaries (like those on Islam and antiSemitism) very misleading. Please be polite and stop accusing me of making "Jews are nasty" edits.Bless sins 07:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikifying

Please edit the lead to conform with WP style. This is why I added the wikification tag. And I contacted Gren because I know his advice is wise and measured and I am determined not to get into a petty argument on this. Itsmejudith 19:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

See my response to Grenavitar above. I have nothing to add on this issue except that when you see a problem, the most productive and commendable approach is to fix it. Beit Or 20:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't work out what a good lead sentence would be. You have been more involved with the article so could you suggest something. I will add this to the article talk page. Itsmejudith 09:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My comment

You are correct, I was getting ready to go out and made it in haste and should have explained better, pardon. 20:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar

If neutral means pretty clueless, you are right. OK, will keep it on my watchlist. Wandalstouring 09:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar

You all work quite effective on the article and in my opinion there is no more need to keep an eye on it. Cheers Wandalstouring 21:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments on the talk page. You're always very welcome to help us out with that article; this is part of military history, anyway. Beit Or 07:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

End Censorship Now

Why are you reverting relevant and well sourced information at the Blood libel against Jews article? This was a book written by an Israeli academic, not some rabid neo-Nazi. Please cease your censorship of relevant and factual information. Thank you. --172.131.52.157 07:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please consult WP:NPOV and do not assign undue weight to a discredited view. Beit Or 07:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How has a view that just published this month already been discredited? And it's not "undue weight," it's called "recent scholarship." Try it some time. Also, articles like to have new information inserted in them occasionally...you know? --172.131.52.157 07:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles are not humans; they cannot like or dislike anything. Please bear in mind that you're bound by Wikipedia policies even if you have no account. So far, all scholars who have spoken out on this book have dismissed its claims. Toaff's is a tiny minority view that does not belong anywhere on WIkipedia, except to the article about himself. Please also notive that you didn't reference the book itself, only press reports, which are contradictory. Anyway, if you want to write about this story, please confine your editing to Ariel Toaff, but bear in mind WP:BLP. Beit Or 07:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw your message to H.S.; I'm on it.Proabivouac 07:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous editing! I can't believe anyone would believe this nonsense, let alone insist that others read it on wikipedia. Arrow740 08:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The anon is also active on Blood libel. Beit Or 09:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Noted and watchlisted.Proabivouac 10:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 18 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mukataba, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin Gilbert

Hello. Please help Sam Blacketer and I make the criticism section more NPOV, instead of removing it. Join the discussion at Talk:Martin_Gilbert under "Outside comment from RFC".Bless sins 22:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So far, I can see only you POVing the article by inserting the same criticism. Beit Or 19:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Patchouli

Hi, I think both Patchouli and you have the same religion. He may understand and accept your advice better than mine.Although he will be banned, but you can advise him that try to be polite and help the others instead of fighting with them. I guess these manners are accepted and supported in your religion too. However finding the truth and behaving correctly is more important than editing wiki articles. --Sa.vakilian 19:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"I guess these manners are accepted and supported in your religion too." I could say a variety of different things about this sentence, but I won't. Arrow740 19:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar

For the third time [5] you have inserted the statement "According to Watt, leaders of the Banu Nadir paid neighboring Arab tribes to go to war against Muhammad, leaving him no choice but to attack Khaybar."

Watt says no such thing regarding Nadir's payment to Arab tribes. The quote regarding his perspective is here:

Montgomery Watt has drawn attention to the fact that the Banu 'l-Nadir, driven out of Medina, had taken refuge in khaybar and that their chieftains and the chieftains of other Jewish groups, eager for revenge, were intriguing against Muhammad along with the Arabs tribes of the neighbourhood. So Muhammad had not only a just motive for attacking them, but there was also the positive necessity to destroy these enemies, more formidable even than the Quraysh because of their adherence to their own religion, their intelligence and their superior culture.

Please stop inserting OR.Bless sins 03:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not check the source cited in the article? Beit Or 09:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, Beit Or cites Watt directly, rather than via Vaglieri.Proabivouac 10:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I will give u direct notice

DO NOT DELETE MY CONTENT OR MY TAGS U have no right to delete tags especially when i am disputing a section, --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 09:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Persian Jews

Hi, I put some comment on Talk:Persian Jews but nobody pays attention to them. Also I can't find "Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Assessment" to rank that article thus I used "Ethnic groups Assessment"--Sa.vakilian 04:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Also please check my editions in the article. I tried to use independent or Jewish references which include negative and Positive POV.--Sa.vakilian 08:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll take a look at the article. Beit Or 11:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad#Edit warring

User:ALM scientist has adopted a hostile manner regarding depictions of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, and is threatening to report me for what I see as a non-existent 3RR violation. Your review of this matter would be appreciated.Proabivouac 11:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments; please let me know if there is ever something that I can likewise review.Proabivouac 01:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Brainstar

This brainstar is awarded to Beit Or for helpful contributions with adding citations to wikipedia. Sefringle 04:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The template

Let's see, you removed: Balfour Declaration, Partition plan (part of our history), West Bank Barrier (I suppose it's there to cage in the albino population of Switzerland), Holy sites that are holy to Palestinians (Jerusalem Churches and Mosques, Church of the Nativity), Palestinian Christian, Palestinian Jew, Dabke (and who are more famous at it than the Palestinians?)

All that and more, and the reason for your wholesale edit was, unbelievably: "Not related to Palestinians".

Well, if you wish to be taken seriously, you should learn to edit responsibly. Taking out things like "Palestinian Christian" under the reason of "not related to Palestinians" is not a sign of responsible editing. Furthermore, I didn't make this template. But you cannot just come and remove things at random, under outrageous pretexts, and then come to my user page and tell me that I need to make the case for retaining them. I don't go around removing clearly relevant information from WP pages and then tell people to make the case for allowing them back. And if I ever do need to make the case of why Palestinian Christian or Israeli West Bank barrier or Al-Aqsa Mosque or Church of the Nativity are related to Palestinians, that is an explanation I do not owe to you, as your irresponsible deletions do not reflect the level of seriousness in your editing that would warrant my needing to explain any of this blindingly obvious stuff to you. No cheers, Ramallite ^(talk) 15:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

False accusations

Do you mind not making false accusations about me in your edit summaries to articles that you don't add anything to? All you do is delete material, you hardly discuss and then you accuse me on POV pushing? Wow.

But I can see above that even Ramallite, the paragon of even-handedness, has called you out for you BS editing, which basically consists of delete, delete, delete. And so I guess I should proud of you calling my edits POV. It just means I'm doing my job in countering your sickening anti-Palestinian bias. Have a nice day. Tiamut 18:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Alleged human rights violations by Israel during Al-Aqsa Intifada

Please discuss your changes on the talk page before deleting the article again.

My edit summary when returning the article after someone redirected it:

"I am doing a lot of work on this article. Please give me time. We will merge parts of it. It is too long to merge all of it. Have patience. See talk."

I spent a lot of time yesterday converting a whole section from external links to reference links. I have a lot of other work to do also. Please have patience. We will merge what we can into Al-Aqsa Intifada. There is too much to merge all of it.

The new name for the article takes away a big reason, I believe, why many people wanted to delete the article. Accusing Israel of war crimes is too much for many people. And inaccurate for the most part. I find the old title to be offensive. And such a title needs an article that meets very high standards.

That is no longer this article. This article is about alleged human rights violations, and it also must meet high standards for sourcing, etc.. I am working on it. Please assume good faith. --Timeshifter 18:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed a long time ago and the consensus was to implement the decision of the admin who closed the Afd and merge the content into Al-Aqsa Intifada. Beit Or 18:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Quote

Why did you remove the quote from the Bernard Lewis book article? --CltFn 06:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Any quote from a book is selective by definition. Why choose this particular quote rather than some other one? An overview of the book's content would be more helpful than a quote. Beit Or 13:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad's slaves

as your reversion has resulted in the reinstatement of patent original research, material which misrepresents its sources, and unverified passages, perhaps you'd like to involve yourself in addressing the fundamental problems with the version you reverted to as highlighted on the talk page. ITAQALLAH 05:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edits have wiped the article clean of any references to Muhammad's slaves. Beit Or 19:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

they are not verified: the reference to Za'ad al-Ma'ad is drawn from unreliable polemic websites. there is no authoritative English copy of the work, and we have no reasonable basis to assume that Ibn al-Qayyim has been quoted faithfully. see the talk page. you also reinserted material which misrepresents the sources, as i described on talk. ITAQALLAH 19:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone is revert warring with anons again. [6] is currently blocked, and as soon as he was blocked [7] stepped in. Arrow740 05:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to it. Beit Or 10:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam and slavery revised lead proposal

Dear BO, as an interested editor would you please offer your opinion at article 62 on the talk page re this proposal. DavidYork71 08:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of tag

You removed {{Unreferenced}} tag from the Hamas article. Please don't do that unless you at the same time add references. // Liftarn

There are quite a few references in this section. Beit Or 16:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but not for the claims in the lead. // Liftarn

Add {{fact}} tags where you think references are needed. Beit Or 16:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I did (se the article history), but jayjg complained there was too many of them. // Liftarn

Muhammad/images

Beit Or, I write you to show you my respect for having improved the referencing for the images that are currently on display for the Muhammad article and also to apologize for having left out a reference or two during the tangle yesterday. As I've just requested User:ProtectWomen to do I will respectfully request that refrain from following User:TharkunColl in disrupting this already cotentious situation by reverting images back and forth. Doing this just tends to set up hard feelings on all sides (particularly given the frequently trollish nature of TharkunColl's talk relative to the topic of Muhammad). There is no need to needless antagonize Muslims by pointedly displaying an image of his likeness at the lead of the article about him. I grant you that if a genuine consensus is established and the result is that a no holds barred image of Muhammad is decided for display at the top of the article then I shall not further belabor the issue. Thanks again. (→Netscott) 21:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Morning

I've been following all kinds of links and have so many windows open on my computer, you wouldn't believe it! Anyway, please check this edit I made. Thanks --ProtectWomen 08:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Birth of Muhammad

Beit Or, what is your opinion of this image? It is attributed to the same date as the Black Stone image; is this correct? It is of course a complete rip-off of the Christian nativity scene, and I think quite interesting in that: on one level ridiculous, on another very informative.Proabivouac 05:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Vlaams Belang

Hello Beit Or. You've just been edit warring with His_excellency and BhaiSaab. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know... Beit Or 06:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Jane Gerber

If you ever get time, do you think you can create an article about her? It seems she is notable as a scholar.--Sefringle 00:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

She is notable, but I'm afraid there isn't much biographical information available about her. Beit Or 21:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT

Thank you so much for your support. --Coppertwig 21:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Beit Or 21:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Work to be done

Hi, please help create sections in the articles about the israeli heads of states about their attitude towards Muslims. thestick 05:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not Judapedia you know, creating such a huge section on the Faisal of Saudi Arabia article is undue weight. thestick 13:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"Judapedia"? Try to refrain from ethnic and religious attacks. Beit Or 20:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse that then. Now, what about the rest of my post. thestick 04:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

And that wasn't an "ethnic and religious attack", just for your information. thestick 07:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, each time I read my question and your response, I feel offended by your brazen response to accuse me of an "ethnic and religious attack" . What I meant by 'Judapedia' is, if you are so keen to include such trivial matters and everything else connected to Judaism such as peoples 'attitudes' in every biography - did you know that the wikimedia foundation offers free hosting for any wiki, so why not go ahead and register www.judapedia.org (which stands for Judaism Encyclopedia) and enjoy creating all articles like "What a carpenter living in new jersey felt about his Jewish neighbour on march 14th". please refrain from jumping to baseless conclusions. thestick 08:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Faisal was not a carpenter; his views on Jews are widely publicized and notable. The section on trivia is unencyclopedic: if a certain is trivial, it doesn't belong to the article. Stop removing the material you dislike. Beit Or 17:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"Stop removing the material you dislike." - Why should I 'dislike' material? Once again you jump to a hasty conclusion, or was that section meant to provoke people. I've already stated the reasons why I didn't accept dedicating such a huge section with it's own title to 'attitutde towards jews' - Whatever, the new "Foreign relations" section is much better. Kudos. thestick 18:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I noticed that section was titled by Bless Sins, and not you. thestick 19:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam and slavery lead

Dear interested editor:
Please visit here: [8] in the next few days and give your vote and your proposals on how the lead may be reworked and reformed to meet GA criteria before next nomination.DavidYork71 04:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Favour?

Beit Or,

Arrow740 suggested you might be a good person to ask. There is four days left for final changes to the 2007 Wikipedia CD Selection. I am after a couple of people of different religious views to have a quick look through the relevant pages on Islam, Israel, Palestine etc. I have asked Aminz as well. I don't promise to make any changes but I will seriously consider it if you think some of the version adopted are POV.

The 2006 CD has an estimated circulation of over 50,000 so its worth getting as good as possible. The most recent viewable copy is at : [9]. Changes planned are listed at Wikipedia:2006 Wikipedia CD Selection in terms of (1) articles currently included to exclude (2)articles to add (3) articles to update because the version listed is vandalised (4) sections to exclude (mainly on appropriateness to children) (5) string deletes and spelling corrections (to UK English) (6) redirects of common article names to the main article. Navigation and search pages are being sorted separately. See especially: Muhammad, Palestinian territories, West Bank, Israel, Lebanon, Jew, Judaism, Islam and any shocking omissions?Please let me know of any issues if you see any. Thanks. --BozMo talk 19:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at these articles, but I'm afraid I'm not going to be of much help in the next few days. Jayjg is a very knowledgeble and respected editor; he may help you with Palestinian territories, West Bank, Israel, Jew, and Judaism. Beit Or 20:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop hurling accusations at me

Please stop accusing me of things I don't do. Recently you have accused me of "stalking" you. What's interesting is that your accusation are very, very hypocritical, cosnidering the fact that you have begun to revert my edits on here, though who have not edited this article recently.Bless sins 20:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be clear to any reasonable person that you've stalked me to Blood libel. You never edited articles on the blood libel before; you've only arrived there to (essentially) revert a recent edit of mine. Your accusation me stalking you Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais is completely nonsensical. I made my first edit to the article on 20:11, 6 November 2006; this page has been on my watchlist for several months, even though I've not been active there. Beit Or 20:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I made an edit on Blood libel against Jews (very relevent to Blood libel) on 14 January 2007, here. That is much later than November 6, 2006. The page has been on watchlist as well. Please think twice before you hurl another ridiculous accusation at me.Bless sins 20:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and it took you some time to recall that after taking cue from my answer... This is the second time you've stalked me, please consider yourself warned. Beit Or 21:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What? Are you saying that I'm fabricating my edit on 14 January 2007? I made that edit waaay before you accused me of WP:stalking on 24 March 2007. Like I said, think twice before making a ridiculous accusation against me. Also, regarding your accusation on the King Faisal article: I had been looking into King_Faisal_Foundation (an article I created) for quite some time. It is natural that I edit King Faisal, as he is the sole inspiration of that magnificent foundation.Bless sins 21:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Lewis (1999)?

Back in January you added citations to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, citing a work as "Lewis (1999)". However, you neglected to identify what work this is. Can you please clarify, giving us the title and the full name of Lewis? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it "Lewis, Bernard (1999). Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice. W. W. Norton & Co. ISBN 0-393-31839-7"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Trolling?

"In addition, you may consider not starting your posts with a brief piece of trolling."
Were you referring to me, or brownhairedgirl?
Which part was trolling? Bladestorm 22:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You know the answers to both questions. Beit Or 22:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I now know to whom you were referring, since you've moved the comments around.

I still do not know which part you meant.

May I please remind you about NPA? I'm not trolling. If you want to make a case, do it. But if the only way you can do so is by making attacks, then you really have none at all, do you? Bladestorm 22:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You know very well what I'm talking about it's pointless to continue this discussion. Consider yourself warned. Beit Or 22:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Tell me which part looked like trolling. I don't know which part you mean, and saying, "you know what I mean" isn't going to change anything. Telling me I'm "warned" is hostile, uncivil, and grossly uncalled for, since I'm actually asking which part you're talking about. Tell me now, or I'll assume you're threatening me as a way of evading the issues. Bladestorm 22:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Praise of Muhammad in poetry

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Praise of Muhammad in poetry, which you proposed for deletion, because I feel that the deletion of this article may be controversial. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! .

It is also helpful when proposing an article for deletion using to include a reason in the tag, by adding "subst:prod|[REASON]". Also, please make sure the reason you give is explicit about your concern regarding the article. Thanks! --Tikiwont 11:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

30 Edits

Nice catch on removing that word to avoid. I changed it further, from 'claims' to 'states'; more neutral language. Thanks for your help! Cheers. Arcayne 20:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Beit Or 21:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For removing the picture from "Islam and Slavery". I had inadvertently reverted to a version which had that image. NN 19:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

POV and un-encyclopaedic writing been reinserted into article.

The Islamic Human Rights Commission may or may not be to your liking.

But you've re-inserted several POV expressions ("campaigns against what it sees as violations", "collaborated with" (not backed by reference), "initiated by Ayatollah Khomeini" (not backed by reference) and "feels that the adoption of sharia law is .......".)

And re-inserted hopelessly un-encyclopaedic writing such as "In response to July 2006 The Mail and The Sun article IHRC published a press release on 24 July 2006[1] stating the reports "libellous" and "malicious" attacks to IHRC and in particular its chair, Massoud Shadjareh".

Any organisation covered by the encyclopaedia deservers much better treatment than this. PalestineRemembered 19:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything POV or unencyclopedic in the sentences above. On the contrary, these terms are perfectly applicable to your edits. Beit Or 20:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would remind you of WP:CIVIL. We're supposed to be cooperating in producing an encyclopedia. Statements such as "In response to July 2006 The Mail and The Sun article IHRC published a press release on 24 July 2006[1] stating the reports "libellous" and "malicious" attacks to IHRC and in particular its chair, Massoud Shadjareh" clearly do not belong in the encyclopedia, and it must be a complete mystery why they've been re-inserted. PalestineRemembered 20:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

AGF

Why did not you assume good faith? You said "...what's your problem? Is it with the fact that the article shows the inhabitants of Shiraz in a not-so-good light?" Why do you say such things to me? This is uncivil. Why do you assume that I want to whitewash the events? Why do you assume I have a "problem". --Agha Nader 19:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem FAC

I confess that I am disappointed by your object vote. To all Jews, Jerusalem is very important. I love Jerusalem. But I have spoken with Muslims and Christians, and they also see Jerusalem as important to their faiths. We cannot impose our priorities and points of view on them. We cannot tell them, "We value Jerusalem much more than you" and then devalue their stance. Wikipedia is formed by a consensus of all its members. They must be given an equal voice. Thats why we can't excise their opinions from the lead of Jerusalem or devalue it in any way. They will object, and we all lose when the article is then forever prevented from reaching FA. nadav 23:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not express opinions on FAC along religious lines or based on the importance of the article's subject in real life. Beit Or 18:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made a few changes to the intro, per the conversation on Talk:Jerusalem and per a few suggestions on the FAC. I basically moved the Palestinian state piece toward the front and added a few intermediary sentences to set up the concept created by the sentence and the subsequent paragraph. I may have also addressed the point about the qibla and the overall history, which you mentioned on the FAC. Presuming this doesn't get reverted outright, I hope you will reconsider your positions on the FAC. -- tariqabjotu 06:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

See my comments on the FAC page. Beit Or 06:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, tariq and I responded to your concerns at the FAC. We cannot add too much more text to the article since it will exceed article length requirements, and we can't change the article too much since every change brings with it a torrential reaction from people with different priorities or perspectives. Given this delicate balance, do you think FA status is achievable? nadav 04:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Length requirements are not set in stone. There are 25KB featured articles and 100KB featured articles. What is important is that the article meets FA criteria. This one doesn't. Beit Or 06:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible Podcast

User talk:ShakespeareFan00 plans to create some podcasts (will be within our publication departement). I thought that some of your good articles could be modified in such a way and you are likely to be the most capable editor for the task(I'm not likely to be much of a help for you).

On the long run I would like to suggest (I don't know how many people will agree) that these podcasts should have a professional review. They must be sold for a small fee to pay such a review. Possible profits could be invested into illustrations and other badly needed stuff, I think such issues should be decided by the man and the community. Another effect would be that these casts form a foundation for wikireaders with thrustworthy content. Wandalstouring 15:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. At the moment, I'm not sure my article are really worthy a podcast, but I'll definitely think about it. Beit Or 20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Islamophobia

I am trying to understand why you just re-added the honorific of Prophet in Islamophobia - as in the "Prophet Muhammad"... KazakhPol 21:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha RfA thanks

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks for your kind words and support. --Shirahadasha 04:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Lehi (group)

Zero0000 reverted your edit to Lehi. I thought you would like to know. KazakhPol 06:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Norse_history_and_culture#Adopting_a_page

Take a look at this new section and see if one of the articles interests you, or if you prefer, add a new one to the list. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Cat delete

Such cats are put on the working page for the bots to depopulate. That may take awhile, depending. So I think it got left there for awhile. At any rate, it's gone now. >Radiant< 14:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence Zeq 17:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I had not seen Rhodes blood libel since I weighed in on it at peer review and was pleasantly surprised to see it is now not only featured, but scheduled for the Main Page for May 7th. Congratulations! Ruhrfisch 02:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism

Can you please offer your opinion on some of the recent edits--Sefringle 03:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Rhodes blood libel

It is good to see something truly interesting and well written article the front page. Congratulations. Giano 11:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

contact

Contact is a new service and honor the milhist project has introduced. I want to suggest you as a possible contact. Could you please name some subjects you are quite familiar with and willing to help(answer questions, reviews) within our scope. Wandalstouring 10:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out! I thinks contact is an excellent idea. Beit Or 18:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You were elected contact (It took so long because I had to reduce my wikitime). You will be notified about peer reviews within your scope. Please help us to find other editors capable of becoming a contact. Wandalstouring 07:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Islamophobia

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. ITAQALLAH 20:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Battle of Uhud

There's a new peer review request for Battle of Uhud that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Wandalstouring 08:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Part of your job as a contact. Wandalstouring 09:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Done that[10]. Sorry it took so long to respond; I had no time to edit in the last couple of days. Beit Or 19:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I was a bit tense because it was the first real test of the contact system. I will ask Kirill for more help on coding the userbox. Wandalstouring 18:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

re:

i'm not sure what your concerns are about my copyedit. what is wrong with this edit? superiority over something automatically connotes inferiority of the latter. likewise, what is wrong with this one? the "humiliating regulations" are the "legal and social restrictions". no need for repetition. my observation from Lewis was tangental, unrelated to the central rationale for the edits. ITAQALLAH 23:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Islam

Please check your e-mail before taking any further action. Arrow740 20:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Abaskun

On 11 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Abaskun, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Banu Qurayza

The article Banu Qurayza you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Banu Qurayza for things needed to be addressed. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 13:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

India-Israel relations

Hello. I saw your edit to India-Israel relations on 22:53, 30 June 2007 [11] removing a spurious tag placed there for no reason. There is a user named "TwoHorned" who keeps putting it back in, also keeps deleting info about the visit of Rabbi Mertzger's visit to India [12]. I am new at wikiepedia so don't know what to do. Could you please intervene? Thx. Alsosprachtzarathusthra 18:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing Israel page

I think your edits and talking points are worth bringing up and discussing, but would it be possible for you to do them all at once, or in chunks, at least on the article page, so that I don't have to load a new page to see each edit? Smaug 20:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

I have brought up the issue of deletions of material at Palestinian people and House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I have also just now mentioned your name. As a courtesy, I am informing you. Tiamat 19:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD

Following your recent participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of French apartheid, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 04:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 02:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

help request about a title issue

Hi !
Your mind would be highly appreciated here : [13].
Thank you, Alithien 22:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 09:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin

there's some serious disruptive behavior on the article and edits like this are a frequent mess. to resolve the revert mess, i've opened up a new talk section to resolve this dispute for good (or at least for a long period of time, please participate. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia

Hello! As it would appear, you have not been participating on the Islamophobia RFM. Seeing as you have been listed as an involved party, I think it would be worthwhile if you were to take a look at the discussion and add your own insight. This would be more helpful in reaching an agreement over how to handle the article. Thank you! MessedRocker (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Islamic military jurisprudence

There's a new peer review request for Islamic military jurisprudence that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Wandalstouring 11:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Please mind WP:Civil. Some of your recent comments border incivility. --Aminz 00:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Banu Qurayza

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Banu Qurayza you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 2 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 11:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your time and efforts. Beit Or 18:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Passovers of Blood: The Jews of Europe and Ritual Murders

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Passovers of Blood: The Jews of Europe and Ritual Murders, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Goochelaar 19:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites

The article above is currently in featured article review, based on the "quality" of recent additions to it. Your input in how to improve this article, and perhaps keep it at FA level, would be very much appreciated. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 19:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Bolshevism

Please try to talk senses to Ludvikus (talk · contribs), see Talk:Jewish Bolshevism#Page move. Obviously he has a hatred towards me. `'Míkka 15:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Silent Vigil

I am giving away this userbox as a sign of solidarity with our good friend Matt57. The gross injustice purportrated against him shall be met with peaceful non-violent protest. Please place on your userpage until this excessive and unjust ban is reversed. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 07:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

More Aisha age nonsense

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Asma_Barlas. Arrow740 19:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 08:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Blame the victims

Hello, consider BS's latest addition of "useful information": http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=166627923&oldid=166627856 Brilliant, isn't it? Str1977 ^(talk) 23:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not unexpected, unfortunately. Beit Or 15:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

recruitment

Hi Beit Or

I'm trying to get the Wikipedia:WikiProject History on track and I need some competent support, so I'm trying to recruit some good editors. Greetings Wandalstouring 14:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)