User talk:Unomi/Archive/2010Apr

AE Request

Can you please tell me what is the problem? What sources do you have an issue with at Israel casualties of war? The JVL link was removed awhile ago and replaced with PDF as requested. You were never specific in what you had an issue with other than the two sources. You kept asking me to revert but revert what? What have I done wrong Unomi? ArbCom is not for content disputes. It is the "last stop" for dispute resolutions. I didn't even know we were in a formal dispute. I really hope your request was sincere and not an attempt to remove an editor you simply don't agree with. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I repeatedly asked you to revert, I made you aware of issues raised, I made you aware that there was a thread on RS/N. It is difficult to accept that you did not know what I asked you to revert as you continued to defend the use of JVL throughout and the very thread which started this whole thing mentions the specific problematic edits. The problematic source is still in the article as of my writing. Perhaps if you had been more engaging in talk this could have been avoided, but by ignoring the arguments, reversing the burden of proof and repeating the unsupported claim of 'it is an RS' you have forced my hand. The remedy I seek is extremely fair, all I ask is that you remove the source from where you may have introduced it. Unomi (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Revert what? The article has gone through plenty of edits by multiple users. What specific edit do you want to be reverted? Some other users have used JVL as a source in Israel casualties of war. I don't own the article Unomi. From what I understand JVL is a reliable source in the context it was used, such as here: incidents. Typically it is merely a broadcast of other outlets, whether they be the foreign ministry or expert-sites. I never disputed the conflict of the suicide bombing plot issues - which is why FOTG removed the content entirely. But are you asking me to remove all JVL sources? Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like you to revert edits which are based on sources which exhibit the same problems as mentioned on RS/N. See this edit based on this source only in 1 case is the underlying source for the numbers linked directly here and that source does not seem to support the edit made or the numbers in the JVL source. If you wanted to defend the use of JVL you should have done so at the RS/N. The incidents page suffers from the same problem, it simply links to the landing page of www.mfa.gov.il . If you couple the lack of editorial transparency, poor indication of sources and at least 1 demonstrated instance of questionable numbers you are left with a source which cannot be trusted directly. This should be fairly clear to a long term editor. I am not willing to go back and check your every edit, I am sure you know better than I where it is used. That I immediately asked you to avoid using it was precisely so that it wouldn't result in time consuming reinstatement of sources you may have replaced, but here is one that I don't quite understand, the number seems to be inconsistent with the numbers in the sources. Unomi (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking me to remove all edits based on the Jewish Virtual Library? The JVL is a reliable and scholarly source, do you dispute this? Please specify WHICH edit of mine you disagree with. What edit do you request I revert? Many other users cited JVL, I don't see why you are getting upset at me for using the source. You keep asking me to "revert" so please tell me what I should revert? Be explicit. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have mentioned 1 above, but really, why should I go check through your contributions when you can do so just as easily? You are now aware that at least some pages at JVL are problematic. I linked 2 specific pages on your talk page. Unomi (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You've mentioned 1 edit. What is wrong with the edit? I am aware that several users such as yourself see JVL is "problematic" because a few pages contradict each other. I'm not disputing the contradictory sources which is why I haven't protested FOTG's removal of the suicide-bombing plot tables. However, I still do not understand what specific edits of mine you see as problematic. Point is, what do you specifically want me to do? Just tell me so I can answer. Again, be explicit. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm I told you exactly what is wrong with it, the source they use and the numbers JVL present do not support each other. Where does 1,100 come from? I want you to stop using poor sourcing and I want you to go back and revert the instances where you did. How is this unclear? Unomi (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, WHICH EDIT of MINE do you want me to revert? this one? That source is perfectly reliable, I don't see how it "contradicts" the facts. The assumed number was merely estimated at ~6,500 KIA and JVL provided a more specific account. Why is this a problem? The suicide bombing plots is supported by terrorism-info like it has been for quite some time and not JVL. As I have said many times, MANY users on the article have used JVL as a source. It is not considered a "poor source" as far as I know. I think you have taken a very irrelevant dispute and made it unnecessarily complicated. I still have no idea what I've done wrong or what policies I have violated. Please stop accusing me of "stone-walling" or using "evasive" tactics until you define what I am actually evading. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats just it though, the 1,100 bombing plots thwarted is not supported by the contents of the PDF. It is also unclear to me why you keep saying that JVL is reliable, I have seen no evidence of that. Unomi (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Why doesn't it support that? I see several graphs adding up to 1,000+ suicide plots foiled, the PDF doc. gives roughly the same amount, no? And like I said, which edit of mine do you want me to revert? Do you want me to remove all edited backed by JVL, even though many of those edits were not mine?? The fact that a source within JVL contradicts itself does not mean JVL is unreliable. JVL is scholarly (and started by a scholar) from what I understand. Once again, what exactly do you want me to do? Specifically. And don't say "stop using poor sources." Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I see exactly one graph that covers that material, on page 55 and it adds up to 521. Is there something I am missing? Unomi (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

note Here are the first 250 articles in WP that link to the JVL. [1] It is considered a reputable encyclopedic source. Stellarkid (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that there is a bit of work ahead of us then.. it is clearly not a source to be blindly trusted. Unomi (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, just because a source contradicts itself does not mean it is unreliable. BBC, Al-Jazeera, etc...frequently have conflicting stories and scandals. Does that mean those sources are unreliable? No. In this case, JVL hosts two different graphs supported by two different studies. As mentioned in talk the number of suicide bombing plots foiled isn't particularly known. The PDF document says ~600, but then another study says ~1000, and another study says 1,100+. It's unfortunate more information is not available, but this was an issue not considered relevant by the mainstream media. If it really bothers you I could shoot a message to the IDF contact site and see if they can provide any further documents. It is only recently is the military translating information from hebrew to english. I want you to know I was not not trying to "stonewall" or be "evasive" in any issue. Next time we have a content dispute I hope we can discuss more "cordially" in talk or user space. Thanks! Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and sentiment, it would be interesting to have the comment from IDF, I strongly suspect that it will correlate well with the ITIC source. Perhaps you can ask them on their opinion on ITICs reliability when it comes to such numbers. Here is to a cordial and constructive editing relationship going forwards :) btw I think you should consider finding better sources than what you have at the 'list of middle east wars' currently. I am not convinced that the mwhite site is a good fit, I could be wrong though. Unomi (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll send an email to the foreign ministry through their feedback service, but its passover so I don't think they'll respond for at least a week. As far as middle east article goes, feel free to open up a page in talk. Most of the sources I used just came from the original articles. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, I started a discussion with respect to you and others which can be found here: [2] Stellarkid (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Unomi (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Unomi. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome to WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration

AFriedman (talk) has given you a falafel sandwich! Falafel sandwiches are a specialty of the Middle East. With a little tahini and maybe a spicy sauce, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.

Spread the goodness of falafel by adding {{subst:Falafel}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a falafel sandwich to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Welcome to a WikiProject that represents a dream, a fantasy. But hopefully, we can help make Wikipedia one little part of the world where Israel and Palestine are at peace. The conflict covers the land like a demon, crushing everyone into terrible submission. It seems as though we cannot fight. But here, the demon is weaker and many of us are strong enough to subdue it. Every inch of ground or Internet space where we can hold it back is a victory for us, and we emerge more powerful and united for the next battle. Now, I don't know very much about you, where you're coming from or what you want to edit, but what would you like to accomplish? --AFriedman (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Golan Heights Winery

Hello Unomi, this edit included erroneous information, which I assume was a misreading of the source. This was never about the labelling of the actual bottles, it was about the presentation by the Swedish monopoly in their catalogue and on the shelf labels. Protests came from Israeli official sources and Swedish organisations, not from the winery. By the way, the monopoly never deals directly with foreign producers of alcoholic products, only with their registered importers. As it happens, Israeli wine#Wine regions has the correct and full story, and I believe this is where the information sits well. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I have continued the conversation here. Unomi (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Smearing

Well, since you asked, I'll be happy to explain why I think that this is less a legitimate attempt to assist our readers, and more a case of POV-pushing:

• There are numerous, much more neutral and more common terms like "Palestinian Territories" that could have been used, but the loaded term "Israeli-occupied territories" was used instead.
• The category was created and populated during the Jewish holiday of Passover, when it might be expected that there would be less people online who would object to its creation. It was either a shockingly unfortunate coincidence or a rather cynical move.
• As far as I can tell, the initial wave of articles added to the category were primarily sourced from this list. As such, it's mostly Israeli or Western companies. As far as I can tell, you did not bother adding any Palestinian companies or groups headquartered in neighbouring countries, even though one would expect that they would form the bulk of the commercial sector in the territories. While some Palestinian companies were later added by other users after this was pointed out, your choice of initial articles to populate the category with rather aptly illustrates your intentions in creating the category.
• Speaking of this link, I don't understand how anyone could consider it to be a reliable source.
• It's more or less accepted that we do not categorise companies by where they operate. It's plausible of course that you were not aware of this, but I do find it interesting that you only created categories concerning Israel, and you didn't seem to consider creating something like Category:Companies operating in Hamas-occupied Gaza.

I don't doubt that you had good intentions in creating this category, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and POV is POV, no matter how justified or noble that POV might be. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC).

Thank you for your response. I will refrain from editing your post but I will respond as though your sections had been numbered.

1. You may find our article on Israeli-occupied territories a useful primer.

   The point is that it is not a 'loaded' term, it is an accurate description of their status as upheld by European and International courts, the category in question was meant to follow exactly the delineation found by the European court as it has a material effect on companies operating within those territories, especially since some of the land is not Palestinian, see Golan Heights for an example.

   It is the term used by

   1. government organizations like:
      1. US Dept. of State [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10].

         "U.S. Policy toward the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is unequivocal and has long been a matter of public record. We consider it to be contrary to international law and an impediment to the successful conclusion of the Middle East peace process, Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention is, in my judgment, and has been in judgment of each of the legal advisors of the State Department for many, many years, to be. . .that [settlements] are illegal and that [the Convention] applies to the territories.” Secretary of State Cyrus Vance before House Committee. on Foreign Affairs

      2. Knesset[11].
   2. legal courts such as
      1. International Court of Justice[12][13].

         78. The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.

      2. Supreme Court of Israel[14][15],
      3. European Court of Justice[16]

         The assertion made by the Israeli authorities that products manufactured in the occupied territories qualify for the preferential treatment granted for Israeli goods is not binding upon the customs authorities of the European Union

   3. NGOs such as
      1. Red Cross[17],
      2. Amnesty[18].
      3. Human Rights Watch[19]
   4. Scholars[20][21][22][23][24][25][26].
   5. media such as
      1. BBC[27].
      2. Haaretz[28][29][30]
      3. CNN[31]
      4. Spiegel[32]
      5. NY Times[33]
   6. Organizations
      1. TUC[34]
      2. Committee to Protect Journalists[35]
      3. UN[36]
4. It was not intentional, I personally do not observe passover and if anything, I suspect that most of our editors do not copyedit from their place of work, only 2 days of passover are restricted in terms of activities one can indulge in, so would have more time to to put towards wikipedia.
5. As I stated earlier, the category was sought deleted almost immediately and I should not be held accountable for not having finished Wikipedia. I have also clearly stated that the motivation stemmed from the legal finding that delineates exports from Israel proper and Israeli-occupied territory, I do however very much welcome the addition of other companies and see no issues stemming from that.
6. The link in question was given as a convenience as it offers a HTML summary of the report, if you see where the report is hosted: http://www.soas.ac.uk/lawpeacemideast/ then it becomes clear that the University department endorses it:

   This report was prepared by Profundo economic research for the Sir Joseph Hotung Programme. It is an empirical study forming part of a wider project which examines economic and trade issues arising from Israel's occupation of occupied Palestinian and Syrian territories. The objective of this report to identify the roles played by UK companies - directly or indirectly - in supporting the existence and expansion of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory. -Sir Joseph Hotung Programme for Law, Human Rights and Peace Building in the Middle East, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

   It is unclear to me how this should have immediately made me discount it as an RS, nor do I understand why you do so currently.
7. Because, as far as I am aware there are no legal findings which deal with such operation, should such a term exist. I refuse to be held responsible for not finishing wikipedia.

I have no doubt that you are acting in good faith, but the factual record, the findings of court binding or not do not raise any grounds for claiming a controversy. It is precisely the matter of NPOV that I am seeking to address, I find that at the moment we have swaths of material which runs afoul of WP:GEVAL. For some reason the material available in the highest quality material, as those from findings of law, are given short thrift. Scandinavian funds and companies have well nigh as a bloc disinvested from some Israeli companies due to ethical concerns arising from their involvement in the Israeli-occupied territories. There is no controversy here, no complexity, just a serious aversion to studying sources and representing them adequately. Correcting that is not soapboxing, it is our responsibility as editors of a serious encyclopaedia. I welcome further discussion on the matter and I am open to the idea that I have missed something crucial. Unomi (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Unomi, I don't have time for a full reply right now, but I do appreciate your taking the time to address my concerns. Thanks also for alerting me to the discussion, hopefully it will be productive and more adversarial forms of mediation won't be needed. I'll probably be contributing my thoughts sometime in the next couple of days. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC).

BTW

I assure you that my message in question had absolutely nothing to do with my block at all. As a matter of fact I wish it did, it would have been better.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do tell me what the message had to do with. Unomi (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• It is so silly. She thinks she is doing something great, while she completely misunderstands, the Israel-Palestine problem and that poster. That line that she is have decided to follow to redeem the Jewish people is misguided and is really creating more shame and hatred besides the problems that is bringing for herself. If she just stops and thinks for a little while, she could realize that she should be proud of User:RonaldR instead. Because that poster is just condemning Jews that have taken a wrong approach to the construction of the Jew state and are treating other human being in the way Jews were treated during WWII. (@Mbz1)By the way, my invitation to talk about it in my talk page still stands. Abisharan (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, as I understand the poster, if that is what this is about, it is about Nazis joining Pro-Palestine demonstrations, its not a picture of jews, it a picture of an actual nazi with a Palestinian flag. I thought that was pretty clear, I am concerned that her reaction was to something else on his userpage. Unomi (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless the editor who have this poster, and forgive me for jumping into the discussion, the one who designed this poster (which to me seem problematic by itself) is widely accused for being anti semitic. Personally, and just for the matter of the discussion, I truely and deeply believe that he's anti semitic. Considering not only this poster, but other of Latufs' works.--Gilisa (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Latufs. Unomi (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

He have very similar works as Carlos Latuff, exactly the same actually. However, google can't make the difference between Latufs and Latuff-he consider them to be the same person!--Gilisa (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they look to be the same person commons media. I wasn't aware of Carlos Latuff until just now either. Regardless, mbz1 should have acted with more restraint. Unomi (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• It is possible that he personally is. What he deeply believes is hard to know and only hes deeds and work are to be seen. But for forming my own opinion on Latuf's work I would review it and not only quote what is widely accused for. Masses tend to be, in average, stupid or misguided, or being used and it could perfectly be that it is just accused by people that also misunderstand it. Add to that the convenience of seeing his work in that way by those having certain interests in the IP conflict and being badly portrayed by it. The IP-conflict is a delicate one and in my believe everyone is wrong there. Peace and tolerance is what is needed. Even if Latuf is antisemitic, User:Roland claims to be a Jew. Don't you think that the poster is then being used in a way that does not attack Jews? Usually languaje is context dependent. Its is only needed to stop a little to think what others mean and not be so single minded and stubborn. Abisharan (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Look Abisharan I'm Jewish myself, living among Jews most of my life, from many different kinds and places-sorry for making OR here, but we seem to discuss it openly-most Jews, as I know them, will consider this anti semitism. I can't comment on RolandR personall views, but whether he's Jewish or not, he represent only himself.--Gilisa (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added some related images, going thru the other images that we have on commons, my personal opinion is that he is left of center and has strong opinions, I am not seeing any particularly strong evidence of anti-semitism. Unomi (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, first what is important is the chronical order of this photos. Second, if you read the "controversies" section in the article on him, you will find more photos and more opinions on him. He never admited he's anti semitic-to me it tell nothing. Even if he isn't, you can't ignore that many find his works offensive. At least from where I'm standing. Regards--Gilisa (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I can absolutely understand why people would find his works offensive. Unomi (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The image in question is a protest against the attempt of nazis to take over the Palestine solidarity movement. As several editors know, I have been in "real life" prominent in exposing and opposing any such antisemitism. This can be seen by a glance at my edits to Israel Shamir and Gilad Atzmon; indeed, my own writings have been cited in both (though the edits may have been subsequently deleted). It is disingenuous, if not deliberately dishonest, to pretend that I am making, supporting or condoning antisemitic remarks. RolandR (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

RolandR, we discussed Latuff, not you-no one realy implied anything about you here. So, how this is "disingenuous"?--Gilisa (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you hold that Latuff is widely and correctly understood to be an antisemite and that RolandR condones that, then by extension you are. Unomi (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, sorry, I'm not disingenuous under any term-I stand for what I realy believe in. I do believe that Latuff is anti semitic. I didn't say that all of those who don't see it are anti semitic by themselves. In fact, I didn't even tell that RolandR condones it-I avoided any assertion in regard to him, I just tried to explain what Mbz1 reasons. --Gilisa (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those reasons can be easily seen, since she have been involved in discussions about that poster and about Latuf before. Now, what needs to be pointed out is that Mbz1 attacked, indiscriminately, one that could have (and seems to be) using that poster in a way far away from attacking a race or a religion. For her approach to the IP matters she is subject to a topic ban that prevents her from doing things like this. Although you might not find all those who dont see Latuff's work as antisemitic it seems to be that Mbz1 does. And that is what I am criticizing. Indiscriminate judging is always going to be unfair judging and a wrong doing. Abisharan (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I can accept all that you write here. But on WQA, you wrote -- in mitigation of Mbz's offensive comment -- that she was offended by the image and captions on my user page, and I was responding to that. As I have noted on WQA, I did not make an official complaint, and I really hope that we can all end this storm in a teacup, and get back to editing real articles. RolandR (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Unomi (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• After seeing this I have decided to un-watch all the pages related to Mbz1 problems. She simply decided to make the choice of being that stubborn and stupid. Abisharan (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have only just heard of this cartoonist, but to claim someone who is shouting "No Jew Haters!" is anti-Semitic is darn right ridiculous!! Could it be that he's also campaigning about the racist treatment of the Palestinians as well? Well I personally support people who campaign against hate. Vexorg (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Rothschild family

Have you any thoughts on the contentions here ? Vexorg (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't studied the sources. As a person who has not studied the sources I think it sounds a bit over the top to add what you are proposing. Unomi (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Re IPCOLL

Hello, Unomi. You have new messages at NickCT's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey. Thanks for the falafel. Agree with your "disuse" comment. See my comments Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#We_need_a_hit_list. I realize these are a little extreme, so feel free to disagree vehemently. NickCT (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Atehiesm 1 on 1 conversation

Re this comment. Just to see if we're on the same page, would you agree with what I said ealier on this talk page re - The Atheist 1 says - "There are no Gods" The Atheist 2 says - "There is no reason to believe in Gods, whether or not they exist" The Atheist 3 says - "Never really thought about it. No opinion on Gods" The Agnostic says - "No way to know for certain if there are Gods, but believing or not believing is ok" NickCT (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is my take on it:

Atheist says - "There are no Gods"

Noncognitivist says - "'God' does not represent something meaningful that I can opine on'.

Agnostic 1 says - "There is no reason to believe in Gods, whether or not they exist"

Agnostic 2 says - "Never really thought about it. No opinion on Gods"

Agnostic 3 says - "No way to know for certain if there are Gods, believing in existance or non-existance constitutes a leap of faith.

A simple way to explain my view would be

'Yes' - Theist

'Who knows' - Agnostic

'No' - Atheist

'WTF' - noncognitivist

I believe that my position regarding atheism is supported by Antony Flews writing:

“ The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter.

The introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage.

”

That this is indeed a novel interpretation is supported by Martins and Dranges critique of it. But, honestly, I am at this point not too bothered about any of it. Unomi (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. So let me ask you this then. What is the basic difference between an athiest, and an agnostic? NickCT (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, my understanding of the difference is not different from that of encyclopedias which contrast them[37]:

• Atheism is denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence cannot be proved. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia® Copyright © 2007
• Atheism is Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1994-2008

Unomi (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I generally agree with this. I think one have appreciate the "cannot be proved" language, because I think and atheist might say "There is not proof for God's existence, hence one should not believe in God" (i.e. rejecting belief), while an agnostic might say "One cannot prove God's existence, but believing or not believing is ok". The difference is subtle, but important to grasp. NickCT (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

On a personal note and to somewhat complicate matters, though I am agnostic, I generally don't think its ok to believe something for which one has no proof ;) Unomi (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

people

Hey Unomi, nice to meet you, personally on your talk page. Cool "Everything is wrong" visualization, "Ha" indeed ;) I have to admit I was puzzled by your last comment, probably without any reason though. Warm regards. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice to meet you as well :) Welcome to my humble talkpage, the source was mentioned on another talkpage and I was reminded of it when I saw the discussion on Gaza War. I was simply struck by the fact that people are suing to be registered as Israeli rather than by where they immigrated from or their ethnic background. I thought it might lend a source to support your edit. Unomi (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

For you

Got it baby, feel free: User:Dreadstar/recall. Dreadstar ☥ 23:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I will need to :) Unomi (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup, you're probably right...and I'm sorry....did this too. Dreadstar ☥ 01:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) Don't sweat it, we are all just human at the end of the day. Unomi (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Five Ring Circus et al.

Hi, thank you for your neutral input on Talk:2010 Winter Olympics, and for the cites you came up with; the notability of the book is still being argued about, as if it mattered (which according to the guidelines as described by yourself isn't necessary anyway). I know I'm not supposed to "poll" but could you please have a look at the ring-around-the-rosie I'm playing with User:Resolute on my talkpage: User_talk:Skookum1#.22Censored.22 and note especially the last few responses; and also the section following where I address HiLo48, who insists because he's never heard of it, it's not notable. He seems willing to be educated, though, so I provided him links from a BC webzine, which is an RS, about No Games 2010 or whatever it's called. Also please note, given your role in the Neutrality WikiProject (which I'm glad to hear about and didn't know about until I visited your userpage), my proposal that the Concerns and controversies at the 2010 Winter Olympics be split so as to remove the downplaying of political-criticism content which had previously been featured on the main article, and was removed for POV reasons (it wasn't "positive" enough) and since has been completely downplayed into the background behind the non-working ice machine and lack of snow on Cypress etc. My only POV is to make sure articles are as complete and truthful as possible; and excluding material because someone doesn't like the sound of it, or because it's not supported by "majority opinion" of editors working on the page, is to me entirely POV - I use the term "censor" because in some cases there's no doubt as to the motivation; many BC pages are very political and have been similarly fiddled with; and even when simply working at including ALL the truth, accusations of POV fly, as User:Resolute has done with me; the argument has gone around in circles, and guidelines which don't matter, like the RS and notability issue, are routinely ignored while others are invoked to justify un-wiki-like behaviour. I'll leave it at that for now but would appreciate your comment/input. I am a feisty tongued, often pithy editor, but it's because I'm a stickler for the truth and objectivity. And edits/deletions which are clearly not objective are getting increasingly tiresome; I despair of Wikipedia maintaining its neutrality because so many corporate, government and also NGO folks are out there "massaging" things ot their own POV, and denouncing anyone for contesting them to boot....Skookum1 (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The name of the image is

"Quneitra homes — destroyed.jpg" [38], you reverted it to its old name. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

:( sorry, thanks for catching that. I was trying to get back to the old version before the edit warring kicked in. Unomi (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

wikistalking is not allowed

and reverting on pages you never discussed without using the talk page is a serious offence. I'm reporting you for wikistalking. Amoruso (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, please do save me the trouble of looking at your contributions and link me to the report when you finish filing it. Unomi (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

ANI here regards. Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks. I was just writing it.. I'm interested to know how you justify such an RV to a page you've been to and saying that this is BASIC UN background?? very interesting. Amoruso (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Dreadstar ☥ has invited Unomi to smoke a peace pipe together! Smoking peace pipes promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by offering someone else a peace pipe, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend who just likes to smoke. Many thanks for your understanding and excellent advice. Dreadstar ☥ 18:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Spread the peace by adding {{subst:Peace pipe}} to someone's talk page! You can use a parameter to insert the name of the recipient and add your own text to the message with a second. Smoking this wiki-peace pipe does not affect your health.

Dreadstar haz also givn u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past, a gud frend or jus in case ure hungry aftr all dat smokin...! Hapy munchins!

I CAN HAZ!!11oneone Unomi (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Hello. I was reviewing the arbitration enforcement request concerning Drork and read your comments. As best as I can determine, your comments concerned the request above and so are placed in the wrong section. If this is correct, could you move them to the right place. If it is not, could you expand on how your comments relate to Drork. Thanks. CIreland (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, re-reading, I see the meaning now. CIreland (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Images

The images are tagged as being public domain since they are supposedly work of the United States government. The images do not specify a source so the tag is not sufficient. The uploader has a history of deleted images. They are marked for deletion. They were also stacked which is against the manual of style. Cptnono (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Unomi (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Nymechein

Which of my edits do you regard illegitimate? Nymechein (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Am I not allowed to ask an old friend why he uses two accounts here one of them with a strange pseudonym? The man does a great job against the Zionists. Why should he hide? Nymechein (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• It is clear that he does not want to talk with you on his talkpage. If you believe that he is behaving in contravention to wikipedia policy I would suggest that you raise your concerns at WP:ANI or WP:SPI. Unomi (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be quite close to him. Why don't you ask him to unite his accounts? Nymechein (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that he controls both those accounts. Unomi (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"Joke edits"

This is not an appropriate way to greet new editors, whether or not you agree with the edits they are making. Nothing that the new editor I am referring to inserted into the article suggests that he was joking. So I will request that you stop sending that template inappropriately, as it poses a civility issue. Breein1007 (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It was the friendliest template I could find, it even has a cute monkey! The edits in question were pretty silly, and frankly so is the idea they were by a new editor, agf notwithstanding. Do what you gotta do. Unomi (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)