User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg/Archive 4

Operation Litani

Hello Moshe, if you have concerns on the neutrality of my edits on Operation Litani, please specify them. Cheers--A rihani 09:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Adam Shapiro

I've addressed your concerns. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 11:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Geomap.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Geomap.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 02:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Darkred

I was aware of the situation, and he has been temporarily blocked for his personal attacks earlier today. --InShaneee 02:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Just report any more incivility on his part to myself or another admin. --InShaneee 16:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Homework

Now drop everyting and give me 20 and go do your homework! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Moshe

I don't know why you keep reverting the frye page, as i said in that talk page, i am wlling to take out the word "well-known" so it just be eminent, but you kept reverting anyway. I once had a russian-jewish girfriend, she was the sweetest thing, i also have had many jewish friends. What i am trying to say is like i have said before, that i don't have any hate for you or any other jew, i am sure you are just as sweet a girl or woman as my girlfriend was, so please stop engaging in edit wars with me, i mean you absolutely no harm. --Darkred 07:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:

I understand your argument, but I think it is a common sense that all shia jurists will reject this idea. Let me think about this more. Thanks --Aminz 06:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason that I am saying it is common sense is that Shia jurists are expected to merely use Qur'an and authentic Hadiths. That sentence implies that there are some Hadiths that Shia jurists believe are authentic but they are actually forgeries + the forgers were influenced by Zoroastrians. Please let me know what you think. Thanks --Aminz 06:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg,

Yes, you are right. It is not a common sense. I am sorry for using "common sense". It is not. Can you please let me know if you think we still need to quote from Bernard Lewis or not. If not, you can remove it meanwhile we are discussing it. It has been like this for a long time and we can let it remain like this until we end up in a conclusion. Thanks for your civility. --Aminz 07:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I realized that Pecher has already reverted it back. I'll move our discussion here to the talk page there soon. Thanks --Aminz 07:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, Could you please join the talk page of Najis article? I would like to hear your arguments. Thanks --Aminz 10:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for your arguments on the talk page of Najis and it will be appreciated. --Aminz 00:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Still not cooperating

Dear moshe,i left you a message in the frye page talk, know this as long as i am alive and not blocked or banned from wiki, you will not be allowed to vandalize that page. Please try to be the good girl we were talking about. --Darkred 20:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no, no---Darckred, Moshe and Black are two editors that always go at it, but they are good guys and you three have a genuine potential to work with each other constructively. Moshe complained about me first to an admin saying “I am beginning to believe Zmmz is actually insane”; it made me laugh so much that I realize how petty things can get--and I also realised the fact that he is actually a good guy, and maybe his frustrations were legitimate. So make like the Three Musketeers and start being friends. In fact, I won`t leave until you guys are working with each other.Zmmz 20:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Gaius Marius

Moshe, you asked me to "redirect Marius to Gaius Marius". But it is already. I am lost. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

1948

I apologize for the impetuous revert. I'll email you the original source and then you can decide whether or not it's represented accurately. If not just delete it. POVs do easily creep into summaries. Of course there are many other sources that could be brought to bear that would state a different opinion. I think this one is particularly good because it's contemporary, and of course the Yishuv had a series of victories and solid strategic achievements from the onset of the civil war. I'll have to disagree with you about Transjordan. In fact it had a strength of about 6,000 at the beginning of the war (one sixth of the Yishuv's strength) and ran out of supplies very quickly because of the embargo and action by Egypt (effective leader of the anti-Hashemite faction) to prevent supplies getting through. The Yishuv was confident enough about Abdullah's stated intention to annex only the part of Palestine allocated to the Arab state that they withdrew forces from the common border in order to deploy them elsewhere and at one point Ben-Gurion had to prevent Allon from launching an attack against Abdullah because the latter wasn't aware of the agreement between the Yishuv and Transjordan to divide Palestine between them. I wrote brief summaries of the Arab states' strategic goals a while ago, but I haven't got around to including them in the article because it's all a bit convoluted. It's not really an enjoyable subject to write about. --Ian Pitchford 12:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Page move of Isa

Moshe, sorry to be cranky, but did you read the talk page discussion? The move to "Jesus in Islam" was a controversial one carried out without agreement. Such a move should have been listed on WP:RM before being carried out, as is clearly stated on that page. Your reason for moving was a perfectly valid one, though one I don't agree with myself, but you shouldn't have done it in the absence of a discussion and agreement. Actually, from my own point of view, generally I dislike having Arabic names instead of English ones for Islamic concepts, e.g. Jannah instead of Paradise, but here I think the arguments in favour are stronger. Palmiro | Talk 18:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Disruption

I'd say report him/them if he/they keep it up, a change of attitude on his/their part is needed before we can really hope for any sort of collaboration. Have you noticed his/their editing on Amin al-Rihani and Rafik al-Hariri? It's quite ridiculous. Palmiro | Talk 16:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sexuality of Adolf Hitler

I say you place this article under AFD again. I've already placed it under AFD twice and it ended with no consensus. It makes me sick to my stomach that this article even exsists. You'll have my yes vote to delete. OSU80 22:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

:Image:MJMS-IP 25431 2.jpg

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Image:MJMS-IP 25431 2.jpg article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! --Yamla 23:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that there was no copyright on it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

True Torah Jews

the organization is officially recognized by such big groups as satmar which gives it enough legitimacy to be written about in wikipadia

Hope you understand that your are completely of case

Firstly, If satmar (with 100,000 members) recognizes them it is a prominent group and wordy of an article.

Secondly, your opinions about satmar rabbi’s dosent count in debating if an article should or shouldn’t be published.

B.T.W. please respects a rabbi with such prominence.

Bloger 19:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, an official signature of three-satmar rabbi’s does establish that satmar recognizes it

Secondly - no mater your opinion of satmar - it is one of the biggest – if not the biggest – Hasidic group so they are prominent enough regardless of the rest orthodox Jews

B.T.W. facts and groups with much less prominence than this are widely discussed all over wikipadia

Bloger 19:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please consider rereading the “Before nominating an AfD” part in AfD before doing so

I already have, and it is clear to me that this organization is elgible for nomination.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Persian Jews

Hey, I reverted your revert (!) Please don't remove a verifiable quote from a reputable source. Thanks, -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 13:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Moshe, why are you removing that sourced paragraph? That's a verifiable source. Another paragraph from the same source was added to the article by Timothy and it's still there. [1] --ManiF 13:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally trust the source, but if you think the source is suspect then please remove all the corresponding quotes. --ManiF 13:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The other quote is under "Islamic republic (after 1979)" --ManiF 14:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir.

If you wouldnt mind explaining your editing of the Iran-Iraq war page?

True Torah Jews

Hi, I posted a defense of the article True Torah Jews, I would like to ask you to be so kind and read it, and than rethink your position on deletion.

Bloger 00:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

My point is that if you examine the results you will see that they are related

Bloger 00:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

your not telling me that you’ve already looked at all results, are you ??

Bloger 00:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I’m sorry you must be mistaking they all relate to True torah Jews did you look under "JewsAgainstZionism" also??

Bloger 00:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please proof it does

Bloger 00:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I’m leaving now I’ll return later

Bloger 00:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You didn’t satisfy my concerns but thank you anyway

P.S. consider taking another opinion

Bloger 00:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

6 day war

Please take a look at the discussion, and what I actually wrote, which was no longer really than the current version (no Golan Heights), and which could easily be made shorter by eliminating useless "X-ian territory" by just plain X. By bad grammar, I meant the unrelated sentence fragment Jayjg removed from the intro. In its present state, the casus belli line is stating something unsupported in this article or elsewhere, and which is afaik universally thought to be false. Calling one side's actions reprisals implicitly answers a chicken and egg question in that side's favor. "Raids" or "Strikes" might be a shorter replacement. 4.231.209.200 00:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, will you please look at what I and what Jayjg wrote? I was not criticizing him, I was praising him for his noting bad grammar in the intro which had slipped by everyone for a while - and which I did not write. On "reprisals", you are equally stating the reverse of the academic consensus on the Samu raid at least, which led to harsh commendation even from the Security Council, including the US. One could say the same about the Golan shelling, too, nowadays.

Here is what I was about to reply on the discussion page:

On the main point - What Egypt-supported fedayeen guerillas? Oren and Shlaim (and I could provide many more references) seem to have never heard of them. Without support it is OR. Please point out a source for Egyptian support before this war. Even if there were an obscure example, which I strongly doubt, who says that it was an important cause of the war? Again, 'led" is much too strong. Oren certainly does not use such words.

In any case, in such a place with limited space, one should only use the most ironclad facts and indisputable words, which is what I was attempting to do. Amicably, 4.231.209.200 00:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, I really, really suspect you may be confusing this war with the earlier one. How would Nasser sponsor these pre 67 guerillas? - would UNEF just let them through its positions? Where are Israeli complaints about these guerillas? Why doesn't Oren mention them? How could they be an important cause of the war? Without some answers to these questions, isn't this OR or worse? I think it is just an honest confusion. I may be just ignorant of their existence; but WIkipedia needs references. Amicably.4.231.209.200 01:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to be insulting, or to be a broken record, but where is a reference? Again, Shlaim, p. 228 "The Egyptian front was even quieter than the Jordanian front. Its involvement int the war in Yemen was one reason for the care Egypt took to avoid border clashes with Israel. .. Palestinian irregulars were stopped from operating against Israel from the Gaza Strip so as not to give Israel any excuse for taking military action against Egypt." I've been watching and studying this conflict off and on for more than 24 years, and I'm still confused. :-) Amicably,4.231.209.200 01:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Trench

Thought you might be interested in this article.Timothy Usher 02:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Maryam Rajavi

I would rather you did not start an edit war in a talk page! -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If you do not understand my reason for them, then the logical way of going about it would be not reverting it, correct? My reason is that I posted it on a user's talk page, it was not intended to be posted there. Thanks for understanding -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your explanation and all I have to add is that hopefully we can get along just fine :) -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

For a second I thought that was a Freudian slip, but apparently not :( haha -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Woops

No, "zeal" or "enthusiasm" is indeed how I would translate حماس, so "ardour" sounds OK. My comment was related to the sentence I commented out about the Hebrew meaning: the bit about "Hamas leaders must have known... " seems purely speculative, while the remarks about Hebrew sources are, well, unsourced; this issue was raised a good while ago on the talk page and the only other person to comment agreed with me that unless there was some evidence (in a reliable source, obviously) for the Hebrew meaning actually having real significance, then it was essentially trivia. As a result, I deleted the material; I missed the edit that reintroduced it. Sorry if my comment was confusing. I've edited it now to make it clear that it relates to the Hebrew, not the Arabic. Palmiro | Talk 12:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon

Just to come back to a moment to your remarl that Lebanese politics is "pretty much only divided between Christian, Druze and Islamic": this is a pretty serious oversimplification. First of all, if you look at the current political line-up in Lebanon, the two main blocs, which in a mild-to-moderate over-simplification I'll refer to as the anti-Syrian and pro-Syrian blocs, are made up primarily as follows: Anti-Syrian: Future Current (Hariri pere et fils, overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim); Lebanese Forces (largely Maronite Christian); Progressive Socialist Party (Joumblatt; essentially Druze); various smaller elements including the ex-communist, non-sectarian Democratic Left. Pro-Syrian: Hezbollah (Shia Muslim); Amal (Shia Muslim); various well-known Christian and Sunni Muslim figures who are not part of the main political groups; Communist Party (secular with multi-sectarian membership); Syrian Social Nationalist Party (do.); Baath Party (do.). In addition, Michel Aoun's Free Patriotic Current is at the moment far closer to this bloc, being effectively allied with Hezbollah, although I imagine its members would reject the idea that they are "pro-Syrian". So the main parties representing two of the three Muslim groups (Sunni and Druze) are in one camp; the main parties representing the Shia in another; parties relying on the Christian vote are entirely divided between the two; and there are lots of people floating around in places you wouldn't expect to find them.

It's also worth noting that not only is the split between Sunnis, Shia and Druze in the Muslim "sector" highly significant, but Maronites, Greek Catholics, Greek Orthodox and Armenians all make up highly distinct Christian communities and differ from each other in geographical location and historical political orientation. The Lebanese nationalist/particularist tendency was always far more closely associated with the Maronites than with any of the other Christian groups, while Syrian nationalism was in Lebanon associated more with the Greek Catholics and especially Greek Orthodox than with other communities, and the Armenians have always been strongly inclined to support purely Armenian parties, most of all the Dashnak.

I hope you don't mind this little disquisition, but journalists and commentators writing about the Middle East, and notably about Lebanon and to a lesser extent Syria, have this tendency to try and break everything down to sectarian differences, or worse still to "Christians and Muslims". Since the real picture is far more complex, this tends to get my goat. ;) Palmiro | Talk 18:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm quite aware of all of the confusing alliances of Lebanese Political factions, I was even thinking of writing something about Michael Anoun allying himself against other christian anti-syrian factions. What I really meant is that most of the individual factions draw their support from one of the three religious groupings, but there as you know there are multiple groups from each religion and they often don't agree with each other and make pragmatic alliances with other factions outside their religion. I feel kinda angry at myself for writing an oversimplification which I knew not to be accurate, but I think I was thinking about it in a different way.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, so. Obviously I was preaching to the converted... Palmiro | Talk 11:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing Nick Bakay

Hi. I noticed your edit on the Nick Bakay article. I was wondering if you happened across that article by chance, or if you looked into my contribs? s»abhorreo»i 08:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? It's interesting that our paths would cross on 2 completely different subjects by chance, especially on an article as obscure as that one. Thanks for the info. s»abhorreo»i 10:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, thats makes mores sense. s»abhorreo»i 22:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge template

The accepted procedure for expressing disagreement with a merge is to give a counterargument on the destination article's talk page, not to remove the template. Seahen 11:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I mean Game of strategy → Strategy game. Seahen 11:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Strategy game focuses mainly on computer games and board wargames; however, this is a sign of missing subtopics, not of a completely different subject matter. Computer games and wargames in particular are referred to as strategy games because of their focus on strategy. Perhaps the term has both definitions, but the narrower definition at Strategy game is clearly a subset of the broader one at Game of strategy. Besides, teh two terms are doubtless used interchangeably in at least some contexts. Hence, I stand by my proposal to merge. Seahen 11:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Key for Template:Military conflict

Actually, that flag should just be removed. It was something we considered doing several months ago, but never took off, mostly for the reasons you mention: there's no way for the casual reader to figure out what in the world it means. Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 11:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it would necessarily be a good idea, simply due to the size of the template; it's already one of the biggest around, and a key would increase its size significantly. Plus, what kind of symbols would be useful (or more useful than just having text to the same effect, in any case) here? Kirill Lokshin 11:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that was discussed before and the general feeling was that it would introduce a lot of complexity for very minimal gain, since all of these things should be mentioned in the lead section of the article anyways. And I can't see any way to exclude the key automatically based on whether a symbol were used or not; it would need to be done manually, which would meen the key control parameter and the symbols would potentially get out of sync. Kirill Lokshin 11:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

South Park: Volcano

I changed the trivia section of this article about this South Park episode to reflect that it is the third episode of the series, not the second. However, you changed it back. Why? It is clear on the list of episodes on the right side that Volcano is the third episode, not to mention that it is episode 103, not 102. Are you going to change it back to third or shall I do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackdempsey187 (talk • contribs)

Of course the pilot is counted in the episode chart. It is the FIRST episode of the series! That makes Volcano the third.

If calling Arab "demographic threat" and advocating their extermination or emigration is not racism, then what is racism

Robin Hood 1212 21:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Besides that fact that you were using sources that did not support your conclusion or many of your "facts" your additions were also extremely pov.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Palestine Children's Relief Fund

Please explain your revertal of this: [2]. On the talk page. Bastique▼^parler_voir 21:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Persian Jews

The original National Post story is "no longer available" and the National Post has just confirmed that "Experts say report of badges for Jews in Iran is untrue" --ManiF 01:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

See this as well. --ManiF 01:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

European Union of Jewish Students

Hello Moshe, I have noticed that you were quite active in articles related to Judaism and this is why I am asking for some help. Somebody wants to erase European Union of Jewish Students. I would like you to give your opinion in the case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Union of Jewish Students. Thanks. Gadig 06:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks fot the help. I was very surprise last night of the amount of articles in the AfD. Thanks again. Gadig 20:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't do the same as PZFUN...

Hi: you argued that PZFUN's crusade against Jewish-related articles was not objective. That doesn't mean that your retort "Clearly notable enough" should be applied equally arbitrarily as his "speculative" (in variation). Are Biryonim notable enough? Kiddush Club? Kedushas Levi? Maybe they are, but it's certainly not clear to me. Consider revising your arguments. jnothman ^talk 13:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Please cease Wikistalking me immediately. You are suspciously making edits everywhere I have recently edited. Further, these edits are being made in areas which are outside of your typical area thus giving me serious reasons to doubt your good faith. Please cease wikistalking. You are making it very difficult to assume good faith. --Strothra 00:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

::You put the links up on your userpage. That's not wikistalking. Going into my edit history and following me aimlessly around Wikipedia is. I wouldn't consider it wikistalking if you simply edited the articles on my userpage. --Strothra 00:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats kinda a strange justification, just because the links were on my userpage it isn't wikistalking? That doesn't make any sense, you went on my userpage, saw the links I decided to add cleanup tags or nominate them for deletion with little or not justification. Furthermore all of the articles I edited were on my watchlist and I have edited them prior to you, so if anything that is more evidence of your guilt, not mine.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)