"I am a Palestinian. Hath not a Palestinian eyes? Hath not a Palestinian hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Jew is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that -- the villainy you teach me, I will execute; and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction." Tariq Ali's take on Shakespeare in the Khaleej Times "It is not enough for the settler to delimit physically, that is to say with the help of the army and the police force, the place of the native. As if to show the totalitarian character of colonial exploitation the settler paints the native as a sort of quintessence of evil ... The native knows all this ... he knows that he is not an animal, and it is precisely at the moment he realizes his humanity that he begins to sharpen the weapons with which he will secure his victory. From Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth "A Jewish youth in the Arab countries expects from Zionism nothing other than colonialism and domination." Ya'qūb Balbūl in the 1930s, as quoted in The Arab Jews "- You can't compare them; a European Jew is something else. - How come? - Because 'Jew' just doesn't go with 'Arab', it just doesn't go. It doesn't even sound right. - Depends on your ear. - Look, I've got nothing against Arabs. I even have friends who are Arabs, but how can you say 'Arab Jew' when all the Arabs want is to destroy the Jews? - And how can you say 'European Jew' when the Europeans have already destroyed the Jews?" Sami Shalom Chetrit's "Who is a Jew and What Kind of Jew", as quoted in The Arab Jews

Archive #1 by Werdnabot /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9 /Archive 10 /Archive 11 /Archive 12

On November 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Daliyat al-Rawha', which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On November 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zayta, Hebron, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On November 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dayr Nakhkhas, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

WP:DYK 08:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#AbdulHornochsmannn Zero^talk 10:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's done, we can concentrate on the article. Can you please go to the Amazon page for Petersen's book and see if you can read page 111? (Search for "Bassa".) I'm not sure if that page is generally unavailable or I have just reached my page limit for that book. Cheers. Zero^talk 13:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Amazon has tightened up its access quite a lot. Thanks for trying. Petersen's book costs more than $400, unfortunately, but I will get it temporarily by interlibrary loan. Zero^talk 22:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If any of you want anything from the Petersen, 2002-book: just ask me. It is excellent! (and horribly expensive...) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I sent you an email about this. And yeah; I know the "mind-set"; my threshold -level for buying books is so low that it is almost invisible ;D ..However; I suspect the price will fall if you can wait a year or three. I saw that on some of the Lamu-books; great books, but used to cost 150-250 USD 3-4 years ago; now the exact same books cost less that 100 USD on abebooks. For the moment there are so many things that can be added even without the books, just on "google-view" (say; Rachel's Tomb)...I must say though: both Petersen and Sharon are better on giving their sources that Khalidi is. And Petersen gives *all* references, even if he does not use them himself. E.g., the nice Martiti-ref. in Khirbat Jiddin is something I found in Petersen, Khalidi does not mention him at all. Of course, both Petersen and Sharon had the advantage that they could build on Khalidi´s work.

Another thing: Petersen is very good at documenting where inscriptions etc. have disappeared. And that is a frightening number. At Kafr Saba, Nabi Rubin, Iraq al-Manshiyya and Mausoleum of Abu Huraira: all of them have had Mamluk inscriptions "disappear" since 1948 (I´m sure there are more; these are just some I have come across). We are talking about the destruction of 700-800 year old artifacts. It *seriously* makes me furious. Oh well, back to documenting.... cheers, Huldra (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note; if you are going to buy the Sharon-books: remember, there are 5 of them...so far! And he has just gotten to the letter "G"! I have collected the refs here. It is going to be a terrific (and expensive!) library when it is finished..

As for articles I would like to see developed; well, everything! But I would really love to see the architecture-articles I started in project-space finished; that is; the bridges, + the Abu Huraira Mausoleum.... Petersen has *a lot* about all of these three structures, but, strangely enough, nothing on Sheik Abreik. Take care, my dear, logging out for today, cheers, Huldra (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Petersen spells it Shaykh Burayk, something that I can't read on pp 215,216, also Figure 72. Amazon is good for searching. Zero^talk 05:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that´t the Atlit one; see User_talk:Ashley_kennedy3#Sheik_Bureik_near_Atlit. ..and I hope both of you got the email with the 1-page attachment? Rather primitive, I´m afraid...Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a further notification of concern over this editor's contributions. Therefore I've raised the issue at ANI. Mjroots (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for for your comments concerning the discussion on MUA. I was a little puzzled however, as to your comments concerning me. Since I started editing Wikipedia, I focused on three topics, the Gaza War, the Second Lebanon War and the Yom kippur War. I am a student of military history. I served five years in the military. The Middle East Wars (not just those involving Israel and the Arabs) are matters of great interest to me. The focus of my edits relate to technical military matters. Hence, for the Gaza War piece, I added a section captioned "Arms interdiction and the Sudan strike" as well as an additional section captioned "Post War Military Assessment." Those edits were created and researched entirely by me. With respect to the latter section, some editors made some objections and accordingly, I changed the section to address their concerns and establish consensus. I will admit that at times, I was somewhat aggressive with my edits but it was only in response to MUAs extreme provocations. I tried to reason with him but it was an impossible task. First, his poor English limited his ability to communicate effectively. Second, he seemed to enjoy provoking editors. In any event, my goal is to add content rather than revert. When there is objection to a specific edit, I will discuss that matter in the discussion and talk pages and I have been known to self-revert in the interest of consensus, even when I thought I was right. I have also had some limited interaction with Nableezy and actually, got along fairly well with him. We've had our differences and resolved them amicably. I even offered to mediate the dispute he was having with Stellar but to my embarassment, I got sidetracked by MUA. In short, I consider myself a professional who seeks only to improve the article's content with verifiable reliable sources. In Wikipedia, I am of no nationality or ethnicity. I am a wikipedian. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for responding. Yes I’ve used Israeli sources but also utilized a fair number of non-Israeli sources as well, including AP, NPR, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, The Spectator, Aviation week, New York Times, Fox news and The Daily Telegraph. I’ve also relied on Israeli sources including JPost (Israel’s leading English daily), Ynet and Haaretz. These are reliable sources and there is general consensus on this. In fact, Haaretz is a newspaper that is often times extremely critical of Israel’s policies. Concerning your claim that I push the Israeli POV, I vehemently disagree. I don’t push any POV. My only goal is to make the article concise and informative with hard facts and reliable sources. Respectfully--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On November 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Al-Azhar Mosque, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 23:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The October 2009 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Tiamut. I applaud your efforts to uphold WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP at Palestinian people. please keep me posted. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tiamut, thought you might want to know about this newly emerging situation. The page has been quiet for quite awhile, and I thought all sides had created a fairly fair-minded entry. But GHcool may be determined to ruin that.Haberstr (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Jubata ez-Zeit‎!--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tiamut, Any news? No rush, just a reminder if you've forgotten. :) I've been pretty inactive here for a while, and don't know when I'll have a chance to contribute more. --Fjmustak (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tiamut, I'd be grateful if there were any sources or stories around Boletus edulis - apparently known as khubz el a'a or "crow's bread" in Arabic... see Talk:Boletus_edulis#Alternate_names_-_how_to_delistify - all detective work apprecaited :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marhaba Tiamut! Please, whenever you have the time, could you write up a lead for the Gamal Abdel Nasser article. I'm planning on nominating it for GA status soon (and afterward FA status) and any help will be very appreciated. Cheers and keep up the great work! --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I wrote most of what's already there up and will add info on Suez and leadership of the Third World. Still, afterward I would like if you took a look at it. I will notify you when I think it's ready. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I whipped one up, but I couldn't find a way to include Bandung and/or the Non-Aligned Movement. Your advice and criticism is sought ;) --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, thank you for your criticism, I accept it. Future amendments will be supported by quotations, as per WP:RS. I hope civilised co-operation between us, both as individuals and cultures, will make the world - including its oasis named Wikipedia - better.

Sincerely, Eli. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.36.250 (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tiamut, please see that a deletion discussion has been started on the above writer. I saw that you also mentioned him recently on Talk:2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jonathan Cook. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Cook. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated with the barnstar. Can I dedicate it to the editors who have had to deal with all of this? I'm sorry I haven't responded also about the article you mentioned on my talk page, btw, I'm afraid it may be one more thing than I can juggle. If I have a moment I'll take a look. Best, Mackan79 (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for caring re: my loss. DS (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge of Arabic doesn't make me anything close to an etymologist. :) Anyway, based on the etymology, wouldn't it be appropriate to have the French word as well? I don't know what the word is, otherwise I'd put it in myself. Breein1007 (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the MoS suggests adding only the root from which the word is derived, rather than the full sequence (at least as far as I recall). Tiamut^talk 08:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It is a rather exciting discovery. And Merry Christmas to you! --Ari (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

كل سنة وإنتي طيبة nableezy - 15:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2009 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at Mohammed Daniel? I've copyedited his article, some, but now wonder whether he is notable enough for wp, or whether this is a vanity page. tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will NOT self-revert my changes. I believe both of us broke the 3RR rule, so we're both at stake in here. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 22:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Coptic identity. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looked like the edit-warring at Arab Christians had spilled into the new article. Sorry if I over-reacted. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dido --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 22:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tariqabjotu. I noticed you closed the requests made regarding edit-warring (both mine and the one filed by Lanternix against me). While I'm not going to appeal the decisions you made, I want to state for the record once again, that I view you to be an involved admin when it comes to cases involving me, or the Israeli-Palestinian editing arena. I believe I have written as much to you previously. i would appreciate it in the future if you would leave any cases in which i am involved or in which i-p issues are involved to other admins to deal with. thanks. Tiamut^talk 09:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to heed your request, in particular your request to stay out of any cases related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You have tried so often to paint me as an ideologue, based primarily, it seems, on the fact that I have disagreed with you on a few content issues. I don't take your opinion on that seriously, and I'm certainly not going to take your directive here seriously. I believe I have done a very good job of keeping my opinions on the conflict to myself and off Wikipedia, and, while you may think otherwise, I'm not going to base my editorial and administrative decisions based on your grudge. -- tariqabjotu 20:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it's particularly wise to ignore concerns raised by your fellow editors, but you and I don't agree on much, so I'm not surprised you would take the opposite view. The perception of being involved is enough for an admin to be considered involved, and admins are counselled to be sensitive to this, particularly when enforcing discretionary sanctions and the like. I remain of the opinion I expressed above. You are, of course, free to behave as you please, just as I free to express that opinion agaqin in the future, should I feel it is necessary. Tiamut^talk 22:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May your Christmas be joyous and peaceful. I meant no slight concerning the weight attached to the noun ‘Arab’ relative to its modifier, and am sorry if you may have taken my comment that way. I am well aware of the linguistic precedence relative to other occurrences on your side of the peninsula, and had already guessed your roots, but am less firmly aware of those relativities on the other side of it. As my second post indicates, I am firmly on the outside looking in, but also aware of the other view; it is now just a matter of the wording of that quirk with a quirky and AGF-less editor. On a first look, I do not particularly like the anon-suggested addition of ‘speaking’, since it makes that very noun an adjective, but I note that the ‘speaking’ is one of the defining considerations that makes the Arab League. Highest regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the good faith effort to negotiate the revert.

i'm just wondering if you would ever consider a palestinian to be jewish, or a jew to be a legitimate palestinian, or are these facts useless relics of forgotten history.

shimon peres almost drives me insane with his desire to erase the past.

the past was erased, the erasure forgotten, the lie becomes truth.

i'd love to work on improving more levantine articles, id est maccabee-era israel, syria palestina, and the arab and jewish struggles against british and american imperialism.

בינה תפארת (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bena Tiferet,

It matters little what I think, as identity is self-defined. However, since you asked, I do consider self-identified Palestinian Jews to be Palestinians (like Uri Davis) and I wish more Jews identified as Palestinian. I also consider Jews who lived in Palestine before Zionist immigration to be Palestinians (if they do of themselves).

Anytime you wish to have a hand at developing a given article, let me know. I'm always looking for editors interested in good faith collaboration to work with. Its much nicer to edit in pairs or more than alone. Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your note. Tiamut^talk 19:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this edit, when the current list for Jordan didn’t seem right. I believe it should be restored, but am unfamiliar enough to do it, although I've driven past several listed. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm afraid Palestine has already been claimed by another editor. You're welcome to choose another flag that meets the rules, or if you wait, you will be assigned one randomly before the beginning of the competition. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to get personal, but why is the word muqawama offensive (per this) to a Palesitnian who hears it used daily (on television, radio, etc.) by his own people in reference to their own goals and aspirations? I understand fromour past converssations that your Arabic is not very good, but it is a basic word for your people (attached sample video: The main Palestinian leader, Khaled Mashaal of Hamas, uses it 11 times in 5 minutes with the context of destroying Israel). To be honest, as much as I don't want to dissatisfy any editor on wikipedia, I can't avoid it since it is integral to the converstaion. I'll still make an effort though and try to not mention it where it doesn't belong.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC) more accurate 15:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its the way you use the word that I find offensive, Jaakobou. You bring it up incessantly, even when it is not relevant to a given discussion. You also tend to use it derisively, as in this comment, where you write: "there's quite a lot of Muslims who are not stooges for the muqawama rhetorics." I'd appreciate it if you would heed my request, and not the use the word when it is not being used by sources we are discussing and when it is not related to article discussions. And my Arabic is fine by the way, certainly any difficulties I have with fusha do not impede my ability to understand what the word muqawama means. I think perhaps it is you that may not understand its broader meaning, limiting as you do to simply the destruction of Israel. Tiamut^talk 15:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never do something as silly as to limit it to Israel only, that would be quite silly of me when its clear -- even by the video example -- that it has a much wider meaning. I actually disagree with Israeli middle-east expert and journalist Ehud Yaary who limited it to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in one of his articles. Regardless, I'm not fully pleased with my use of the word 'stooges', I'll give you that, and I apologize for it and will make an effort not to use it again. Still, terrorists have used the "muqawama" as an excuse for constant warfare and there's really no way to work around that. You can't say that it is irrelevant if terrorist actions were inspired by "muqawama" rhetorics and iconography. That video of Khaled Mashaal makes it quite clear that the word (used 11 times in 5 minutes) has a deep significance to their rhetorics.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for apologizing. However, my concerns about your limiting its meaning to something inherently and exclusively negative remain. For many people, "resistance" (muqawama) includes legitimate resistance in the form of non-violent actions or the targeting of military installations or personnel engaging in illegal occupation or aggressive/offensive actions. In any case, so as to avoid prolonging this discussion, which has nothing to do with article improvement, let me just say that while you are entitled to your opinion, I'd prefer if you would keep it to yourself when it is not related to article discussions. I'd also like to not hear you use the word muqawama unless it is discussed by sources that are relevant to the articles we are discussing. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 16:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be limiting the word to usage in what is deemed legitimate protest in western cultures. That is, realistically speaking, a plainly false interpretation. Certainly, in my example video, Mashaal is not talking about holding up sings and chanting 'down with Israel'. I'm not going to go into your own offensive use of language (per 'legitimate'/'illegal') since we're trying to be able to collaborate despite opposing perspectives. I'll be sure to make an effort to use the term only when relevant to the discussed issues, that I can promise.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding me, and there is little point to continuing this conversation. Thank you for your time and your pledge to avoid using that word when unnecessary. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 17:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]