User talk:Canadian Monkey

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria

Hiya - I see you've reverted Calton's re-insertion of the page. He and I had discussed it on his talk page and reached what I think was a bit of a compromise. I have reinserted the tag, but amended the wording slightly - could you confirm you're okay with how the page stands now? Thanks! Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 21:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You placed a merge tag on

I'm waiting for you replies at the talk page. Tiamut^talk 21:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I've replied there - which is the logical place to continue this discussion. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, except that I've replied to your reply, expanded the article with more reliable sources attesting to the distinction between

Palestinian archaeology, and removed the merge tag, which you now (immediately, I might add) restored, without responding (immediately) to my talk comments. What gives? Tiamut^talk 02:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

After feedback from the RfC, I've changed the article title to

Syro-Palestinian archaeology and reworked the introduction to reflect that. I'm waiting for you to agree that the merger tag can now be removed so that the article can be nominated for a DYK. Your prompt response would be appreciated, given the 5-day limit for new articles to be nominated. Tiamut^talk 14:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I think with that title it could work. The article still seems unbalanced - with a very strong emphasis on work by Palestinian archaeologists and minimal details about biblical and Israeli archeology, but that can be fixed. I'll remove the tag. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you would mention that ... I purposely avoided adding material on Biblical archaeology and Archaeology of Israel because of your request for a merger. I was trying to avoid overlap. Now that you've withdrawn the request, I will quite happily add more information, particularly on the latter which is covered only sparsely. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Monkey, this edit was very poor form on your part. Not only did you make a wholesale revert to your version of this section, but you ignored my previous request to paste any sourced material that you think should be deleted from the article on the talk page for discussion before engaging in deletions. You deleted all the information I added about the Palestinian POV and the POVs of other Israeli archaeologists, and you did so while the article was being featured on the main page, without regard to the work I did trying to incorporate the material you added with scholarly material I found that provides better context. I am deeply disappointed and have expressed that disappointment on the talk page, where I am waiting for a detailed explanation of your actions. I must say that this, combined with your attempts to undermine this article from the outset (by placing an inappropriate merge tag on its first day in existence) make it very hard for me to assume good faith. Tiamut^talk 21:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of an Arbitration case,

Good to have your input at the new archaeology article. i haven;t followed this in depth, but please keep me posted on the discussion as it progresses. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear your response to this, among other points I have raised on the talk page. Consistency in the application of criteria is important to ensuring

I have notified you on the talk that I will be reporting you to

WP:AE, unless you self-revert the changes you made to the section on "Challenges posed by the Arab-Israeli conflict" [1]. Considering my good faith effort to meet your concerns on the talk page and my removal of the information regarding the status of the Golan Heights as occupied, all of which met with no response from you, this edit is totally unacceptable. Tiamut^talk 16:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

This comment on my talk page where you refer to above comment as a "threat" is uncalled for. I am giving you a fair warning that I view your editing at that page to be disruptive. It was good of you to re-add the Golan Heights as you did in this edit just now. Clearly, that is an acknowledgement that your edit removing that information was inappropriate. I am still waiting for a response to a number of other issues on the talk page and would to like to discuss that issue with you further, since it's still not clear to me that the site is in indeed inside Israel proper and that suggestion remains at the top of that section, per your previous edit. I do understand however that you have to go to work. So I'll be expecting to hear from you later. Do be aware however, that I am very serious about this warning, and I expect that when you return to editing, you will give plenty of consideration to the unanswered issues I have raised regarding your edits on the talk page there before continuing to make edits without regard to discussion. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 17:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CM, I already explained this in detail on

Canadian Monkey, your conduct on

talk) 08:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Hi. Please try not to bite the newbies. These edits to Indira Naidoo certainly weren't "vandalism" as you said in your edit summary. FiggyBee (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were having a major vandalism problem over there. Would you mind posting a request for partial protection, I tried but did it wrong. Thanks. Saksjn (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping an eye on things. We've had several users banned in the past, but they keep popping up as new names. The only way to completely stop it would be a IP block for PCCA, where most of the edits come from. But I really don't want that to happen because that would block me as well. Saksjn (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		To thank you for your most excellent cleanup and referencing of Blueprint Negev, which now looks pretty respectable. FrankTobia (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on your revert of my edit on the talk page. I have not restored it - I'll be cautious given that this is a BLP - but I do believe "controversial" is well justified both by the source I cited and other information in the article.

I've done a great deal of work on the article over the last couple of days. It had a bad problem with quasi-plagiaristic failure to include quotation marks, and a messy coatrack-y "praise, criticism, & controversies" section. I've attempted to improve it both stylistically and content-wise. If you have an interest in the subject, perhaps you could take a look beyond the intro and let me know what else you think needs doing.

Kalkin (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are partly correct on the page, however, the circumstances made it so that I am uncertain if I wish to post any further on it's talk page at present time. I don't think you should remove 'conservative' though until you list down some basic non-conservatives who use the term on the talk page. Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to clarify, in adding that heading I was not myself intending to imply that attacks on cafes in Israel are attacks on military targets. Though I can see how it could come across that way. As I am sure you know, just as some people consider all Israeli civilians killed over the Green Line military targets due to universal conscription, so too others consider all Palestinian civilians killed over the green line potential terrorists. But perhaps just labelling this "violence" is a less loaded way to go.

I still think a solution needs to be found for the heading - a solid paragraph on violence, solely against Israeli civilians, under the heading "Background" is also misleading and needs to be balanced. If only the violence were all one-way...but it has not been, and to present it as such is to offer the public an inaccurate entry. I was expecting that those who had inserted old info on attacks on Palestinian towns would step up to the plate, but they didn't. I may have to go in and find deleted info in the archives.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I've written Eleland and Timeshifter up at AN/I. McJeff (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He actually did accuse you of being a sockpuppet, specifically one that was "previously banned from Wikiproject Palestine". I added that diff to the AN/I, as well as a bit in regards to his trying to force inclusion of that "Johnson's views are disputed" line. McJeff (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

have you read the verdict ? The court did examine the facts + heard evidence on the case. It was not just a "freedom of speech" issue. To claim what he claimed Karsenty had to pass beyond "conspiracy theory" and present a credible challenge to the "facts" as presented by France-2. France 2 tried (and failed) to prove that what it showed is the truth. Karsenty words are indeed very negative to the reputation of France-2 – the court would not allow that if it was without merit and based on facts. --Julia1987 (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to tell you -- nice job collecting material on the various mainstream media that said that Al-Dura was a hoax. Excellent.

talk) 02:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

As a result of the above-named Arbitration case, the

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've set out in talk there, I think the proposed text should be reinstated, because as far as I can see

1. The text you removed is, as far as I can see, entirely factually uncontroversial. I am at a loss to see what it is you assert to be incorrect.
2. The proposed alternative is not neutral, but is worded in a way expressed to further a particular point of view.

If there are specific issues you do identify, please cite them in talk. But for the moment, I think it's appropriate to revert it back to its state as

in what seems to me to be one admin trolling for another uninvolved admin to impose sanctions on us in connection with the above warning. [2] Note the prejudicial manner in which we are being characterised.

The notifications are indeed disturbing - the fact that, as a highly involved admin, he made them in the first place, his one-sided application of the warnings, and his choice of wording which appears to frame legitimate content disputes as behavioral issues. That said, tit-for-tat notifications aren't the way to go here; I've challenged his notifications on the appropriate page, and I've let the others know that, as an involved admin, he cannot take action against them. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Canadian Monkey,

I realise you're not an admin or anything, but you seem to be dealing with some of the same bias issues I've been seeing I thought I'd draw your attention to this just in case you hadn't seen it [3]. I'm still trying to work out how to do something about it. I spent 13 hours putting together the documentation, but now can't seem to get anyone to tell me how I get it considered and action taken. It's all rather frustrating. Anyway, keep up the good work you do, and I hope you at least find this interesting. Oboler (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Given what I added in evidence was doen at the end of the case and not directly related to it... perhaps that was the wrong place for it to be considered. In any event it is not related to the amnesty in this case (which is limited to members of the group) so it could be investiagted seperately. I just don't know how to make that happen. Thanks for reading through it all though, and for your fast reply. :) Lets hope someone takes it up. If not wikipedia will be left the poorer. Oboler (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you enable your email? Or send me one? There is something of a delicate nature I'd like to communicate with you about. No worries if you don't feel comfortable doing that.

We both can't fix that, so you fix it. Thanks Beam 02:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote beside the "capital" line clearly says that the status of Jerusalem as Israel's capital is disputed so how can you claim that saying this explicitly is "original research" or "POV"? Pretending that there is no dispute over Jerusalem's status is biased. Strongbrow (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, as I'm trying to help out as an uninvolved admin at the al-Durrah article, one of my priorities is to de-escalate the tension on the talkpage. As such, I am asking all participants to avoid use of the words "you" and "your".[4] Could you please try, even as just an intellectual exercise, to do this? I really think it would help to stabilize things, if everyone were as

Nudge #2: Please avoid comments like this, saying "you're a little confused".[5] These kinds of comments tend to just escalate things on the talkpage. Please, I'm not saying whether the statement is right or wrong, but please try to change how things are said. Thanks, Elonka 00:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been seeing your comments on various talk pages and wanted to tell you that reading them is a breath of fresh air. Finally someone with a brain in his/her head. You should be cloned. --Gilabrand (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads-up. For the record, I am not an administrator, though I'll take it as a compliment.

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's appreciated. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, since it sounds like you have other questions, feel free to contact me off-wiki. I'm pretty easy to find via IMs, do you use those? --Elonka 01:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I get a sense that you're feeling fairly frustrated with IP, but could I please ask you to try just a bit harder to discuss things? For example, here you reverted, saying "POV edits" in the edit summary,[6] but with no discussion at talk. Please, when you do something like this, especially when you're dealing with an established editor, it's very important that you try to engage in a civil discussion at the talkpage, and explain the reasoning for your reverts. Thanks, Elonka 22:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm going to take over this MedCab case and try to work this stuff out. I posted in the talk page what I would like all participants to do to start. Hopefully this all works out well, I have zero intention of leaning towards any one side in this dispute, and I only care about getting it taken care of. Wizardman 18:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this Barnstar, for consistent common sense in the face of unwarranted hostility and egregious POV-pushing. Jayjg (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, and welcome back. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recently you reverted on the article Religious segregation, but did not address the talk page concersn (before or after) doing so. I would like to ask you to next time use the talk page for discussion either before or after reverting. Such drive by reverting is neither acceptable, nor will resolve any of the issues. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CM,I would like your input regarding the section I put up on O'Loughlin. It does strike me that in such a contentious issue as this one, in particular where the heart of the issue has to do with media honesty -- that we should be able to challenge someone's material if that someone has significant bias concerns. You've read what I've written there. Do you think I have a case or is he a RS that can't be contended in this venue - ie wiki? I would appreciate your thoughts.

You might find you might find this source on Al-Dura helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a go. I saw an old Arab news itema a couple of days ago claiming to show an Israeli officer shooting Mughrabi but it was a pciture taken from an Israeli magazine which said (clearly) in hebrew "an officer removes Mughrabis flak jacket" (Efod). I suspect that is the source of the claim but i couldn't find it.

Telaviv1 (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-07-25_Negev_Bedouins. There's a medcab case, although most of it is settled. Guy0307 (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for keeping on top of things at Negev Bedouins, fixing what in some cases are my mistakes. Sorry to leave some messes around - guess that's what happens when you edit one article all through the night. The rest of the article should be solid, though. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is appropriate but I do know that so often things come up that I am interested in and I just find out late or too late, and purely by accident, as I did this one.  :

Not following on why you removed info regarding Jenin Jenin. There is room for both the general notes about it and also for it's outcome. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several items in the Al-Dura article that are sourced only by the

See my comments on the article talk page. The newspaper's format is not determinative of its acceptability as a reliable source (even The Times is a tabloid these days). -- ChrisO (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think TB is reffering to the format, but rather to "tabloid" as in "a newspaper that tends to emphasize sensational crime stories, gossip columns repeating scandalous innuendos about the personal lives of celebrities and sports stars, and other so-called "junk food news"". Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CM for your advice. I did mention it on the Al-Durrah talk page after I spoke to you as there was an opening. Ok I will try it on the RSN. I was trying to figure a way to search the RSN as I would have guessed that over the years someone would have put the question up but really couldn't find anything. It would be nice if there were some sort of 'list' of previous discussions. But I guess things change, even newspapers so maybe it isn't really appropriate....

talk) 17:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The reason it hasn't been discussed before is probably simply because nobody had previously tried to questioned the reliability of the UK's third-largest newspaper. In a US context, it's as if someone was trying to argue that the New York Times wasn't a reliable source. (We do get that kind of nonsense from time to time, usually from tiresome people who moan about "liberal bias", or would if they could spell it). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments and observations: (1) The question is not "silly", and please don't characterize other people's questions in such a derogatory manner. Even if a paper's size was a factor contributing to its reliablity (which is of course false, see the next point), at worst the question may stem from lack of knowledge with regards to circulation figures for 2nd-tier UK papers. (2) You seem to be mistaking "size" or "circulation" for reliability. To the extent the two are related, it is usually an inverse correlation - sensationalist, unreliable tabloids will have the larger circulation numbers, while high-brow, respectable and reliable papers will have smaller ones. This is nowhere clearer than in the case of the UK, where the largest paper is the

WP:RSN, not my Talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm seeking agreement on a fork on Hebron to take the Israeli/Palestine conflict part to a separate article...PS "Daily Mirror" in the UK we use the term "red top" (even when they don't have a red banner at the top, Sun, Mail, Mirror, Express etc.) to differentiate between "RS" and "tabloid". The Mirror is left leaning but not as scurrilous as the Mail and Sun, The Mirror is more to my line of Politics but I wouldn't treat it as RS. The reputation of the "Times" as a newspaper of record disappeared after Murdock took over....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Canadian Monkey. Re this message: just a suggestion: if you would like someone to stop appearing like Orcus in conversations you're involved in, I suggest avoiding mentioning their name. Over a period of time I expect this is likely to have the result you desire. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your participation at my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. Cirt (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle East Textbooks/Invitation Michael Safyan ^(talk) 18:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CanadianMonkey. You need undeniable, reliable, and unbiased sources that say that the US airlift was in reaction to the Soviet one. Rabinovich is not such a source, especially as Rabinovich is not neutral. I have sources that show that the US airlift was due to Israeli losses on the field: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/octwar-21a.pdf and http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/octwar-21b.pdf. At any rate, it is absurd to say that the US airlift tried to equal the efforts of the Soviet airlift. The Soviets didn't airlift 22,000 tons of materiel to Egypt and Syria! Quite the opposite: the Soviets probably tried to equal the American airlift. Furthermore, the Soviets didn't replace Egypt, or Syria's losses, while the American one has replaced Israel's losses, and to a great extent. I have not seen any Egyptian or Syrian sources that say that the Soviet airlift replenished losses, and I have not seen reliable unbiased statistics anywhere concerning the size of the Soviet airlift. While the Soviet airlift must be mentioned in the article, it is in no way comparable to the American airlift, and in the same way the American airlift was not in answer to the Soviet airlift. I will await your answer before adjusting the article. Sherif9282 (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion belongs on the article's Talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Administrative detention, 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 .

BorgQueen (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice expansion. Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How perspicacious of you did you drop a note to Nocal100 on the subject of edit warring on Banias?..or maybe you'd like to revert a vandal; which is within the rules or were you thinking otherwise...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You had already placed a warning on the Talk page of Nocal100 - [7] - so what is the point of placing another warning? Please read

WP:VANDALISM - what you are doing is clearly not within the scope of reverting vandalism. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Canadian Monkey, it's bad enough to be edit-warring at an article, but it's even worse when you are reverting without participating in the discussions at that article's talkpage. As near as I can tell, you haven't posted anything there in weeks. I therefore strongly encourage you to engage in discussions, especially at Talk:Israeli settlement#Samaria poll, before performing any other reverts. Thanks, --Elonka 21:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CM, hi, as I'm looking through your edits at Israeli settlement, I'm seeing a dozen reverts to put the word Samaria into the lead, but no other substantive work. Please, can you stop reverting, and just continue to engage in discussion at the talkpage? I've looked through the discussions thus far, and though there doesn't appear to be a clear consensus either way, the general feeling seems to be leaning towards not including the word in the lead. So until there is a clear consensus for the change, please stop with the reverts on this one thing? You are still welcome to make other changes to the article, and to continue to engage at the talkpage of course. Hopefully with additional opinions from uninvolved editors, we'll be able to find a proper consensus, and ensure long-lasting changes to the article. Thanks, --Elonka 19:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CM, I see that you keep trying to remove the word "biblical" from the "Judea and Samaria" definition.[8] However, the sources do seem to support this definition. You may wish to try further re-wording the definition, but please stop trying to remove the biblical term. Thanks, --Elonka 19:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've reworded it, keeping the 'biblical' . Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the new edit-warring? --Elonka 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

have you asked that of User:Meteromaker, seeing as this is a change he has been edit warring into the article against consensus since at least Novemebr 14? Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Monkey, you have been warned before about edit-warring on an article without participating in discussion at that article's talkpage. Even worse, on this one you were repeatedly reverting and posting edit summaries where you were attacking the other editor for not discussing, even though you weren't putting anything on the talkpage either. This type of behavior is extremely disruptive. --Elonka 01:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Herbert_Samuel,_1st_Viscount_Samuel#Reference_to_H.S..27s_heritage.2Freligion_in_opening_section, will appreciate your reply and/or reverting of your edit in question. Thank You. DBWikis (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you have warnings for

On further inspection, i mis-read the revert and now can see you merely added in reprisals etc (not that justifys the attack) apologies anyway. Will add in.--Rockybiggs (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this article - it has been heavily edited by one editor.----

Hey, can you do me a favor and email me?

Just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't trying to change the bit about dictatorship- I just changed the one spelling so it's English! I have no comment about dictators... KillerKat (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my user account. My younger brother uses it. Thanks Sherif9282 (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you want Canadian Monkey; run an investigation, block the account, delete it, burn it, I couldn't care less. I can't and don't have to explain each and every one of brother's rather daft actions on the Wikipedia. Heck, I haven't contributed to 332 articles and wasn't planning to write about the German Invasion at Britian and Egypt at the 20th century (what is that anyway?!?!). I've said it before, and I'll say it again, this account is not a sock puppet in use by me, believe it or not. Sherif9282 (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain, with references, why you believe this refers only to religious terrorism, and why you have removed all the referenced material I added to this article, leaving only unsourced pov material. If you read the talk page, you would discover that there is no source for the idea that "Jewish Terrorism" is restricted to Religion, except unsupported arguemnts on the the talk page. Wikipedia deserved better that that!93.96.148.42 (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. An edit of yours is being discussed on two threads in the talk page. Since you've already contributed to the discussion, could you explain why you removed the information and the ref? it is relevant for the Zionist political violence issue. Thanks, Nudve (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a reliable source that identifies the existence of "Jewish religious terrorism". Currently the entire article appears to be Original Research. Can you explain why the groups listed cannot be described as

Rather unsurprisingly, ChrisO decided that the MeteorMaker shouldn't be sanctioned for violating his parole, and PhilKnight showed up to close the thread to that effect. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 25.02.2009 09:32

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Canadian Monkey.

In the J+S ArbComm case, you have made this allegation :

None of these warnings and sanctions seemed to have helped, and the latest ban by Elonka was repeatedly violated by User:MeteorMaker

That claim appears to be a rather egregious case of

Seeing that you have posted recently, I again urge you to remove your false claim that I have violated a ban. Making willfully false claims is a very clear violation of

Just checking: You haven't responded yet, have you had time to read this? MeteorMaker (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your query, and provided diffs to support my position. I have nothing to add at this point, and would appreciate it if you stopped hounding me. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From your reply, I understand you have not bothered to read the refutals of your demonstrably false claims. Your refusal to acknowledge and correct your mistake will be used as evidence of your willful attempt to mislead other editors, admins, and ArbCom members with libelous claims. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the reply, and I disagree that you have refuted any of my claims. You've already posted your allegations in the ArbCom case, we'll let the Arbs rule on this. Now, please stop hounding me. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In August you engaged in a debate on the page "a land without a people for a people without a land" over the appropriateness of the tags that have been hung on it like a Christmas tree. I came recently to the page, and improved it in ways that, I believed met the objections of the tagger. I am not saying that thepage is perfect, only that it is now so heavily sourced from multiple, reliable scholars, that the tags no longer apply. There is a single, adamant editor involved. I recently copied your old artuments, all excellent, to the bottom of the discussion. It would take a few minutes only for you to revisit the issue and arguments. thank you.Historicist (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If you have a minute, I would appreciate it if you could make another brief visit to A land without a people for a people without a land.Historicist (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So… I had an idea (or rather, cribbed an idea from Nishidani). What if, instead of topic-banning some of the most useful, articulate, and involved editors in the IP area (on both sides) for a year, you all got together and worked on

]

DYK for Eyal Eisenberg

On Eyal Eisenberg, 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 .

Shubinator (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page. If you feel I have not done so to your satisfaction, please join the discussion rather than drive-by tagging, as you did here [9]. Tiamut^talk 18:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't declare it unilaterally resolved. I answered the concerns raised, after there was no further response, I removed the tag. It was replaced again. I answered all the concerns made again in detail. No one responded. Nableezy came by and removed the tag noting that the arguments amounted to

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you have something substantive to add, I'd be happy to hear it. It would be a nice change from your reverting in of weasal words without discussion earlier on in the article's development. Tiamut^talk 18:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

That's not a personal attack. You did revert weasal words like "speculates" and "alleges" into the article twice. And you did it without discussion. Accurately describing what you do is not a personal attacks. I would note too, in your last edit you use "claims" instead of "writes". Please don't do that. Let the reader decide for themselves. Tiamut^talk 18:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

After six months, these editors may individually ask the Arbitration Committee to lift their editing restrictions after demonstrating commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and ability to work constructively with other editors. However, restrictions may be temporarily suspended for the exclusive purpose of participating in the discussion of draft guidelines for this area.

In the meantime, the community is strongly urged to pursue current discussions to come to a definitive consensus on the preferred current and historical names of the region that is the source of conflict in this case. Note that this must be consistent with current Wikipedia guidelines on

For the Arbitration Committee, hmwithτ 17:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Please see that I have opened a request here, if you would like to comment. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]