User talk:Nsaum75/Archives/2009/June

2 edits on 2 days

is no edit war. I will not back down from this one. Golan is not a part of Israel and therefor I will never accept anything else then "and the Golan" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supreme Deliciousness (talk • contribs) 07:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Golan is controlled by Israel, even the arab countries recognize that. There is a dispute over who should rightly control it, but it doesnt make any difference over who currently controls it. --Nsaum75 (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

And btw, the complete and whole and united international community considers it to be part of Syria, so stop lying! --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You need to provide some third party, reliable resources that specifically state that the Golan Heights will never be part of Israel. If it is currently controlled by Israel, be it by illegal occupation or whatnot, then it is defacto part of Israel. You cannot change what it is by saying its not. --Nsaum75 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

SHUT UP ZIONIST PIG!!!! IT IS SYRIA UNDER THE ILLEGAL OCCUPATION OF THE ZIONIST ENTITY THAT OPPRESSES PALESTINE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalwadi6 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

STOP YOUR POV EDITING! The zionist entity stole all our food just like they stole our land and are committing heinous genocide against the palestinian people!!!!!! STOP SPREADING ZIONIST PROPAGANDA NOW THANK YOU —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalwadi6 (talk • contribs)

unsigned comment

Thanks. I'm getting tired. Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Nsaum75

If you had taken a little extra time to check the source, not one word about Israel was mentioned there, the words used was "zionist" - referring to the pressure from a Zionist organization, Zionist representatives, several Zionist leaders such as Shmuel Tolkowsky and Herbert Samuel, the Zionist Advisory Committee. It talks about the 1920s when the modern "State of Israel" was not established.

Look here, notice "Zionist Movement", nothing wrong with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmuel_Tolkowsky

Look at page 113 for example, "the Zionists managed to persuade the US president.." http://books.google.com/books?id=jC9MbKNh8GUC&pg=PA1&dq=boundary+palestine --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are using direct quotes, please see wikipedia's standards regarding quoting sources. Thanks. --Nsaum75 (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It was almost identical what I wrote with only a few changes. where can I read about that? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You can find further information about directly quoting sources at WP:CITE and WP:Quote. --Nsaum75 (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC

Nick, Thank you for your comment/summation, which I think is very clearly delineated. If I am reading correctly, though, you may want to point out that in your "edits like this" example, the version on the left-hand side is the offending one you are referring to. Very best, Hertz1888 (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted and addressed. Thanks for the heads up!! --Nsaum75 (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Me and 98

has had problems with the Asmahan and Farid al Atrash articles, this was the only thing we talked about. There is no soc puppet thing going. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I made the edit

because it was non-neutral from the beginning. "the area, later known as Bashan, was inhabited by two Israelite tribes " without any mention of all the slaughtering that happened before, how is this neutral?

I brought it back. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not commenting on the neutrality of the content, but of your edit summary. --Nsaum75 (talk) 07:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

if you had nothing against the content, why did you delete it?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

because you attacked editors in your edit summary (calling everyone who edits from a standpoint different from you "Israeli lobby"), which suggested you were adding the information not in good faith. I have no problem with properly sourced content, as long as its done in good faith and doesn't lead to the end result of creating WP:UNDUE --Nsaum75 (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

TARGET PAGE

Thanks for reverting the "vandalism" on my edit!!! The history page words it so harshly. I'm glad I finally got to use that tag, patent nonsense. :D Cliffsteinman (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, firstly the page does not meet CSD G1, although it doesn't meet our inclusion standards (not enough context, just a load of figures, no sources etc.). And secondly, when a page creator blanks a page which they created, and which requires deletion, you may add {{db-g7}} to it, to tag under CSD G7. Thanks both for your work patrolling pages/reverting vandalism, just bear these things in mind in the future. Cheers :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll just explain G1, it isn't actually for pages which are patent nonsense as defined at WP:Patent nonsense. It is for pages which contain text such as "fsdhjsgfhkn" rather than pages which contain text such as "hahaha! I'm so coool!" or, as this one did, a chart of some kind. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Kingpin and I had a little conversation about the tags on my page if you want to check it out. Cliffsteinman (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)