User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

• Archive of Previous Username 23 October 2005- 31 January 2006
• Archive 1 6 November 2005- 16 March 2006
• Archive 2 18 March 2006- 15 April 2006
• Archive 3 15 April 2006- 3 May 2006
• Archive 4 3 May 2006- 29 May 2006
• Archive 5 29 May 2006- 3 June 2006
• Archive 6 3 June 2006- 12 July 2006
• Archive 7 14 July 2006- 5 November 2006

All of my additions to the article are drawn from the federation of american scientist and have been published in one form or another a number of times, none of them come from my intellect in the least, none of this would be called 'original' by any stretch of the imagination. If you believe any of the sources are inaccurate or biased , i will rework them, but clearly you have so far not made the case for that other than throwing around the label OR as if that were an argument for or against the addition.

The development section of the Israel and weapons of mass destruction article doesn't stand on one leg, i provide more than a dozen ref. to back up every statement. If you feel any of them are biased , drop me a line at my page and i will use an alternate source.

Yes, go for it, by all means. Actually, I originally objected to the whole article on the grounds that there was no evidence given that it's used as a term in political science. There seem to be a couple of citations now but I can't access all of them. It's still not great. In any case, a list would almost certainly be regularly filled up with states different editors objected to for nationalistic or ideological views, which even if they were able to find citations for it - as might well be the case - still wouldn't make a good article.

And anyway, is there such a thing as a non-artificial state? Aren't all states human creations anyway? How can you really say that France is more "natural" than Iraq? (And while I'm ranting, is there any reason for terming Robert Fisk a "geopolitical critic", whatever that is, other than the obvoius one of making him sound like a respectable source for an article about a type of state?) Palmiro | Talk 18:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, all those are interesting points, but is this article a valid and useful framework in which to discuss them? The articles on state, nationalism and related topics might be more the place for them. I've put in a 'weak delete' vote on the AFD - after all we do have a lot of articles on ideas at least as vague as this and on various terms of political abuse, so purely on the grounds of consistency I can see why people would argue to keep it. I'd encourage you to have your say there too, either way.

I would say in an off-the-top-of-my-head response to your remarks about nationalism, that nationalism is a force that can certainly result in the creation of states, and that can be used to strengthen existing states. But states existed before nationalism, and indeed the concept of an artificial state as it appears in some of the examples given seems like it may amount largely to a failure to recognise that nationalism is not the unique and natural basis for the establishment of states. No doubt we could discuss this at length, but unfortunately I have a pressing deadline - which of course is why I'm spending time on Wikipedia. When it's time to procrastinate, nothing beats the internet! Palmiro | Talk 00:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article in the first place last winter one night. It is a difficult topic and poorly defined even in the literature, that is why I left it in that horrible state with all the tags. --Deodar 18:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time to go I think. I couldn't make it into a proper article anyways, and I put in a good effort. I also let the article sit for almost a year in a bad state and no one really was able to fix it either. --Deodar 20:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: [1]. I'll stay out of it now, you guys can do what you want. --Deodar 02:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not a vote, so the raw numbers don't guarantee a given outcome. There really weren't any arguments that showed the site actually met WP:WEB's criteria of multiple non-trivial published works. Alexa rank doesn't at all mean we'll have reliable sources to use in writing an article. --W.marsh 19:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build and maintain an extensive and neutral database of Israel related articles on Wikipedia. To join, simply add your name to the members section of WikiProject Israel.

--GHcool 07:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, Moshe, but do not agree that it is a format that is counterproductive. When I use it, I try my best to back up "The Reality" with evidence either with links to other relevent Wikipedia articles or from outside sources. Also, I never use this format on a legitimate opinion or to challenge a true fact (and if I have unknowingly, I appologize). I try my best to only use the format on gross exagerations or outright lies (such as "the Zionist regime [massacred] Palestinians by the thousand [sic]") or purposeful attempts to delegitimize the State of Israel and apply a double standard on its government, its media, and its citizens (such as "I believe the integrity of the encyclopedia is severely compromised by references to Israeli government web-sites"). I admit that the format is, in a way, obnoxious, but I'm sure we can agree that reckless disreguard for the truth is much more dishonorable than being obnoxious (especially in the context of editing an "encyclopedia"). The format also seems to work. Rather than acting defensive, they usually backpeddle just enough so that they can try to save face without looking too foolish. If after reading what I said above you still disagree with this method of argument, I'm happy to listen to ideas as to how I can improve the style so that all of the things about it that work still work, but maybe sounds less obnoxious. --GHcool 03:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please join discussion. --Aminz 11:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get some feedback on the meaning of this term at Talk:Miscarriage of justice and at Category:Wrongful convictions. My understanding has always been that wrongful convictions are matters of fact, not just of opinion. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK, maybe fact isn't the right word; after all, they call judicial rulings "opinions" too. But it seems to be that the judicial opinion is the one that counts. We can't let the mobile vulgar decide who is and who is not guilty or who has been wrongly convicted versus who has been wrongly not convicted; Leo Frank's lynching is clearly the end result of such a sloppy idea of justice. IANAL, and I haven't heard anything back on my queries. I'm going to give it some time and either limit the scope of Category:Wrongful convictions myself, or do an RfC on it; there should probably be a Category:Miscarriage of justice with wrongful convictions as a sub-category and not the other way around. Most convicts I have known say they were wrongly convicted, that doesn't make it encyclopedic. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even Kenneth Lay got his conviction vacated after he died. But Leo Frank, unlike Randall Dale Adams, exhausted all his appeals, and first the Georgia Supreme Court and then the US Supreme Court upheld his conviction. Somewhere in a dusty court basement in Georgia there is a file folder with his name on it that reads "convicted murderer." I'd be perfectly happy if the Governor of Georgia woke up tomorrow, got out a bic pen, and took thirty seconds to grant him a full posthumous pardon, were such a thing possible. It's a miscarriage of justice; look at conviction. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just reverted my edit to this article citing OR.[2] I find that very interesting considering that the version you reverted to contains even more OR. At least the good thing about my version was that it did not contain any controversial statements? The wording also seems better, but that's just my opinion. Taxico 09:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you never know :) Personally I think it's okay to replace an original research with a better one. But as a matter of courtesy I let you keep this older version until I do some research. See you around :) Taxico 10:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe, just so you know, there is a re-evaluation of the references which (claim to) back up the statement in Jews for Jesus that "no Jewish organizations or denominations therefore consider it possible to profess Judaism and also believe in the divinity of Jesus.". That re-evaluation is why the 'fact' tags were added. DJ Clayworth 17:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe, the facts and dubious tags are not disruptive. They are constructive. I want debate on the issue. So far a WP:3 has concluded as I - that the statement I dispute in JfJ, does in fact need a qualifier. See Talk:Jews for Jesus in the "3O:Reply" section. Please don't revert legitimate tags that are in use by the Wikipedia community at large to resolve a legitimate dispute. Come, lets work together to improve articles. Let's not ignore problems. inigmatus 06:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reguarding your edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scram_cannon&curid=1557819&diff=90864248&oldid=79238445

Ram accelerators (the basis for the SCRAM cannon), railguns, and light gas guns (and of course rockets) have all been built and tested; while they may not be viable weapons systems with current technology, they certainly do exist and have been shown to be capable of velocities in excess of firearms, which are limited by the speed of compression waves in the propellant gas. I consider this beyond the definition of "hypothetical", as I consider that to be the stage before a proof of concept model, which all these systems have reached or exceeded. I'm going to revert the edit for now; if you disagree with my change, ping me on Talk:Scram cannon and we can try to come to a compromise. scot 16:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Request for Arbitration for the Jews for Jesus article. Please provide your inputs.ParadoxTom 03:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus was a Jew. Exactly when Christians stopped being Jews is the real question.

Can you come up with a more appropriate heading? Otherwise it looks as if there was a direct nazi link to St. Chrysostom.Yukirat 09:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way it reads, it sounds like he was directly involved in "fostering" anti-semitism as his works were used as per the paragraph. He lived centuries before, can you help with another heading?Yukirat 09:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came to that article with fresh eyes, and the heading makes it seems as if St. Chrysotom was invovled in "fostering" anti-semitism as per and included with the machinations of those that used his writing for their purposes. There is no real link, he was not involved in their fostering, he lived over 1500 years before. Do you see my point? Let's come up with a better heading, that's all.Yukirat 09:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was aware that was the third reversion. BYT 23:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Timeshifter 06:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC). I am copying my replies to your comment on my user talk page. Your comment is first, followed by my replies:[reply]

Hello Timeshifter, I'm just letting you know that you are in danger of violating the WP:3RR policy on Taba summit. If you revert one more time you could be blocked from editing wikipedia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert. Your edit comment after deleting a whole section of a wikipedia page was "rv OR [original research], we can not add controversial and unsourced material because you seem to think it is 'common knowledge')". By the way that section was written by several people, not just me. I first deleted the more controversial material since it was already covered by another wikipedia page. I added "citation needed" tags. You didn't like that and insisted on deleting the remaining part of that section. So I added the reference links you requested. I added quotes, too. So I don't see how you can claim original research now. See the revision difference between when you requested sourced material, and my addition of it. You then deleted the requested sourced material that you asked for. You just blanked that whole section in violation of the wikipedia policy on vandalism: WP:VANDAL. See talk page at Taba summit before blanking again. --Timeshifter 06:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your later edit comment was: "removing pov, your sources do not support your conclusion so this is still OR." There was no conclusion made after I added the sourced material. The section then consisted only of quotes with sources. But to further clarify I just added this sentence to the top of that section: "The issue of who ended the negotiations is disputed. There is no consensus. Here are some perspectives:" Feel free to add more perspectives. --Timeshifter 07:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding citation requested tags does not give a green light to add original research. Furthermore, the references you added did not support the larger argument of the section, when you use references to prove a novel conclusion it is considered original research. It is a difficult policy to understand, I also had a lot of trouble with it when I first began editing wikipedia. Also, please do not accuse others of vandalism when it is obvious that it is not the case.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you make your case on the talk page first next time before deleting a whole section of a wikipedia page. Waiting at least a day or 2 after posting on the talk page will solve a lot of problems. There was no conclusion made after I deleted all the previous info in that section, and then only put quotes with references for them. Show me the conclusions in my last revision. BlueDome also asked the same thing on the talk page: "The section starts with 'The issue of who ended the negotiations is disputed. There is no consensus. Here are some perspectives:' I do not see other conclusions, what are you referring to?"

Here is a revision difference showing the revised section "Who ended the peace negotiations?" I had deleted all that was there previously. So there was nothing there from when you first deleted the whole section. You did not delete the revised section. Thanks. But Amoruso did. 3 times in 24 hours. --Timeshifter 22:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You blanked that completely new revised section a couple times on December 8, 2006. I suggested a possible solution on December 9. An official "request for comment" was made on December 10. Please check out the latest discussion on the talk page. --Timeshifter 08:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i need your help on the Safiyya bint Huayayy article in wikipedia. She was a Jewish girl from the banu naddir tribe. Banu naddir where killed by mohammad and the women where taken as concubines. An editor there is making war about me including the word concubine in. Plz read the talk page, karl is neatral, and wants more editors to be involved. Thanks

FrummerThanThou 14:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were life that simple.

And there was nothing simple about inter-tribal relations in Arabia.

It is curious how both sides of the current Jewish/Muslim controversy feel it necessary to misrepresent what happened to real people so long ago.

It has been agreed by those who have come in from a request for comment that it does indeed constitute unacceptable editorializing to present as fact that JfJ is not a Jewish organization (or of course that they are). Given this, I am attempting to properly frame the debate. I would ask that if you revert, you would at least be courteous enough to provide an explanation on the article's talk page or my own. Thank you. Seraphimblade 10:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, please note that it is you who are in danger of violating the 3RR-the initial change does not count as a "revert", it is simply an edit. However, you may wish to check the talk page yourself-an RfC has been filed, and has come to rough consensus that mention of the "incompatibility" as fact rather than opinion is unacceptable editorializing. I will discuss this specific edit there as well. Alternatively, perhaps the section could go under the "criticism" header, to make clear that this is, while a majority opinion, an opinion? Seraphimblade 16:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe, please do not engage in revert warring. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.248.128.81 (talk • contribs).

Would like to state that I consider it rather underhanded that, despite you and I having discussed 3RR at length, you did not notify me you had filed a report. I realize it was Jayjg who said he would report "if it occurred again", which it did not. However, knowing this had been stated you should have notified me. Luckily, another user notified me and I've had a chance to file objections. Seraphimblade 03:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "revert warring" comment is an unsigned one from an anonymous user, and was not mine. I can understand why it appears this way though-I've repeatedly asked for suggestions, for discussion, and been repeatedly ignored. Do you intend to post responses to my questions regarding the article? (The comment did look like it was mine-I did a bit of a double-take on it myself, I knew I hadn't placed that! Don't blame you a bit for thinking so though, just wanted to clarify.) Seraphimblade 03:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-checking my last edit of Finger (gesture), about archers and knights, I realize that I have also reverted your deletion of Bush's image. This was not intentional (I simply went back to an earlier version without the long, useless paragraph about Agincourt), but I'd acually rather have that photo in the article. The picture is not about politics, it is just a photo of a real, and well-known, person doing the gesture spontaneously, and not staging it as if you or I decided to create an image for the article.

If it is worth discussing it, we can perhaps move the discussion on the article Talk page.

Greetings! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goochelaar (talk • contribs) 10:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Ooops! Sorry for not having signed! (But of course my edits in the finger article are signed.) Goochelaar 10:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy does apply to all pages on Wikipedia, including Talk pages. That's what the lead of WP:BLP now says. Why not take the high road and remove the five words -- it won't make a difference to the substance of the discussion at all. Take care, Kla'quot 07:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe, no worries. I've seen you around the project for a long time and I know you're a straight shooter (though, c'mon, calling him a "douche" was probaby not necessary). The only conceivable objection on its face that I could think of would be that you own the website; barring that, it seems appropriate to incude the link. I think that User:Jack Bethune was just trying (perhaps too ardently) to uphold the "rules," and didn't realize that Wikipedia guidelines in general are flexible, and that this one in particular says that commercial links should generally be avoided but makes no claim of universality on this point. I'll comment more on the grosses messer talk page. JDoorjam Talk 06:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You criticized the Political Cooperative page content because it was stated as an "alternative to the 2 major parties dominating U.S. politics". I am very interested in knowing why you have a problem with that? Pco 21:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can anyone analyze the page if you keep deleting the content? Pco 01:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Are you afraid someone might vote for it? Pco 01:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What in Gods name are you talking about? You cannot add unsourced material just because there is an ongoing afd and I have no idea why you would think you would be able to.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert me there? Please explain on Talk:Neturei Karta. --217.132.24.152 11:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Israel had three elections using two voting slips - one for PM, and one for the political party, for the Knesset. The elections were held in 1996 (Netanyahu won), 1999 (Barak) and 2001, which were only for the PM, as the Knesset was not dispersed, and were won by Sharon. The direct elections law was eventually repelled in March 2001, and the following elections (2003, 2006) were only for the political parties.

Before that law, and today, the leader of the largest party gets the chance to assemble a coalition, and be the PM. If he fails to do so for a certain time period (something like a month, or 45 days), the President can give the task to someone else. In the end, the PM will just be the person who can get a majority of the Knesset to support him, and it's practically always the leader of the largest party. okedem 17:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind explaining the basis for your revert? The new version truly seems more biased even than the last. You may have considered my posts ridiculous, but you can't say people were exactly helpful in creating a more appropriate discussion. In any case, don't you think the reference to the Land of Israel adequately clues people into where the theory came from? So why include what looks very much like a single fact intended to bolster the theory? Mackan79 03:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for giving me support at my rfa. I was flattered by your comments.--Berig 11:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with you removing the photo I added of splenic necrosis, because the encyclopedic value of it in connection with that article is debatable. In addition to that, I realize the photo was a little graphic and may not be suitable to everyone's taste. However, I do want to clarify that the photo was not from a necropsy - it was from a live dog that had a splenectomy performed during bloat surgery. Even if it had been a necropsy photo, I don't think it would be inappropriate to have it on Wikipedia on a more appropriate page, such as splenic necrosis. Sometimes it's necessary to have such a photo to properly illustrate a disease. The fact that it came from a dog someone loves is immaterial - half the photographs in veterinary and medical textbooks would have to be eliminated if unpleasant portrayal of someone's loved one was the standard. Again, I don't disagree with removing the image based on its relevance to the bloat article, but I do disagree with the reason you gave for removing it. I just wanted to let you know how I feel. --Joelmills 03:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure on the long johns part. For example: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=461960 --The Krunk 04:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting on my recent RfA, which failed. Any additional advice you could offer for improvement would be much appreciated! Seraphimblade 15:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland Rance -- Morton devonshire 00:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moshe: Shouldn't the Zionism and racism article be renamed to Allegations of Zionism and racism as with Allegations of Israeli apartheid? What are your thoughts? IZAK 02:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Instead of deletion, the best option would appear to be for you to request that the account be renamed to something else. Just post a request while logged in to that account on the forum I linked. Once the account is renamed, all the edits made from it will be reassigned to the new username, then you can move the user page and the talk page to the new username and ask that the residual redirect pages be deleted. Redux 14:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I just came here to tell you the same. We can't really rename accounts on requests from other accounts, for fairly obvious security reasons. We can't in any event "delete" accounts, or change (for example) your signature in old revisions of talk pages. -- Pakaran 00:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comment about me in the talk page. If you have a problem with me, feel free to contact me directly via email or, if you prefer, on here. Personally, I don't feel that you added anything to the discussion with that comment. If IZAK has a problem, he can discuss it with me. This is not your business. MetsFan76 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe, I am not attempting to enforce rules. I am attempting to improve an article, only to have you revert me twice now in blatant violation of WP:Revert. Amazingly, you do so while trying to tell me the proper way to edit. So what, you want to break rules, and you want to give me advice, but you don't want me to point out that your reversions are in continuing violation of policy? Please do not revert me again without explanation.Mackan79 13:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think now? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Way Forward MPS 18:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please change your vote on the AFD page. I can't do that for you. example code is delete Keep. I am trying to shore up the ugly AFD box that may be keeping people from editing the article. MPS 19:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you decided to change my use of "prodigy" for the very subjective "stars" in Orange County (film). Perhaps you think I don't understand the actual definition of "prodigy:" a highly talented child or youth. As it is used in relation to the fact they are the offspring of well known film director/actors it fits more aptly than "stars." And hence I reverted. RoyBatty42 22:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should not take my objections personally. I expect much of what I write on wiki to be rewritten. However, I expect there to be a logical reason why. Your new change fails this test because only Hanks and Fisk are actors, whereas Kasdan is the film's director and his father is a director so "actors" doesn't cut it. RoyBatty42 00:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just curious to get your take on re-merging Religious Antisemitism with Anti-Judaism, but under the title of Anti-Judaism. The issue is being discussed on Talk:Religious antisemitism currently. Thanks, Mackan79 22:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in my RfA. I've felt it best to withdraw on this occasion and think about the good advice I received. Thanks again, Jakew 19:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should have signed the section "Other users who endorse this summary" rather than "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". Cheers, --Aminz 22:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see new section on talk page of new antisemitism. Please give some guidance on your recent reverts Nlsanand 00:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, could you explain your objection to the clarification re: the EUMC? I can see if you have a problem with the second portion, but I can't possibly see how you object to the first part of the edit. In any case, it seems very clear that the explanation needs to be there, when the definition provides 5 examples and one counter-example. Can you explain why we leave off the counter-example? It seems clear the EUMC thought it was relevant. Note that there was a discussion on the talk page. In any case, please note that there are two different changes, one related to the addition, and one related to simply correcting the text, which was incorrect. If there's a way you'd prefer the presentment of either, I'd be very open to your suggestion. (One option would be to clarify in the first paragraph, "...while clarifying that 'normal criticism of Israel isn't antisemitism, etc.,' the EUMC provided five examples:...") Thanks, Mackan79 21:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is interesting about it being seen as a product of religious dogma is that the Muslim Turks themselves claimed to have seen the apparition. I think the current wording is fine, as people can make their own judgements on the authenticity of the accounts; but I do think the description of the actual battle needs to be expanded to give some balance. --Grimhelm 20:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said it should not be mentioned in the main body, but in a seperate section. All I did was do what you had asked, placing it under "traditions" after the section on the outcome of the battle itself. And again, all it says it that this was the account from contempory reports, perhaps the thing that stands out the most about the siege. The only thing that would hurt the credibility of the article would be to leave out such an important aspect of the event. --Grimhelm 08:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about referring to the accounts as "legends", because the chroniclers were writing histories of contempory events, and indeed are the chief historical sources for the battles. "Traditions" is probably slightly better in this context. Also (although it was probably off-the-cuff), "appearance of an apparition" is rather redundant. At the moment I take it that you are mainly interested in the wording of the lead, in which case the most recent version of that merely said it was attributed to an intercession (which should actually have been intervention), and then the nature of that claim is expounded on in the final section. Stating the apparition as "miraculous" should make the distinction you seem to be aiming for.

How about "Traditional accounts, starting with contempory Byzantine and Ottoman reports, attributed the victory to an apparition of the Theotokos…" It seems the two sides were evenly matched technologically, and that it was reversal of moral that put the attackers to flight. --Grimhelm 17:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Contempory tradition" probably isn't that good either, because it downplays the importance of the primary sources for the battle. -- Grimhelm 18:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

asalamualikum. there is nothing to be religious here, but if you say that 50,000 casualties against muslims only 450 casualties are my own creation then go read this refference al-waqdi page 42. here it is mentioned. also mentioned in gibbons book down fall of the holy roman empire. next time before edting the infobox think again that if you know the real history of battle of ajnadayn or not ? prove my refference wrong historically ! i will then never mention these casualties again. thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mohammad adil (talk • contribs) 06:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Moshe; can you please explain these two edits? I'm not quite sure why you did this page move or this edit. The last edit had the edit summary "insering detail" (sic). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Salam, Shalom , ...

Please participate in our discussion talk:Battle of Thermopylae#citation needed.Sa.vakilian(t-c)--03:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that I have not always been on my best behavior and I am really trying to change. Thanks for calling it to my attention. I wonder if you have me confused with someone else on the knowledge thing. I know it upset Virgil when I inappropriately brought up credentials. I do so here just to make sure you are thinking of the right guy.

1) I have contributed to some articles on revival. I have articles published in an encyclopedia on this topic.

2) I have made some changes to the entries on New Thought and Creationism on the Christian movements article. I have studied these thoroughly.

3) I have contributed a lot to the emerging church movement article. I have had an article published on this topic and am now writing a book at the request of a Christian publisher on postmodernism and the church (will not address EC directly)

4) I think I have not contributed on anything I am ignorant about.

5) I do have several university degrees.

Anyway, I just thought you might have me confused with someone else. I would ask you, since you called me on the carpet to read the full account of the dialog between me, Virgil, and Frank. I think you may be very surprised by what you find on the discussion page and the user pages. Early on I did mix it up a little with Virgil but I have repeatedly apologized and repented of my ways. If you can think of any other specifics I need to change please let me know. I want to be a good citizen of Wikipedia and I wish nothing but good to Virgil. I'm sorry this thing got out of hand.

Thanks again for being bold enough to correct me. I need it.Will3935 06:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You had me worried I was worse than I thought (and that is bad enough)!! I hope you don't mind if I show Virgil your retraction. I think we might end up good friends. Who knows?Will3935 07:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for pointing that out. I've corrected the problem. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See {{POW}} and the associated talk page; suffice it to say that we'd love a more obvious symbol, but the nice ones don't render properly in certain broken browsers. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 19:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&diff=118494753&oldid=118494279 Zeq 12:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did it, but I'm not sure why you couldn't do it... Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, anyone can, unless it's protected. No problem, though. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comparison people were thinking of was macromolecules such as diamonds or polymers that are visible to the naked eye. TimVickers 14:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just made an edit on the Indochina page which elaborated/edited on an edit you made, so I thought it'd only be polite if I alerted you in case you had any objections. Oh, and I made it for clarification on my country. Thanks! Turnwantsor 23:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg/Archive 3. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I first went to Europe in 1969 I stayed with a friends( he was of Prussian & Austrian background!!) family in Austria, the real old folks mentioned 1918 when they had only apples to eat, they went to the country to pick apples to survive. We were given a typical meal of 1918, apple pancakes, apple sauce and some real hard apple cider to wash it down.--Woogie10w 02:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you are a contributor to the France and weapons of mass destruction article. I proposed that the Force de frappe article could be merged into this article, if you could tell us your point of view on that matter that could be really appreciated. -- Esurnir 15:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI: that place is one big scam. First, it doesn't have any original content - all their reviews and screenshots are stolen from others.

Second, all their downloader actually does is stealing other sites' bandwidth.

Third, they charge you, so it isn't really free either.

--The Fifth Horseman 12:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the spirited note about animal acceleration. Jesting aside, that is very interesting about size and speed. In a 100-meter dash between a cheetah and a mosquito, I still say smart money goes on the cheetah.

I wonder how fast an elephant genetically crossed with a mosquito could accelerate mid-air.--G-Dett 03:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond, California id like to make a request for comment in the 80 image section please. Cholga saYS THANKS!^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 01:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I would let you know that the article you began on Israeli professional poker player Rafi Amit has been updated, He just won his second World Series of Poker Bracelet in the $1,000 Deuce to Seven Triple Draw Lowball with rebuys. There Is not much known about him if you know any thing else please let me know, thank you. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 08:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg. I read in your article that the ships were destroyed by the retreating German Wehrmacht. Could you give a reliable source for this? I tried to find some Literature or source in the net but i failed. Thank you for your help. Regards Christos

Thank you for your answer. Is there a possibility to delete that part if there is no reliable source for this statement?

You have one honking great name moses.

You also have interests which are often similar to mine.

I intend to do a bit of editing on the Airships/WW I subjects.

No offense intended. Please, if you have data that conflicts with mine, lets talk about it.

All that matters to me is to get it right enough for readers they don't have to suffer the illusions, delusions and outright missinformation I had to 40 some years ago.Mark Lincoln 03:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, you've been mentioned on the admin noticeboard (section link). – Luna Santin (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I stand by my statement that Moshe should have explained his position to the uploader better. I may be wrong. I often am. I also stand by my comparison of Wikipedia Talk to one dog barking at a shadow and six dogs barking at the noise. Geogre 03:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe, I was not trying to pick on you, and I really am sorry if you felt that I was condemning you. I was exasperated with the way the discussion was going much more than I was outraged at anything you did. People on AN...on any Project page, really...stop seeing forests and start speculating about the quality of the leaves this year. It drives me nuts. For what it's worth, I agree with you about the main picture. It's not a main picture quality, and I think the guy knows that. I also completely disagree with Cyde and his copyvio hunting relish. We want copyleft stuff. I do all my stuff PD, but the zeal of some of the image hunters is maniacal. Anyway, I really am sorry if you felt that I was criticizing you or being harsh. I just worried that the uploader was getting ignored furiously by the AN folks. Geogre 03:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following your recent participation in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30#Allegations of American apartheid, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't seem to watchlist the pages you edit, I want to let you know I've responded on my talk page, as I like to keep discussions together. - BillCJ 07:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just lookd at your user page, and saw that you had a part in the article on Marc Levin. I'm the one who added the DAB link to Mark Levin's page. There is one on Mark's page too, which I actually found while looking for Marc's page! With them both being Jewish Americans with only one letter's difference in their names, I figured it would be helpful to others too. - BillCJ 07:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been named both in the evidence page and in a comment on the workshop page. I don't see any evidence that you are aware of the ArbComm case, so am notifying you.

Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop. GRBerry 19:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By modern standards she would have been about 1/2 through her life cycle, please realise that HMS Dreadnought pride of the fleet was sold and scrapped soon after WWI as worn out and obsolete followed by her sister class in short order. In a time of VTE steam engines were lubrication systems were primative at best a 15 year old predreadnought is very old. I won't revert your change it is just a good as needs be but a bit of the thought that went behind the old bit. HMS Dreadnought 1905 to 1921, USS South Carolina 1906 to 1922, ect. Tirronan 00:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Tirronan 00:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey FayssalF I just read your suggestions about using footnotes to shorten my point. I obviously know what the definition of a footnote is and everything, but I was wondering if you meant a special wiki-feature or something that I have never used or heard about. If that is what it is, can you explain it to me? Also is it something I should be embarrassed for not knowing about after two years on wikipedia :) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk • contribs) 07:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are talking about the same thing. Nothing new. Except that it worked before and i don't see any problem in using it per Wikipedia:Footnotes. It states that "[they] are useful for material that would be distracting if included in the main text, yet is helpful in explaining a point in greater detail." -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never got a chance to thank you for your support on the Vincent van Gogh talk page. Without you I would have felt pretty isolated. I think I kinda lost interest in the dispute though.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Moshe. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The footnotes trick got its own magic indeed. Just like a smartie tool. Reduces some bias indeed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marry me?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i am still 16 ;) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be clearer as to why you've labeled the "history" paragraph of obesity for {{cleanup}}?[3] Perhaps you could note on the talkpage what is wrong with the present content. JFW | T@lk 07:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is that I have never seen a useful source that could inform such a section. I have once asked the Sociology WikiProject to help out, but no response was received. Shame, because obesity is a big item at the moment. JFW | T@lk 09:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not contesting your edit to the Mercenary War, despite being the author of the "inept generalship" characterization of Hanno the Great. In retrospect it is rather judgmental and somewhat of an editorialization.

My opinion about his generalship comes primarily from his actions in the Battle of Utica where he brought his forces into the city, left their baggage and equipment unguarded outside the city, and failed to post any meaningful sentries. When the enemy forces returned they just scooped up the equipment and baggage, and besieged Hanno's forces inside the very siege they were sent to raise! It was probably his mistakes that lead to the eventual joint command with Hamilcar Barca.

I am intrigued that you have read more of his military career, however. May I ask in what sources you found further information? -- Vedexent (talk) - 13:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was yet another discussion about it; see Template talk:Infobox Military Conflict#Remove casus belli (again)?. I don't personally care all that much one way or the other—I'd just like to minimize the arguing over it—but the prevailing opinion seems to have shifted to the view that the downsides of keeping it in place outweigh the benefits of doing so. Kirill 20:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would be rather impractical to create and maintain separate versions of the template for each century or region; and that probably wouldn't solve things in and of itself, since we have uncontroversial 20th-century conflicts as well as controversial medieval ones. What we'd essentially wind up with are two versions of the template: {{Infobox Military Conflict}} and {{Infobox Controversial Military Conflict}}, with the latter missing a bunch of fields. But this would be essentially the same thing we had before, only with the choice of templates substituted for the choice of fields; those that wanted to use the extra fields would argue that the conflict wasn't controversial, while those that didn't would argue that it was.

Fundamentally, I think any solution that allows article editors the choice of whether to include or exclude something controversial will eventually boil down to the same underlying dispute, regardless of whether that choice takes the form of optional fields, variable templates, or some other method. Kirill 22:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2007 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 02:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2007 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) 23:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2008 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) 00:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 18:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you editing again, you've been missed : ) --MPerel 04:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2008 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) 08:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2008 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) 02:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The April 2008 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) 01:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moshe Constantinte Hassan Al-Silverburg. I would like you to weigh in on the discussion topic of "Weasel Words" on the talk page for AIPAC (talk: American Israel Public Affairs Committee). A user keeps inserting the word "controversial" in the opening paragraph, providing no sources that describe AIPAC as "controversial," only fringe sources that criticize AIPAC. I would appreciate your input when you get a chance. Many thanks. Stanley011 (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Moshe: Agreed and concurred - The present version of the AIPAC article is incredibly biased against AIPAC and those in charge of maintaining the Article will allow no corrections of the Article. I've tried to correct and have been reverted and rebuked. This has created a situation where at least this Entry is providing misinformation. I realize the people have strong feelings about the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, but that shouldn't excuse distorting the facts in order to make one's point. Thank you for any assistance you might be able to lend to straighten things out... Michael --Traditional Anglican (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC) --Traditional Anglican (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). --