User talk:Humus sapiens

HS,

Thanks for the kind words. It's a little frustrating at first to have even simple grammatical edits reverted, but it looks like this is more of an exception than the rule on Wikipedia. Thank you for the compliments; I am looking forward to collaborating with you as well!

--CommonGround 16:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following highly dubious information is completely uncited in that section of Al-Aqsa Intifada.

"They claim that Arabs "used the visit as an excuse for the violence that the Arabs planned to carry out after the failure of the Camp David summit in July, 2000" Some Palestinian officials admitted this claim"

"The killings were captured on video by an Italian TV crew and broadcast on TV; the picture (to the right) of one of the lynchers waving his blood-stained hands from the window, shocked and outraged many around the world, and became another iconic image".

So why did you remove the fact tags?

Secondly, can you explain why you removed all mention of the Israeli rioting, despite it being an enormously significant event that contributed to the violence and was mentioned in the Or inquiry?

In response to the Arab Israeli riots, thousands of Jewish Israelis rioted in Nazareth and Tel Aviv, throwing stones at Arabs, destroying Arab property and chanting "Death to Arabs" ^[1]. Two Arabs were killed in the violence and Haaretz editorialized that that year's "Yom Kippur will be infamous for the violent, racist outburst by Jews against Arabs within Israel" ^[2].

Deuterium 07:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

are you listening what are told? or you'd like to get new reasoning about the same issue? --tasc 08:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Humus:

Good eye! I'm glad someone else has the page watchlisted!

BTW, when's Passowver this year? --CTSWyneken 02:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A blessed and joyful Passover to you my friend! --CTSWyneken 01:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Standish7 (talk • contribs)

Please may I draw your attention to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Guidelines_for_Wikipedia_lists_of_ethnic_groups

Your contributions would be very welcome.

Brownlee 11:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome. I'm sorry that I have to revert you at A-S as well. We don't seek to demonize. We seek to provide more information. --Liquid Love 12:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can ignore this Humus; it's banned User:Zephram Stark up to his old tricks. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment and suggestion. As you can see here I am having trouble converting the illustrator file to an SVG that will work once uploaded. If you have any ideas, I'd be glad to hear them!--Andrew c 14:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! In September of 2004 you added an image to the Vorkuta article. The image included a caption comparing the Soviet slogan at the entrance to the town with German's slogan Arbeit macht frei. I found that comparison to be somewhat biased and inaccurate, and thus removed the comparative portion of the caption. This, however, ignited a revert war over the caption among other users. I have abstained from the discussion and protected the article today to prevent further reverts. I am wondering, however, if you would be interested to join the discussion at Talk:Vorkuta. I thought that you as the originator should know about this debate. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Humus, do you agree with the changes that grasshopper made to this page in you name?- [1]

Sorry, I didn't know you were editing at the same time. BTW, can you look at my proposal on Talk:Shtetl to move most of the article's content to a separate list? Cheers, Pecher ^Talk 20:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Humus - I am currently translating article Western Wall into Italian (see here - the article is currently called Wailing Wall, but it will be moved to Westernat the end of translation), and to be able to use the image in the title I had to copy from en.wiki and upload to commons. I have shown your name as first uploader, and I hope you will forgive if I will appear as uploader in commons.
I would be grateful if you could review the type of license - the one in Commons is not the same as in en.wiki. All the best. UbUb 11:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS : this is my user page in it.wiki

Thanks for uploading Image:Vorkuta_entrance_Labor_in_the_USSR_is_a_matter_of_honor,_glory,_pride_and_heroism.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a little while ago that you have 11,000+ edits, and are somehow not an admin. If I nominated you, would you accept the nom? --Bachrach44 18:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings having followed a bit of the talk and edits on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion , I couldn't help notice how much User:Jibal's edits are like User:69.248.237.88's (who in fact was admin User:Arminius, see this report and this). I noticed that you had tangled a bit with User:69.248.237.88 and so I thought you should be aware of my concerns. Netscott 07:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you're ready to go, add your sub-page to the WP:RFA page. (I've already entered my "seed" vote, so there's no need to wait for me). Instructions are here. Keep in mind that people frequently ask more questions, so if you're not going to be online for the last 2 days of pesach, you may want to hold off till after the chag, but it's entirely up to you. --Bachrach44 02:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat puzzled by your remarks in the edit history above article. WP:MOS clearly states that both BCE/CE and BC/AD are commonly accepted. The original article used BC/AD until you changed it. While I would agree with you that it's been changed long enough ago that a wholesale change back to BC/AD doesn't make sense, I do disagree with your initial change, as well as the (as least that's how it appears to me) arrogant way in which you point to WP:MOS as if it supports your view. Hirudo 03:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Humus: Thanks for the vote of confidence on the RfA, even though I doubt I'll be approved. Would you do me another favor? User Doright has appeared on my RfA and is commenting negatively, as you might imagine. Since I've long ago committed to ignoring him, would you offer some insight, since you were there during most of it?

I hope that you had a joyful and fulfilling Passover! --CTSWyneken 16:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Masssiveego has added questions to the end of your RfA. JoshuaZ 21:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin is backing Doright in an attempt to list Luther in both the catagory of Antisemitism (which was our comprimise, if you recall) and Antisemitic people. Would you weigh in? It's beginning to be an edit war. --CTSWyneken 01:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Humus: Did you miss my note on the talk page? These are not Dr. Michael's words. Doright has confused an abstract with his words. In the essay itself, Dr. Michael says nothing of the kind. He sharply criticizes a number of Luther scholars, but nothing like what the abstractor says. In short, it is a fraud. I can help you get a hold of the essay, if you'd like. But I will not support academic fraud.

Also, since you're here, I'd like your opinion on my actions in the latest dust up. Am I at all out of line? --CTSWyneken 02:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you dropping by. I saw that you didn't change the attribution, which was my concern. I don't know about the title, since, to be fair, we would be using full titles with all the scholars. That could get a little unwieldy. But that's simply my preferences. I have nothing against putting in the title itself. --CTSWyneken 10:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humus: Would you change the ascription to the Michael's quote back? An edit war will ensue if I have to do it. I cannot in good conscience leave this alone, since I have the essay in front of me and these are not Michael's words. If you'd like, I can help you get the essay. Thanks! --CTSWyneken 12:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Humus:

That would be fine. I respect Dr. Michael a great deal. He has a strong opinion that naturally many disagree with, but he is always a gentleman. When you're done, I would appreciate having you verify my words to be true. It would help much to have an independent verification of my integrity.

There actually is much that will be useful on the Martin Luther and the Jews page as well. Luther is much more complex than his cheerleaders in Lutheranism portray him or the he was just a hater of Jews crowd proclaim.

In the in end, it makes little difference. His hateful words are completely unacceptable and harmful, even if they were not the cause of the Nazi attrocities nor particularly infleuncial between his time and theirs.

Still, between us, I think we can work to represent the scholarship on the issue, no matter what others do. --CTSWyneken 10:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His words were extremely influential in Nazi Germany. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Humus sapiens,

I'm giving you your edit count, as I thought it might help you in your RfA. I used Flcelloguy's Tool (the others are out of whack), so the information is correct as of 08:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

And now (drum roll, please), your stats:

Statistics for: Humus sapiens
(Permissions: N/A)
- Total: 11, 809 -
Main: 6977
Talk: 2050
User: 521
User talk: 887
Wikipedia: 562
Wikipedia talk: 48
Image: 262
Image talk: 13
Template: 242
Template talk: 111
Category: 18
Category talk: 11
Portal: 98
Portal talk: 9
-------------------
Total edits: 11809
Minor edits: 1576
Edits with edit summary: 11261
Edits with manual edit summary: 8997
Percent minor edits: 13.34%  *
Percent edit summary use: 95.35%  *
Percent manual edit summary use: 76.18%  *
-------------------
* - percentages are rounded down to the nearest hundredth.
-------------------

OMG!!!

--Primate^#101 08:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, I wouldn;t have said he needed help in his RfA... Palmiro | Talk 09:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, Humus, you're great and everybody loves you. Just don't let it get to your head.--Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 11:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no beef with restoring the Holocaust denial image; my major edit was actually a reversion because of the consensus that the article was declining in quality (the image had little to do with it). Ashibaka tock 11:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Humus,

if I can momentarily tear you away from contentedly gazing at your growing pile of RfA votes... (well, that's probably what I'd be doing), I have had some problems at Hamas where my attempts to introduce a couple of factual corrections met with a very hostile response; perhaps my motives were misunderstood. Anyway, I have decided not to edit the page again for the moment, but I must admit I'm still bothered by the inaccuracies; see my latest contribution to the talk page for a summary of the issue, or further up for the full details and unfortunate conversation. I'd appreciate it if you could look into it. Palmiro | Talk 11:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course they are linked with the MB in Egypt, the thing is they were established by MB figures in Gaza, including Yassin and Zahar, not by the Egyptian MB, so the way the thing is currently phrased misleadingly suggests a stronger Egyptian connection than is in fact the case and says nothing about their origins in the Palestinian MB. I have produced relevant sources (and will bring another one along shortly) but it looks like anything I put on the page will just get reverted, so there's not much point trying. Palmiro | Talk 12:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand the comment I left in your RfA, check out Humus Sapien. DS 16:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Felix Landau, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please consider reading all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. Though everything you do, excluding image deletions and page history merges, is reversible, you should nevertheless be very careful with your sysop capabilities. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Good luck! — Dan | talk 00:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My congratulations! Use your tools wisely. :) Kimchi.sg | talk 01:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was hoping to be the first to officially congratulate you, but it looks like I'll have to settle for being in the first 5. As I mentioned, I really think you deserved it and I'm thrilled that you're the 10th most popular RFA in wiki's history. Best of luck. --Bachrach44 01:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, Humus. Totally deserved! :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! You totally deserve this and keep up the good work! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Well-deserved. Now go block a vandal. :-P Jayjg ^(talk) 02:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Enjoy the new power tools.--Dakota ~ 02:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YAAAAAY!! That's fantastic! Congratulations! --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Right buddy! I'm proud of you. Its just too bad you weren't nominated a year ago.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was my pleasure being able to pitch in for a worthy candidate - now Admin! Congrats! And welcome to the ranks! Redux 03:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from me too. if you need any help with the controls on your Adminator Vandalsbane 3000^TM just drop me a line! :) Grutness...wha? 03:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on reaching WP:100! That's quite the accomplishment. --Elkman - ^(talk) 04:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations Humusadministrator Extraordinare! Kukini 05:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the land of winter. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do me a favor and remove the warning that was just put on my talk page? It was put there by a user who is just repeatedly throwing {{hoax}} on Evolution and global warming. I'd remove but I prefer to have admins remove warnings (and also don't think people should generally remove warnings from their own talk pages). Thanks. JoshuaZ 02:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Humus, thank you for your kind note. I am greatly pleased by what I consider the universal and unanimous vote. I hope to benefit by your guidance and counsel. Thank you for taking so much time to make Wikipedia the wonder that it is. With kindest regards, Drboisclair 03:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Congratulations and thank you from me as well. Good luck with your adminship. —Aiden 04:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear you're an Administrator now, I think you're probably the most deserving wikipedian I've ever had the pleasure to vote on, good luck in the future and don't forget to put an admin user box in your babel! Congrats again - Patman2648 04:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today - Wikipedia, tomorrow - the world! --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 05:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Just want to ask - nothing to do with the substance of the RfA, but - how did you get my hash to the left of my vote in the FloNight RfA to continue the count properly? It breaks occasionally and restarts from 1 and I've never figured out why. - Richardcavell 08:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Humus: I am very glad you are an admin! Of course, since we edit the same pages, I won't be able to scream help, but, it's great to have a credit to the community recognized. Bob

Congratulations! Anonymous_anonymous Have a Nice Day 09:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!!!!--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 10:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed your RfA; I would have, of course, supported. Please accept my congratulations as well!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And congrats from me as well. Unbelievable tally I must say ;) //Halibutt 15:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. Glad that you'll be an admin. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 19:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comrade Humus, I congratulate you on your Adminship. עלה והצלח!

-Sangil 21:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best wish for your adminship.--Jusjih 05:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations on your new mop and bucket! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 05:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, hearty congratulations. Palmiro | Talk 12:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mazal tov ... and don't edit when you're tired or hungry ;> IsraelBeach 22:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Humus: I've begun rumaging for a good image for my RfA thank you template. Do you recall seeing one of an old book or library shelves filled with them? --CTSWyneken 14:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VERY COOL! All I knew of was the area at Wikipedia. I found one elsewhere I think works. You're thank you is below. What do you think? Bob --CTSWyneken 20:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting for me at my RFA. I am thankful for your kind words and confidence in me. Even though it failed, constructive criticism was received. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWynekenTalk

and also let me mention that "1581 Bunting clover leaf map.jpg" is an extremely cool picture --Deville (Talk) 05:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, congratulations. I trust everything is going well? Jkelly 05:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! You deserve this! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you humus. I have noticed that you are a new administrator, Congratulations! By the way, I have read an article a few weeks ago about humus. That article said that both Palestinians and Israelis claim that they have invented it :) Even humus is a controversial issue there :) Anyway, I could not find any article talking about the beginnings of the Arab-Zionism conflict (I have wrote both in small letter because I dont know how to allow for a lower case search, please advice). The current Arab-Israeli conflict page is very concise and does not reflect the momentum of that conflict. It is rather vague while it should clearly state the reasons to the reader. If an agreement on details could not be reached in the Reasons section, at least a brief view should be written. My statement was that Jews believe the land is their biblical promised land and the arabs believe it is their land. If you see another reasons for the conflict let me know. I like to learn too :) Cheers --A rihani 11:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather intimidating, looks like you are sure that nobody except you had read this pages. DonaldDuck 08:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Humus:

Good to see you back at this page. A few observerations on the material you just added.

1 -- The first sentence covers material earlier on in the essay. Could you move it there? 2 -- At least one editor (not me) has expressed that he thinks we have too many quotations. Would you be willing to summarize the material? We would, of course, leave the reference. 3 -- I think details of which territories enacted anti-Jewish laws or enforced them would be useful here. Does Johnson give any cited detail?

If you feel detail is still missing on this aspect, I'll do a little more work here.

I am trying to fade back a bit. I do not like my personal integrity constantly assaulted and scholar disparaged. This tends to get me angry, which is not a good mood to be in when trying to edit topics like this one. I've gone to your talk page because even my most simple posts generates too much emotion there.

So, if you come to wonder why I'm not as quick as usual, that's it. --CTSWyneken 10:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you're discussing the article here, I'll leave my response here. The first sentence is fine where it is. The quotation is fine too. And so far as I know, Johnson doesn't give details of the various territories, beyond what's already on the page. Hope that's enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Slim: this is here because I'm trying to work with Humus. I'm not going to debate it with you. He will do whatever he wishes. I respect him and are likely to let it go at that. So, please, would you stay out of this conversation? --CTSWyneken 11:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not stay out of this conversation. This is a wiki. I'm responding because this is your usual modus operandi. Humus makes an edit, a good one, but within minutes, a post from you with instructions and questions, and could he look for more, please, and "does Johnson happen to mention whether ...", and now Humus is probably wishing he hadn't bothered. You have to stop this. No one likes it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Humus, no, I do not need the pages themselves. I trust you there. I may well have this one on the shelf at the library, in any case. I think it was JPGordon who was wondering about the quotation frequency. It doesn't bother me either way. The reason for my wishing to move the first sentence is that it helps the chronology of the events leading up to Luther's tirade. Where it is now it amounts to a flash back. --CTSWyneken 11:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my two cents: why don't you take it to the relevant talk page? Don't the rest of the contributors get a say? If Humus cares enough about his edit, he'll go and argue with you there. As it is, you're personalising the debate over the content of a specific article way too much. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 11:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am presently coordinating a team of advocates re: my RfC for harassment / threats by user:woggly. I welcome you to be a member. Simply read the RFC lodged against me by user:woggly and the RFC which I have filed against her. It's really simple stuff when all of her harassment and my (and others) various attempts to resolve any issues are in black and white. Please also view the talks pages where Woggly admits to harassment and infers that she will not cease. Thank you for your consideration and I love your username! Best wishes, IsraelBeach 16:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC) PS - Congrats on your new role of as adm! ;>[reply]