User talk:Humus sapiens/archive12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Resolution 242

The edit you have just omitted was not irrelevant at all. From a legal perspective, the ICJ ruling of July 2004 asserts that: 1. The whole of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem are occupied territories. 2. Under the principle of the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war, Israel has no right to change the reality on the ground in these territories. That includes building settlemens and the partition wall, all of which are illegal. 3. Israel should withdraw from all of these territories or else those agreed upon with the Palestinians.

Thus, the ruling makes it very clear that legally speaking, the interpretation of 242 which calls for a full withdrawal is the correct one. However, the debate over the interpretation remains of value from a political perspective, not a legal one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rearticulator (talk • contribs)

Image copyright problem with Image:Peelmap-a.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Peelmap-a.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

1929 Palestine riots

Humus, I hope you don't mind but I have moved this back from "1929 Hebron massacre" as the 1929 disturbances included much more than the events in Hebron. The massacre itself should have its own article in my view. Perhaps you'd be interested in starting the article? --Ian Pitchford 21:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There were a couple of dozen incidents during the 1929 disturbances, including the murder of Jewish children and elderly at Safed. Describing the events as the "Hebron massacre" implies that none of the other incidents were important. This is wrong, as the Shaw Commission report explains. --Ian Pitchford 07:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Jew Watch

Hey Jude. My edit

  • "notoriety" is an inherently negative word. In this case, it is from the editor; not attributed. I first changed it to slightly positive "fame", then to "attracted attention". You rejected both...?
  • "Although claiming neutrality", insinuates that the names of the headings are not neutral. Listing them says enough.
  • Elders of Zion: I have a ton of excuses for that, but only concerning the content. But, if the protocol was cited as if it was authentic... I digress.
  • "Neo-Nazism" encompasses fascism, racism, anti-Semitism etc. Not just anti-Semitism, although you may see it that way. I really don’t think they qualify. They don't call themselves Nazis either.
  • "unintentional (or intentional)": empty statement, X or not X... nothing left.

And, you really should only mark vandalism as minor edits when reverting. Lastly, it was not my intention to hide my revert by editing twice (just read about rollback).

--CAD6DEE2E8DAD95A (hello!) 23:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Maps

I am flattered by being awarded this barnstar, thanks :)

I use CorelDRAW for making maps, but it may take you a long time to make that Peel map from scratch. I recommend using my full map of Israel as a basis, if you want to do this, please message me and I will send you the CDR version (or AI/SVG if you're going to use Adobe Illustrator).

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 02:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have since created this map of the Peel Commission proposal. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Not according to Plan A.[1][2] However, the other plan, Tel Aviv is part of the Jewish state.[3] Or is that 2nd map just wrong? If you know, please shed light on this. I will also update the map to include Nazareth as a mandated enclave. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR

What? I only made 3 reverts, the same as you. Deuterium 10:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Which edit do you mean in this section? .[4]. There are far more edits than I remember. Also, if you object, can you specify your objection? It would help me in answering your question. Thanks. Politis 11:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Humus, in wikipedia it is best to ask direct questions and hope for reasonable explanations, because it is prone to misunderstandings. I look forward to reading your precise question - if you wish. Thanks. Politis 11:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Article on terrorism

You may find the article Terrorists of Pakistani origin interesting. It may be deleted soon in perhaps a few hours.

If you have any views on having such articles on Wikipedia, please do share them at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Terrorists_of_Pakistani_origin

--Robcotton 01:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome message

Thanks, that was very receptive! I hope I can help! Cheers

maybe of interest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metula_Farms

David Ben-Gurion

Please add your support to David Ben-Gurion on the Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Respectfully, Republitarian 16:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Germany-Israel relations

I saw you created Germany-Israel relations. I'd like to get your perspective/knowledge on New Zealander-Israeli relations and Venezuelan-Israeli relations. There's a discussion on Talk:New Zealander-Israeli relations you may be interested in. Respectfully, Republitarian 00:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. I'm not sure how to correct its blog-like reading... if there's something more specific I can do to improve the article, please let me know. I've moved the article to Israel-New Zealand relations and trimmed the spy scandal section with a link to a new page on the incident. Respectfully, Republitarian 14:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Brigitte Gabriel

Would you discuss this Category matter on the talk page? Thanks. (→Netscott) 06:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my Talk page

. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Humus, No problem, my pleasure....Also, as an aside, do I have to go through speedy deletion to delete one of my own user pages, specifically Old watch list page? Or can I just delete it myself since I created it as a subpage? I am not sure if I will ever learn all that Wiki entails :). Aside #2, User:Historymike has written his OWN bio and has added HIS own blog site to about 20 articles. I deleted these "sources" since MY understanding is that blogs should be avoided unless there is a very unusuall situation. I have referred him to many Wiki policy pages and will remain civil and encourage him but wanted to make sure I wasn't doing anything wrong. Anyways, I always appreciate constructive imput. Cheers! --Tom 19:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic bioweapon

Hello. Why did you remove the following section from Ethnic bioweapon?

In November 1998, the Sunday Times reported that Israel was attempting to build an "ethno-bomb" containing a biological agent that could specifically target genetic traits present amongst Arab populations.[1] Wired also reported the story[2] [3], as did Foreign Report [4]. Expert reaction to the reports was skeptical towards the scientific plausibility of such a biological agent. [5] The New York Post, describing the claims as "blood libel", reported that the likely source for the story was a work of science fiction by Israeli academic Doron Stanitsky. Stanitsky had sent his completely fictional work about such a weapon to Israeli newspapers two years before. The article also noted the views of genetic researchers who claimed the idea as "wholly fantastical".[6]

It seems very well cited and appropriate to me. Thanks, Deuterium 00:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Israel

Hello. Why are you replacing this

According to David Albright of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "Faced with sanctions, South Africa began to organize clandestine procurement networks in Europe and the United States, and it began a long, secret collaboration with Israel." although he goes on to say "A common question is whether Israel provided South Africa with weapons design assistance, although available evidence argues against significant cooperation." [7]

with this

According to David Albright of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "... available evidence argues against significant cooperation."

Surely the larger quote is more accurate and representative of what he actually says in the paper, rather than a misrepresentative sentence fragment? The sentence fragment is not evidence against a joint programme but only applies to "weapons design assistance".

Secondly, why did you remove the fact that Chris McGreal wrote in the Guardian? That's a relevant fact regarding the credibility of the story; he did not self-publish his article.

Thirdly, why did you restore the sentence "Israeli ambassadors spoke publicly against racism in apartheid South Africa." despite the fact there are no citations that ambassadors did do such a thing?

Fourthly, why did you replace "Israel developed a relationship with South Africa during the 1970s and 1980s." with "There are controversial claims that Israel developed a relationship with South Africa during the 1970s and 1980s."? Are you denying that Israel and South Africa did have a relationship during the 70s and 80s, against the many sources in the article? Do you have sources that claim this?

Thank you, Deuterium 01:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Becoming a blog?

Thanks for promoting the I-NZ and I-Ven relations pages and for cleaning up the I-Jap relations page. I don't mind cutting down the fox journalists-kidnapping section with a link to a main page, but I dont understand why you want to get rid of the section altogether. I also dont understand why you feel this story is bloggish. I agree the story has excessively been hyped by the media, but for one thing it's the mainstream media doing the hyping, and the kidnapping is still an important story.

I could see an arguement that the kidnapping has more to do with New Zealand-Palestine relations than Israel-New Zealand relations. Please respond on the Talk:Israel-New Zealand relations. In regards to the naming style for the bilateral relations pages, I honestly had forgotten about moving U.S.-Ven relations. Respectfully, Republitarian 16:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, I saw in your edit summary that you put "that's PNA not Israel," but the PNA page is peptic nucleic acid page, not Palestinian National Authority. :) Republitarian 16:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Pollard?

Hello Humus sapiens. Are you familar at all with the story of Jonathan Pollard? Deuterium (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is editing on it and given his edit history I'm a bit concerned about neutral point of view being maintained on the article. If you're familiar with the Jonathan Pollard case then maybe you could take a look? Thanks. (→Netscott) 06:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your thanks, I find that we agree on some matter when it comes to POV. It is always nice to have WikiFriend. --Shamir1 06:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Timeline of Palestinian-Israeli conflcit

Hi there,

It strikes me that this timeline, while I think is mostly quite neutral for the most part, certain sections do not state facts. Many entries in this section I believe do not conform to a NPOV.

a) The details of Camp David in 2000 are heatedly debated. b) It is important to note that Arafat walked away from the 2000 talks, but it is equally important to note that Sharon walked away from the 2001 talks. c) The violations of the cease-fire in 1982 along the Israel-Lebanon border are not accurately described. There were 2 violations in 11 months, 1) an IDF truck hit a land mine, and the assassination attempt. The shelling of Israeli boder towns was not during this period. And 2) there were Israeli violations of the cease-fire as well. However, the description made it sound as if the PLO violations were shelling Israeli towns preceeding the war, with no Israeli violations, inaccurate.

I know this is a heated subject, but some of the edits being made here I feel do not present the fact accurately.

A student of history 16:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem

I added it to the page because Ge'ez is the Liturgical language of the Ethiopian Orthodox and Eritrean Orthodox Churches. I would just limit the name to Arabic and Hebrew as those are the languages of Israel, but if the Latin and Greek names are to be included due to their status as liturgical languages, then languages like Ge'ez and Syriac should be represented as well. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 01:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

apparently, User:A student in history and I will be working together on the Timeline, due to some disagreements (and agreements which he thinks I disagree on). He has messaged me and tries to correct me as if I had solely created the article. I think he misunderstands. He feels I put POV but everything I contributed has been sourced and true. I have encouraged him to add on rather than remove my statements, however I am dubious that he will actually do that. I am willing to cooperate in this manner, however I think I may need some help. I am wondering if you would help me monitor the article, and keep the timeline as complete as possible. I have some outside Internet resources if you should need them. Get back to me. Thanks. --Shamir1 07:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Indef block of User:Freiheit94

You marked User:Freiheit94 as being blocked indefinitely on his user page, but his block log only shows a 31 hour block. Something seems to wrong here... --Wasell 17:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No you didn't! My bad! Apparently User:Yujn added the indef block template to User:Freiheit94's user page. Sorry 'bout the misunderstanding. --Wasell 17:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah! Methinks we have a vandal on our hands! I looked at Yujn's contributions, and they seem to demand a revert/delete spree. Would you, beeing an administrator and all, like deal with that? --Wasell 17:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No, methinks NOT! Can I do anything right today? But still, User:Freiheit94 doesn't seem to be indef blocked... --Wasell 17:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I've been a constant reader here for some time, but have only recently begun tentative edits. Is there any way to view the contents of a deleted article? I realize that the "Constantinople" text seems to exist in two versions, according as whether the petitiioners are said to be in Spain or France.

Samhook 13:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Robert Spencer

There is a dispute there. Can you please join the discussion. --Reza1 22:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Req for assistance

Recent events have led me to believe that most if not all administrators on Wikipedia are worthless, destructive elements. I could appeal the case in question to WP:ANI, but alas, that seems to be a neverending trainwreck.

You can demonstrate that my estimation of administrative incompetence and malicious intent is incorrect by deleting Scientology Public Relations and indefinitely blocking two obvious vandal accounts - "Lord Xenu" and "tluc a si ygolotneics". The first is an obvious reference to Xenu, the second is "Scientology is a cult" spelled backwards. Their actions are sustained by administrators. Republitarian 03:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes in Human rights in Israel

Hello Humus,

In the Six-Day War Syria did not physically invade Israel. It attacked it in other ways (shelling of Israeli towns in the Galilee, border attacks, etc.). The only invasion I could find was a failed attack on Tel Dan. Thus, that change by User:Irishpunktom is correct. okedem 07:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I just wanted to let you know ahead of time that I'm going to be making what I feel to be an important edit on the Zionism page, an edit that takes into account all of the specific requests for improvement that I've received over the past week or two.

If you disagree with that edit, I'd really appreciate if you discussed, with me and other editors, the grounds for your disagreement on the talk page before reverting my work. That way we can get some back and forth going on the talk page about these important issues and help build a more balanced article. I hope we can begin to bring about more examples of collaborative editing among people with differing viewpoints there. BYT 10:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

question

You offered help, so here is a question: how does wikipedia deal with a blocked user who simply circumvents a block by not signing in and instead using an IP address. I cannot see where that is reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnneCr (talk • contribs)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Should Ahmed Yassin be included in Category:Terrorists or not?

Hi! You and few other people (including me) have been engaged in a very minor "revert war" on Ahmed Yassin. I now propose that we try to come to sort of an agreement before this escalates into a major revert war. Please, leave a comment on Talk:Ahmed Yassin. Cheers! --Wasell 13:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sprotect of JfJ?

You S-protected after just one anon made a single revert? :/ Homestarmy 22:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because you "wouldn't mind" the inclusion of the Christity template in the Jews for Jesuys article, doesn't give you the right to enforce it's inappropriate inclusion, by protecting the page. Jews for Jesus is no more a mainstream Christian organization than it is a mainstream Jewish organization , If you look at the articles Young Life, Navigators and Teen Challenge, you will notice none of them have the Christianity template, they like Jews for Jesus also being fringe parachurch evangelical organizations.so how does removing an inappropriate template, as well as unsourced original research (which you restored against the WP:OR policy) constitute vandalism? I assume that you are willing to look beyond your personal bias against the JFJ organization, and objectivly look at what is most consistent with Wikipedia practice and policy. I will give you the benefit of the doubt in believing you have the best interest of wikipedia at heart, but i expect that you extend me the same courtesy. I request that you unprotect the page and restore my edits which are fully consistent with Wikipedea policy12.218.150.29 22:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
This discussion continues at Talk:Jews for Jesus#Christian Theology? :/. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, well, I just wondered because I thought the Sprotect policy leaned more towared protecting later rather than early, but then again, that's probably why i'm not an admin heh. Homestarmy 00:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI

See: Why pretending there is no lobby isn't productive --Ben Houston 03:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

Hey! I know you are busy, but there is a user who keeps removing information from the Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am convinced he is trying to spread pro-Palestinian and/or anti-Israel bias. I am trying to achieve a fair timeline with important facts. You can see my edits and compare them to his, we are at a constant battle. Please help me out and comment on the talk page (you can read my comments on the talk for support). THANK YOU! --Shamir1 04:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

wouldn't you say...

wouldn't you say that an article about an organisation such as jews for jesus which aims for the elimination of jews by converting every last jew to christianity would appropriately have the "christianity" tag and reference bar in it... so that interested people could learn more about what christians believe etc??! i don't think it's fair to exclude certain "fringe" christians from christianity, eeeeeeeeeeevery religion has their fringe elements... i only bring this to your attention on your talk page at the risk that the jews for jesus article might become uncivil. shalom - Abscissa 12:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

He has been accused of making anti-Semitic statements by some commentators and groups, but by no means is he generally accepted to be an anti-Semite. Please respect WP:BLP, WP:OR and WP:RS. Deuterium 05:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

PS here's a relevant quote from WP:BLP: Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a low reputation.. Regards, Deuterium 05:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words

Thanks you for your unprovoked act of kindness, HS. I think that you are also fighting the good fight here, and I am happy to be in a place where I can collaborate with folks like you. I am really impressed with WP both as a medium of information exchange as well as a social network; I just wish I had more time because there is so much that needs to be done. Oh well, such it is with just about everything worthwhile I suppose. Thanks again; I'm sure I'll be "seeing" you around here quite a bit. (Btw, beginning tomorrow I'll be away for several weeks and probably won't have a chance to look at WP -- but I'll be back)Dasondas 15:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair usage question

Greeting Humus sapiens, quick question for you. Do you know if Israel's coat of arms has been released by the Israeli government as "public domain"? If not then this image is mistagged as being so. On this site where it says below the coat of arms image, "WARNING! IT IS NOT A CLIPART!" makes me think that the coat of arms image isn't PD. If it isn't then Image:Coat_of_arms_of_Israel.png should be tagged as fair use. Thanks. (→Netscott) 17:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I contacted you because I had the impression that you were a bit more up on topics relative to Judaism and Israel and so I figured you might know about the license status of the coat of arms. I'm not really sure myself... I suppose I could track it down. Thanks for your response. Cheers. (→Netscott) 02:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil in your edit summaries.

I do not take kindly to the flippant invocation of rhetoric ("whitewashing," etc.) when users are clearly trying to edit in accordance with Wikipedia:NPOV and other such precedents. Please remember to assume good faith, and abstain from outright reverts when there is clearly POV concern. Thanks, Italiavivi 22:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC).

WP:3RR Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. which you have already violated[5],[6], [7] (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Yas121 00:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a lie: User talk:Yas121#Bad at math?. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of which, there is a discussion of the general issue in AN/I.--Mantanmoreland 01:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR of Christian Template at J4J

I am not sure if I re-insert the Christianity template, whether it will be the 3rd revert or not so I am going to play it safe. Justforasecond has removed it many times now, and at least twice in the past 24 hours. His reason (as you can read for yourself) is that J4J is not mentioned itself in the template therefore it is not part of the "series". However he keeps insisting that the template is "vandalism" which is obvious nonsense. Please advise. - Abscissa 00:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka has reverted it. - Abscissa 00:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It isn't part of the series. Why would anyone, especially editors that never touch the article, think it is worthwhile to insert it? It's vandalism. Now if an editor added "Jews for Jesus" to the template, the template would belong on the article, but for now the article is not part of the series. Don't you guys wonder why some of the editors appeared seemingly out of nowhere to insert this template...repeatedly? Justforasecond 00:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It is not a Nancy Drew book series where there are "14 items in the set" and each one of fourteen is to be labelled as such, then nothing else. It is a useful collection of Christian related-links for Christian-themed articles. And you know very well it isn't vandalism. - Abscissa 00:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Netscott

Hi Humus. I was going to recommend giving him 1 week, but was edit conflicted and you blocked. Anyway, I'm happy to do the block (as I did to Oiboy) and am surprised that you aren't worried by the perception of impropriety as you actively edit in the general sphere of these matters. I'm happy to administer it. Should we unblock him to defend himself for a bit longer? Blnguyen | rant-line 04:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Humus

Quick request to unblock Netscott. His behaviour was egregious in my opinion as well (and there probably will be a block in the end), but I think he deserves the right to contribute to the ongoing discussion at ANI. Many thanks -- Samir धर्म 04:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks -- Samir धर्म 04:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi

Please do not revert my objective, NPOV edits. Thanks!ParadoxTom 01:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You have been warned about inserting POV commentary about your religious views in articles on empirical matters; please refrain from doing so.ParadoxTom 01:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You made assumptions about my religious beliefs. As a new user, you will be given some slack but please do not abuse it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
When you continually put POV commentary in an article, it is a reasonable assumption to make. I worked hard to make the JfJ article objective, fair, and properly sourced. And ten seconds after my thirty minutes of work was complete and the article posted, you reverted it right back to its POV text. Understand how frustrating that is for a dispassionate, uninvolved party like me.ParadoxTom 01:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I reported ParadoxTom for violation of 3RR. Though I would hope you don't need to be told about 3RR, but you yourself are at 3 reverts on that article. I started preparing 2 reports, but you only have 3 reverts that I found. (You removed Homestarmy's edit, then reverted ParadoxTom twice.) --Kevin_b_er 02:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Informal Request

Could you please review the edits of Ryodox? He is clearly into Racist propaganda based upon his Xanga Weblog link he sent to me. I do not know if this is cause for requesting a block or not... Thanks DocFisherKing 10:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Paradoxtom

I suspsect that there is really only one person who is causing major problems and refuses to edit and discuss constructively at the J4J article. In any event, the user "Paradoxtom" has just violated 3RR again after coming off his block. - Abscissa 19:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

My own curiousity makes me wonder why it is so absolutely crucial for him that the article reflect J4J as a Jewish group. I suppose that is a question nobody but he can answer. - Abscissa 19:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid

This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

To summarize: Discussion of global issues which concern use of "apartheid" and all polls shall be at Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid with subsidiary dialog on the talk page of affected articles. Based on the difficult and controversial nature of this matter, with the exception of Zeq (talk · contribs), who remains banned from editing the article, the principal participants in this dispute shall be granted an amnesty for past actions, but are strongly encouraged to engage in negotiations. All involved administrators are admonished not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus.

- Mgm|(talk) 20:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes

It is common knowledge that Pipes' father was a huge anti-Soviet (communist) crusader (Google him).Why would you consider that vandalism? And why would you remove that from the Daniel Pipes article?

In the section on Daniel Pipes' visit to the University of Toronto, I added that the Middle East Forum was founded by Daniel Pipes: why did Humus Sapiens remove that part?

NPOV

User Humus Sapiens does not always seem to stick to a NPOV. What's with his obsessive reverting anyway?

Vandalism

I think there was vandalism on the image in star of david

Bloger 03:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me, someone else already reverted that. I indefblocked that anon: his contribs were solely blatant vandalism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ludvikus

I've spent quite a bit of time working on the Protocols of Zion. You just wipe-out all of my work. Now you must know by now that I am LESS THAN A WEEK MEMBER OF Wikipedia. I would appreciate it if you retreive my work from the "trash can" and let me change the Title, as well as do some appropriate editing. Can you do that? Can you retrieve my hours-and-hours of work which you just wiped out without any notice whatsoever? I do not with to re-type,or re-enter, my work. By the way, I find the "PEZ" quite sloppy, and insufficient in its scholarship!

Yours truly, Ludvikus 03:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty International

Hi there, Humus. You have a beautifual page. I went to Woohookitty, an admin, and told him about what was going on at the AI article. He warned Donnachadelong that it was against wiki policy to edit an article about an org that you work for. So hopefully this will stop now. Thanks for reverting to my edits. I just reverted to your link edit which was a perfectly reasonable one, too
Whiskey Rebellion 05:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration on Israel

Dear Editor, since you have been involved in editing the Israel article in the last days, and that article has been the subject of long ongoing edit wars, your name is listed in the Request for Arbitration on this matter. You can make a statement here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Human Rights in Israel. Due to the large number of editors involved, however, I would to ask you to keep your statement concise and to the point. If you feel you have not been substantially involved in the disputes surrounding the Israel article, please do not remove your name from the Arbitration request, but rather make a short statement there explaining why you feel you have not been involved enough to be part it. To understand my reasons for requesting Arbitration, please read my statement on the Requests for Arbitration page. Best regards, --MauroVan 10:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

FTR: De-list, rejected. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Editor Review

Hi! I've requested an Editor review and would very much appreciate your thoughts. Best,--Shirahadasha 20:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Two issues.

First regarding calling Justfor a "crusading liar" please don't engage in personal attacks that really don't accomplish anything. If you think a user is incorrect just explain why. If you think the evidence of the user being incorrect or being a "crusading liar" is that blatant than simply responding with factual issues will make it clear to bystanders. Second issue - I sent you an email. JoshuaZ 02:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You're correct about NPA. This was about his arguments and I didn't call him that - I made it conditional upon his failure to prove his own words. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Victor E. (Emile) Marsden (1866-1920)

Dear "Humus sapiens," I'm a Wikipedian only since August 31, 2006, and I love it!!! Now you see my contribution. But I would like to know, curious, what you did when you visited Victor Emile Marsden, (1866-1920), who was born in 1866 and died in 1920, and not in 1921. And since the Protocols of Zion were first translated into the English language the very year of his death, doesn't it make you curious what his role was in such a brief period? For your information, the Tome which commonly passes around these days, carries the imprint or edition year as 1934, and is at least 299 pages long. On the other hand, the 1933 edition is no more than 75 pages long. What you may not realize, and as far as I know, neither does anyone else, is that in 1933 the "Protocols of Zion" was a mere Pamphlet, and in 1934 it was Expanded and turned into a Book, and it was NOT Victor E. Marsden who did it--SINCE HE WAS DEAD FOR 14 YEARS. Yet it is not generally known, as far as I know, what name or names are associated with this deed. So just as we have a Mystery over the Plagiaristic Fabrication of the original Protocols of Zion, some time about 1897 in France or Russia, it seems a similar Expansion of the Text occurred between 1933 and 1934. And it would seem that Victor E. Marsden is the unfortunate dead "victum" in yet another Hoax. I hope, as a Wikipedian, to use its power to encourage scholars to explore the issue of what role our alleged villain, Victor E. Marsden, actually played in giving the world the Protocols of Zion. The story of his life may, in fact, be a tragedy, and an interesting topic for a movie! He may even be quite innocent --by reason of his death in the middle of 1920.

I just realized that you changed the DOD of Victor E. Marsden back to 1921. How do we resolve this issue of FACT? May I suggest that you merely check any major Library Catalog on the Web or Net? For your convenience, here's the outside Link

Library of Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Humus_sapiens&action=edit&section=56

Yours truly, Ludvikus 02:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Humus,

As you know now, Victor E. Marsden died in 1920, and it was in the Summer.

So this means that he could not have written the observations regarding Chaim Weizmann as follows: 

    His introduction portrays the Russian Revolution and Zionism as parts of Jewish conspiracies
    in their alleged quest for global domination and concluded with a comment on the remark given
    by Chaim Weizmann at a banquet on October 6, 1920, "A beneficent protection which God has
    instituted in the life of the Jew is that He has dispersed him all over the world":
Furthermore, you do not cite the "page number," or particular edition from which you lift your block quotation.
    "It proves that the Learned Elders exist. It proves that Dr. Weizmann knows all about them. It
    proves that the desire for a "National Home" in Palestine is only camouflage and an
    infinitesimal part of the Jew's real object. It proves that the Jews of the world have no
    intention of settling in Palestine or any separate country, and that their annual prayer that    
    they may all meet "Next Year in Jerusalem" is merely a piece of their characteristic
    make-believe. It also demonstrates that the Jews are now a world menace, and that the Aryan
    races will have to domicile them permanently out of Europe."
I think all this should be deleted--you are probably quoting from material produced either (1) by Henry Ford, in his Dearborn Independent, later published as The International Jew, or from Hitler's American sympatizers who have produced the heavily [editor|edited], and highly glossed English language 1934 [edition]], consisting of 299 pages!!! You must remember that--at least in English--the editions that circulated in the United States were mere pamphlets, not more than 75 pages long. These so-called Protocols were no more that 24 or 27 in number, and essentially paragraph-length or page-length. And so they/it did not require to publication in book form!!!
so unless you specify exactly your source, I think these items/quotes should be deleted

since you cannot support them as writings of our--perhaps tragic--protagonist!!!!! If you look more carefully--at what I believe is your 1934 edition you might be lead that this text is truly the work of the Devil--just kidding!!! These Protocols are really quite stupid, in my reading--perhaps that's why its so easy to misread them/it.

On the other hand, you might be entertained by the fact--if you have forgotten it--that these so-called Protocols were literally appended to Sergei Nilus's enlarged edition--published in 1905--at the end of his book which was about the coming of the Antichrist!!! Perhaps because the content is so stupid, yet proven so effective as a "Warrant for Genicide"--that it would make literary sense to attribute it to the work of the Devil. Yes--imagine the Devil as the author of this thing/it which is not even a book--until 1934--when Hitler is just barely one year in office.
at any rate, I really think you should seriously consider deleting these quotes on the grounds that they are not Marsden's writing!
On the other hand, you do know that a British newspaper--just like the Russian Znamya was were the first English language translation was published. Did our protagonist write an "introduction" that was published there? Have you examined that newspaper?
So please consider my recommendation of Deletion.

Yours truly, Ludvikus 05:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Humus sapiens,

But what you qoute--from the 1934 text--is just not attributable to Victor E. Marsden .

    • He was a commentator, a glosser. That text, ironically, reminds me of the [[literary] style of the Talmud--done in an attrocious way, stupidly, but effective!!!
      • Maybe we should observe that the devil loves stupidity.
        • Reading the Protocols as truthful, is not only disgusting, but to an intelligent mind boring. Boredom is perhaps one of the most effective condemnations.
      • But reading it as an effective "Warrant for Genocide," is very interesting! How a boring, stupid, and literarily terrible book (is it literature?--becomes as popular as the Bible and the Koran.
  • I gotta go. When I return, I'll identify the exact page of your source which you erroniously attribute to Marsden. You yourself have been seduced into believing an untruth in that Book of the Devil. Don't worry--you already tought me not to be too serious. But, Wikipedia does want accurate scholarship. So will you delete that post-1922 blockqote you inaccurately attribute to Marsden who died in 1920?Or do you want me to do it?
Ludvikus 14:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
PS: Excuse the typos--I still don't know how to use a spellchecker with Wikipedia!!

88land philological, [[semioti 

authorship Pavel Kurshevan Sergei Nilus

Occupied Territories

If Israel acquired its occupied territories legally through war, then why do you call palestinian (hamas) or lebanese (hizbollah) armies terrorists? Aren't they just legally resisting the legal occupation of their territories through Israel's legal war? And remember, both sides have killed civilians so that is not an answer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.105.193 (talk • contribs)

So, Humus, it must be tough to be Israel's official representative on WP? Wait, you're not... Than why on Earth are all these peace-lovers harassing you? --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
May I bud in? First of all, doesn't Hesbollah and Hamas really mean that "ALL OF ISRAEL IS OCCUPIED TERRITORY"?

Honestly--isn't Israel considered a Western Colony? Hey, and by the way, aren't these organizations guilty of attempted Genocide? User:Chodorkovskiy, you know what Genocide means, no? First there was Hamas's attempted Genocide by Suicide Bombing--but it didn't work. So the next attempt was launching Rockets, Indiscriminately, against Civilians, but it to didn't work. After WWII, War through Genocide is Illegal. That's what we have through the creation of the UN. I think your argument against Wikipedian Humus makes not sense--and do you know what an ad hominem means? I have my difference with him--but I do not see the need for the "personal attack" mearly because of you anti-Israeli position! Yours truly, Ludvikus 02:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry User:Chodorkovskiy--I confused you, above, with that annonymous/unsigned Wikipedian right above you--"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.105.193 (talk • contribs) ".
Yours truly, Ludvikus 03:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Jewish WIKIVERSITY

Hi Humus: NEW: On Wikiversity there is now a "Jewish Studies School." Will it become a "duplication" of many things on Wikipedia? What should it's goals and functions be? Please add your learned views. Thank you. IZAK 09:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Spell Checker

I know what a spell checker is, thank you.

But I don't know how to use one WITHIN WP!
WPdians first write in Word or WordPerfect
and then import it, having used their SC

in the word processor?

Or is there a way to use

a SC directly within WP? Thanks for your help. Yours truly,

Ludvikus 03:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

1947 UN partition

take a look sometime what happened to this page : [8] I think first of all Israel never rejected the plan, as suggested. Secondly, this "background" should probably go, but there should be a mention of "transjordan" in the original plan allocated for Jews. Amoruso 11:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Victor E. Marsden

I have modified your writing, more or less, as follows: 

    "Marsden is commonly credited with having written an introduction to the English-language
    edition. According to its preface, it is supposed to be his "crowning monument.""
    :(double brackets added)

I have also further modified the immediate next paragraph, more or less, as follows: 

    It is to be noted that the first published English language translation of the
    text, known by one of its several titles, as "The Protocols of Zion," was as a
    newspaper article in London, England, in 1920. Shortly hereafter, but also in   
    1920, it was published as a pamphlet, and/or book. The edition of the text
    that is most often referred to, however, and which is in[sic] currently in circulation, is the
    1934 version of this text. It is best [to] describe this text as the "299 page edition."
    Prior to 1934, this text was never more than 165 pages long, and most often
    no more 75 pages long.
I'll get back to this issue later (regarding the different versions). In the mean time I recommend deletion of the above on the grounds that it is misleading, inaccurate, and untrue.
Yous truly, Ludvikus 15:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
PS: Even with said improvement/modification, it still needs DELETION!!!

Yous truly, Ludvikus 15:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Humus sapiens,

  • I've identified your source of the quote on Victor E. Marsden on Weizmann.
  • You were using the 299 pages 1934 imprint, or a bastardized version of it.
  • I bought my copy oon the streets of NYC on October 24, 1991 for $6.95.
  • It was sold to me on the side walk, by a street peddler of books,
who appeared to be an African Amercan but described himself as a Nubian.
He was dressed in allin white, weaking not pants, but a garment
I recall that Arabs wear.
I wish I new what its called.
I do not mean any disrespect to any Arab, or to any
African American, or to any Nubian
by my mere factual description.
  • My point is simply this--I was since, high school, curious about this text.
I had already found and, again out of curious, acquired Hitler's Mein Kampf.
And that was the only copy that has ever crossed my path as a bibliophile.
  • So I'm holding it in my hands "as we speek."
  • It's cover black anf white and green and red.
  • The spine reads: THE PROTOCOLS OF ZION in black letters on a green :backgroud.
  • The frontcover repeats the spine title,
  • but adds in red letters: WITH PREFACE AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.
          • Yours truly, Ludvikus 19:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • And when you open the cover you get:
    United We Stand, Divided We Fall.

    THE PROTOCOLS
    OF THE MEETINGS OF THE
    LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION
    WITH PREFACE AND EXPLANATORY NOTES

    Translated from the Russian Text by
    VICTOR E. MARSDEN
    Formerly Russian Correspondent of "The Morning Post"      

    1934
          • Yours truly, Ludvikus 20:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Dear Humus sapiens, I've got to go now--got to do some other work
  • but I'll get back to you and prove
  • that your quoting from a writing after 1922
  • regarding remarks about Weizmann's alleged remarks on October 19, 1920
  • whereas Victor E. Marsden was already dead in his grave in the Summer of 1920
  • shortly after disbording from HMS Renown in the componyof the Prince of Wales
  • and that there was an epidemic aboard this ship on or about March of 1920,
  • Marsden having wriiten a 48 page or so book about "Crossing the Line"
  • with Edward on April 16, 1920 and April 17, 1920.
        • Yours truly, Ludvikus 20:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Protocols of the wise men of Zion

How are you, User:Humus sapiens? The Library of Congress uses the above tityle for our infamous text. If you have the time, please look it up. For your convenience, here is the link:

http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First

Also, you might wish to find "our" Protocols at WorldCat, so here's its link:

http://worldcat.org/sitesandtips/default.htm

Then get back to me on my proposes change of title to: 

    Protocols of the wise men of Zion

I like this less literary title, don't you? Also, why don't you check out Cesare G. De Michelis? And what's new regarding your position on Victor E. Marsden? He might be another Dreyfus. You know now, don't you, that he died in the Summer of 1920? So you don't think he authored the translation from his grave, do you? Just kidding!

And I know now that the source of [[error]s on him,

is the 1934 version of our text, and it itself is a plagiarized plagiarism. If you look carefully at it, youl see that the preface was not written by Victor E. Marsden. In fact, it itself is a story which needs to be told somewhat in the way Cesare G. De Michelis tells his story on the Protocols.

Maybe I'll tell it--and on Wikipedia--what say you, User:Humus sapiens???

Hangon!

Articles for deletion/Jew Year's Eve

Hi Humus: Take a look at this please: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jew Year's Eve. Be well. IZAK 17:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oy vey

And I'm supposed to be on vacation :) Dasondas 22:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

circumcision article

Thank you for protecting the article, I grow weary of the fighting that takes place there.

If you have not done so already, a warning to the warring parties, and a temporary block would give a breath of fresh air.

Anyway, thanks again Atom 23:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

POVity

Just because I clearly state my POV on talk pages does not mean I put it into the articles, and I find it insulting that everyone assumes that I do. I keep my pov on the talk pages where I will not back down from any challenge, but I push for NEUTRALITY in the actual content page. The page for circumcision is currently far from neutral - it is pro-circ Lordkazan 01:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hadassa Ben-Itto

Hello, User:Humus sapiens.
How do you like my article on her?
Ludvikus 05:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

your opinion needed

Lehi (group) Note that the page is infringing on many wikipedia policies, and the recent one is extreme WP:POV of opinions stated as facts and in the intro page ! many other issues were addresed by me but are being reverted by a few members. Please take note of this ! very annoying no doubt. Amoruso I intend to revert to my last version of 16:28. 16:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

195.70.32.136

The modus operandi of this anon IP has continued to be the same as when you banned it. Should this prolific contributor be given a holiday? Andjam 11:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Mukadderat "suggests" MERGING?

  • Dear Humus sapiens
I've traced the merger suggestion notice to Mukadderat.
He placed the MERGER notice on the Protocols of Zion article.
What do we do?
What do I do?
Yours truly, --- Ludvikus 01:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

IDF and Military of Israel

Hi Humus: Please take a look at the vote at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 10#Category:Israel Defense Forces. Your expertise is required. Thanks a lot. IZAK 12:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Jewish vs. Judeo renaming

Hi Humus: Your learned input would be greatly appreciated at User talk:ThuranX#Your past nominations to rename (Wikipedia:Undeletion policy). See my comments there please. Thanks. IZAK 14:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Mount Hermon

I see you were involved in the article. I'm sure you realise too that since it was annexed, it's in Israel. that belongs in the intro(syria, lebanon and Israel borders line) and in the category as mountains in Israel. There is a user there deleting these facts. It doesn't make sense to make this article differnetly while Jerusalem and Golan Heights and subsequent villages and so on are all recognised as Israeli territories. Amoruso 20:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I need your help again

I can't figure out how to revert a page, but I need the requested articles:Social Sciences and Humanities reverted to 07:54, 13 September 2006 60.227.79.64, someone vandalized the page, deleting half of it, and it needs to be put back to that late, correct version. Thank youLan Di 21:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Israeli military issues

Hey! Given the recent issues with the various IDF categories (the clumsy handling of which being something for which I'm to blame, I suppose), I'm wondering if the creation of an "Israeli military history" (or "Arab-Israeli conflict", but that could become a rather broader battleground) task force within WP:MILHIST might not be a worthwhile idea. I get the impression that there is a community of editors working on these topics—the articles are fairly well-maintained, after all—but I really have no idea of who they might be, or whether they would be interested in participating in such a group; so I'm hoping that you might be able to give me some advice in this regard. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 14:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the links! At this point, I'm just trying to find out whether there are actually any editors who would be interested in participating—in any capacity—in such a task force; there's not much point in setting one up if nobody is going to join. Kirill Lokshin 02:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Pallywood

Hi, I would like you to comment on the revert war in the article Pallywood if you can. Basically a user named Kosmopolis claims that if Landes defined the term as specifically referring to Palestinians, then this is its only possible usage, and it cannot mean anything besides that even if other sources have used it in reference to the Adnan Hajj controversy, among others. I oppose this view of course. What is your opinion? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Protocols of Zion (imprints)

Dear Humus sapiens,

  • I understand my article was deleted.
  • I know its a controversial topic.
  • But I thought I could contribute new information.
  • For example, did you know that the Protocols
had allegedly already been published in 1919 in the USA?
  • So, why can't you just appropriately change the title of my article
and let me make my factual contributions?
  • You could even MERGE my facts with your article, the Protocols of Zion?
  • I'm very disappointed at the abrupt & sudden deletion.
  • Can you help me restore my work-in-progress article?
  • There is much more reseach required on this topic
if anti-Semitism is to be weakened--and Wikipedia can contribute!

Thanks,

Ludvikus 10:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please See development on MA issue

[9] Amoruso 01:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:LIVING and WP:3RR

Hello,

You blocked me inappropriately. Please review WP:LIVING, removal of potentially libelous material is exempt from 3RR. Every revert I made I specified that it was done under WP:LIVING to remove poorly source potentially libelous negative information about a living person. Also, see my discussion with ERcheck here. I did not do four reverts on any article, because I have seen that many admins do not understand that WP:LIVING is exempt from 3RR, but rather had ERcheck do the fourth reverts. Please don't protect people who are libelling living people on WP.

Thanks, Ekajati 15:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. Little harm done as the block expired about ten minutes after I first tried to edit :-> Ekajati

Project Israel

Please come and join WikiProject Israel. Your imput would be appreciated.

Image source info

Hi there, as I was clearing out CAT:NS, I came across this image Image:Eichmann trial 1961 in glass box.jpg that you uploaded. Is it possible that you could provide source info for it so that it won't be deleted under CSD I4 at a later date? Sorry to bother, DVD+ R/W 04:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it just got deleted at the very moment I was writing this. I was on my way to remove the deletion tag pending your reply. At any rate I would gladly restore it if you could provide the source info (if you don't want to do it yourself). DVD+ R/W 04:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Yup, 2004 was a long time ago. I'm glad you're still here, alot of times things were incompletely uploaded along time ago and the person isn't still around, so someone else has to start from scratch. You should though, be able to remember which book you found it in. And in case you didn't already know, that guy in the picture was a creep. DVD+ R/W 05:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sect of Skhariya the Jew

Hi Humus: Perhaps you can provide some perspective on this weird article that relates to Russian history: Sect of Skhariya the Jew. Is its information true and valid? Thanks for your time. 07:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR accusation

HS, please demonstrate by citing four or more diffs where you believe I have violated 3RR. Failing that, please strike out your second notice on my talk page. Thanks. 203.33.230.66 09:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Israel planning 'ethnic' bomb as Saddam caves in". The Sunday Times (UK). 1998-11-15. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ "Israel's Ethnic Weapon?". Wired. 1998-11-16. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ James Ridgeway (February 2, 1999). "Ethnic Warfare". The Village Voice.
  4. ^ "UPI report".
  5. ^ "Debunking the "ethno-bomb"". Salon.com. 1998-12-02. Retrieved 2006-07-11.
  6. ^ "Now Playing: A Blood Libel For The 21st Century". New York Post. 1998-11-22. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  7. ^ "South Africa and the affordable bomb". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 1994-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Humus_sapiens/archive12&oldid=1139213913"