User talk:HD86

Greater Syria

Hi, why did you change the arabic Wilayas to Vilayets? AreaControl (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because we're talking about Ottoman provinces not Arab ones (vilayet is Turkish). Anyway, potato potato. HD1986 (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aslim Taslam

WP:Overcategorization is no basis for nominating an article for deletion. Further, your addition of {{prod}} was improper as the article had already been considered at AfD and kept as having no consensus to delete. Please re-nominate for deletion via AfD if you feel so strongly about it - as you state on the article's talk page where you "demand the deletion of this article". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(response) The deletion policy passage refers to the deletion of categories, not the deletion of articles, which is what we are talking about here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really?! This is funny. Let's read together:

The Wikipedia deletion policy describes how pages which do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia. In the normal operations of Wikipedia, approximately five thousand pages are deleted each day through the processes outlined below.

Deletion of a Wikipedia article removes the current version and all previous versions from public view. Unlike page blanking, which can be performed (or reverted) by any user, deletion can be performed only by administrators. Administrators can also view deleted pages and reverse ("undelete") any deletion. All such actions are logged. If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators will normally not delete it.

Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):

Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's fair-use policy Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages which exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject) Articles which are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes) Content forks (unless a merge or redirect is appropriate) Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms and original theories and conclusions Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) Articles which breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons Redundant or otherwise useless templates Categories representing overcategorization Images that are unused, obsolete, or violate fair-use policy Inappropriate user pages Any other use of article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

Is my English not good enough? HD1986 (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to overcategorization. Deletion on the grounds of overcategorization only applies to categories. The article that you are opposed to existing and have nominated for deletion is an article, not a category. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe you should work with my earlier suggestion and edit the page, because it talkes about deleting pages. HD1986 (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transliteration

Hi HD1986, you seem to be editing the arabic romanizations on various articles (changing el to ad, Homat to Ħumāt). These words are the english spellings - what you are adding is an accurate transliteration (eg Ħumāt) a transliteration was already provided in the first sentance. We don't write the transliteration of arabic throughout - we use the English spelling Homat el Diyar. AreaControl (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, you don't seem to know what you're talking about. Arabic doesn't use the Latin alphabet but has its own 28-character Arabic alphabet. To write anything Arabic in Latin alphabet would be transliteration. Since literary Arabic doesn't have an O vowel, confusing O for U is a common mistake among humbly-educated speakers of Arabic. Please refrain from involving yourself again in things you know nothing about so I don't have to waste my time explaining things to you. Don't undo me again until you know what you're doing first. Thank you. HD1986 (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I said accurate transliteration. Do not be so confontational - there is little need. Now, how do you think we would spell the world simplest way in latin alphabet: Homat. Easy. Ħumāt = not so simple. That's why we have the detailed translit as well. Why does it need to be an absolutely accurate transliteration with all the accents and the bells and whistles - we're getting English speakers to read a word with some idea of the Arabic pronunciation (SOME idea). Whether literary Arabic has an O vowel is barely important since we are romanizing in the most simple way we can . That's my view anyway - you should see how some editors "accurately" transliterate Korean because some letter doesn't exist in the Korean alphabet. Just make it simple who cares if it's not perfectly accurate it should be understandable and for me a letter covered with symbols "Ħ" isn't simple. So perhaps I am a "humbly-educated" Air Traffic Controller in English speaking airspace - I speak English, I speak Arabic. I do not translate accurately between the two nor am I a scholar of their alphabets - which makes me perfect to remark upon the "unsimplicity" (yes I know that isn't a word) of your translit. AreaControl (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, which English speaker is going to search for your spelling - none, it is not simple enough. AreaControl (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it back to Homat el Diyar per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). This is the English Wikipedia and Internet searches indicate this name is much more common in English. If you still think it should be moved to something else then please follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Requested moves to see what others think. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source to the existance of the transliteration "Ħumāt ad-Diyār"? I couldn't find any source with Google but it may be due to search engine limitations. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm only doing all these edits out of generosity, as I am not gaining anything back. But thankfully, encountering such idiocy makes me realize how I'm wasting my time here, and that I should be doing something better. My explenation above is more than enoung to make anyone understand, so I'm not adding anything more. I already explained that Arabic doesn't have an O vowel and that "Homat" is actualy "Humat," but written this way due to Latin-letter confusion by some semi-illiterate Arabs. Yet they come and change it again ... go read something please, I'm not wasting a second teaching you anymore. HD1986 (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are all volunteers and many of us have done far more here than you. I have read something, including Wikipedia naming conventions and Google search results: [1][2]. Editors often disagree about what is "correct" but we have naming conventions designed to help our English speaking readers find what they are looking for. And please be civil. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for toning down your post. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome HD1986 (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gibran

Hello HD1986

I'm not disputing the fact tha Gibran is Lebanese or from modern day Lebanon. It is just that in an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia you have to stick to objectivity and historial accuracy. There was no such thing as Lebanon when Gibran was born. The first people calling themselves "SYRIAN" were from Beirut and Damascus in the 1850's! So people like the 'Lebanese" Boutrus al bustani was one of the founding fathers of syrian nationalism. You want to mention that he's lebanese, fine..I'm not touching that..check the nationality part...I never substituted lebanese for syrian...BUT mr HD1986...but when it comes to his birth and speaking about the late 19th century and the early 20 century..you can't use an entity that did not exist at that time...I think we need to nominate the gibran page for semi-protection, to prevent the ignorant (usually lebanese) IP users who keep vandalizing the page...some of the lebanese IP users ..they don't like gibran's political philosophy ..so they delete the whole section...LOL....that's classic POV.....so whenever talking about Lebanon from 1850 to 1920 you have to say modern day lebanon to differentiate it from Ottoman occupied Syria...look at the israel/Palestine articles all jews born before 1948 have the name Palestine listed as their birthplace...because before 1948 Israel did not exist.George Al-Shami (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK ... good luck with that mission ...HD1986 (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of O generation of vipers

A tag has been placed on O generation of vipers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

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

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 03:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is it about the fact that Christianity was not a separate religion during Jesus' lifetime that you fail to understand?

AnonMoos (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I understand well that Christianity was invented by Paul and that if Jesus himself had the chance to read the current Christian creeds he would be very surprised to find his name in them. I just didn't want to hurt your feelings by reffering to that. Anyway, the problem has been fixed now. HD1986 (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to understand rather little -- there's no ascertainable evidence that Christianity was commonly considered a separate religion from Judaism until at least the time of the 1st Jewish revolt and the fall of the Temple (ca. 66-70 A.D.). Furthermore, Jesus was not notably proselytizing (in the ordinary meaning of the word) in Matthew 12, but he was accusing the Jewish leadership of the time -- the word "Pharisees" appears in verses 12:2, 12:14, 12:24, 12:38, etc.

And please don't remove the PrimarySources template again -- in this context, Matthew 12:34 is a primary source, and so doesn't fully comply withn Wikipedia sourcing policies (WP:PRIMARY), particularly with respect to interpretations of the Biblical verse or phrase. AnonMoos (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tag

Thanks for the tip HD1986, but if you look at the edits of jayjig and other Zionist editors, you'll be amazed at the sheer volume of their edits. 20-30 edits a day suggests that they are definitely paid. And what bothers me the most is that almost every article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems to be hijacked by them. For instance jayjig has no problem calling the Egyptian and Jordanian control of Gaza and the West Bank as an 'occupation' but has problems calling the illegal Israeli invasion of Southern Lebanon an 'occupation; unbelievable! And all the sources that he provides are Zionist..for example Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle, Woflowitz..LOL!I think we need to stick to introducing irrefutable credible soucres that would contradict what they're saying. I'm not giving up for the syrian military presence in lebanon article, because what I'm arguing already has a precedent, and is backed up historical facts; such as Syria receiving 2 mandates to enter Lebanon and Syria credited with ending the war and disarming all the militias. anyways continue the battle, don't let their extreme paid POV assertions stop you. And tell that Hertz that calling the UN "biased" is his opinion, it's not a fact. Whereas international law is a fact. And his POV argument can also be contracdicted by arguing that UN is biased to Israel because it was the institution that created the very state of Israel. Cheers! and keep editing don't let them stop you.George Al-Shami (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golan Heights

I do not appreciate the political talk on the discussion page and its results in the article itself. The article is supposed to describe facts on the ground, not wishful thinking from this side or another. I knew it was only a matter of time before this article stirred a political debate, but Wikipedia is not the UN and our task is not to find a phrasing which is a diplomatic compromise, but a phrasing which accurately describes the facts. DrorK (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drork, the version of the "facts" you advocated was that Golan Heights are part of Israel! HD1986 is a useful contributor in my view as he will challenge much of what is taken for granted and keep the article factually sound AreaControl (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know a certain territory is part of one country and isn't part of another? Here are some criteria: (1) How do I get there? In order to get to the Golan Heights one needs to enter Israel and catch an Israeli bus. Getting into Syria won't help. (2) Can people pass freely between the territory and the certain country? People can pass freely between the Golan and Israel. People cannot pass freely between Syria and the Golan. BTW, when Jordan claimed the West Bank, it allowed more-or-less free passage for its citizens between Jordan and the WB, even though it was under Israeli control. (3) Where do the territory's residents work? Where do they pay their taxes? Which law do they follow? All Golan residents, not only the Jewish ones, work as if they were Israelis, pay taxes to Israel and follow the Israeli law. Some like it this way, some don't, but that's reality. I explained these facts again and again on the talk page, but certain people insist that the Golan is part of Syria because that suits better their political views. 14:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drork (talk • contribs)

Drork, bro, I've been trying not to comment on your talk so I don't sound like I'm attacking you. You have to realize that your unique system of thought doesn't apply to all people (it's doesn't apply to most people). People have invented some bothersome concepts like law, right, civility, morals, and so on of such crap. These days, if a thief stole a house and sat in it, most people wouldn't consider him the owner of the house. I know, it sounds crazy, but guess what, we're in 2008 and people DO care about law and justice you freak. HD1986 (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you that you've come to the wrong place. If your idea is to advocate that Israel steals lands, and that Israelis are people who violate the World's law and order, I believe Wikipedia is not the proper place to do so. Anyone who read the article about the Golan Heights before you edited it could understand very clearly that Syria regards the Golan Heights as part of its territory and that many countries and international organizations support it in its claim. However, you want to go further as to write this claim in the article as if it were a fact. Apparently you cannot tell a fact from a claim or an opinion. It is also quite clear that you don't make this edits out of a will to put forth more useful information, but to make political statements. This is not right. DrorK (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KTB

Please read Wikipedia:STALK#Wikistalking... AnonMoos (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your idiosyncratic personal KTB "disclaimer"

You know, you would make things a lot easier all round (for yourself as well as others) if you would make some minimal effort to learn about the way things are done here (such as consulting Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED#Wikipedia_is_not_censored), before striking off on our individual and somewhat eccentric tangents. In any case, you would have no occasion to be "disturbed" if you weren't following me around on Wikipedia. AnonMoos (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]