User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg/Archive 7

Death Totals in 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis

Hi. In the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis article, there is some dispute regarding how to handle civilian death totals. What is standard practice here? Do we take the claims of the Lebanese government at face value, simply because it is a government? Specifically I am wondering about the infobox, where we don't really have room to report the source, nor other numbers given by other sources.

I'm asking you since I've noticed you have some experience editing Middle East articles, and might know what the convention is here. Is the Lebanese government a WP:RS? Bibigon 14:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

Hi, Could you let me know what you think about the discussion on the POV tag? Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 05:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis. Tewfik^Talk 05:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KimV

Hi Moshe, FYI Kim van der Linde is a female. You've referred to her as "he" a few times. I hope all is well with you. Su-Laine Yeo 03:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Regarding this edit: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --InShaneee 04:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed anything that could be considered uncivil from that post.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling her 'spiteful and innapropriate' is still an attack. --InShaneee 16:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiteful -arguably yes, inappropriate-not really.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's still multiple statements there that are 'arguably' innapropriate. My point is don't try to tread this line, nothing good will come of it. Be completely civil, or be in violation of guidelines, it's your call. --InShaneee 18:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

first look at talk page

Hi

Please look at talk page of Hezbollah and don't blame another editor for POV and vandalism easily. --Sa.vakilian 12:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at talk page and write your idia. I think that part should be removed.--Sa.vakilian 12:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiesel

I guess I see what you're saying, the second two were pretty non-notable. However, I think it is well-known that he has been criticised for his position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Would it help if I added references? —Khoikhoi 17:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is actually quite specific to Wiesel. You see, as he is a writer about the Holocaust, he has discussed countless times about how the Nazis persecuted the Jews. However, he has also stated that he sees nothing wrong with the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli government, which is why I feel that it is a valid criticism. That's why Chomsky called him a hypocrite. —Khoikhoi 18:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, but is there anything wrong with criticizing someone's pro-Israel stance? —Khoikhoi 18:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now, thanks. I still believe that the criticism is valid, however. —Khoikhoi 18:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Violation

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly.Human rights in Israel 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. (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.) Thank you.--Oiboy77 08:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For wikifying my mongoose! Schrodingers Mongoose 14:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of 3RR

You broke WP:3RR on multiple occasions. Because I am not a jerk, and am giving you benefit of the doubt, I am not reporting it and just giving a warning. This despite the fact that you basically ruined hours worth of sourced editing because you disagree with the sources and chose to remove the entire text rather than add something of your own or discuss changes with what you disagreed with.

(cur) (last) 22:48, 2 August 2006 Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (Talk | contribs) (Its not up to you to decide international law, the azmi Biashaa example was just as skewed)

(cur) (last) 22:47, 2 August 2006 Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (Talk | contribs) (rv massive undiscussed pov rewrite)

(cur) (last) 22:43, 2 August 2006 Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (Talk | contribs) (→Freedom of speech - - →Freedom of speech - RV pov, any nation in the world would jail someone revealing nuclear secrets)

(cur) (last) 04:21, 1 August 2006 Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (Talk | contribs) (rv)

(cur) (last) 04:03, 1 August 2006 Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (Talk | contribs) (rv)

(cur) (last) 04:00, 1 August 2006 Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (Talk | contribs) (rv)

(cur) (last) 03:52, 1 August 2006 Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (Talk | contribs) (rv to Humus sapiens and also removing other pov and weasel words)

I see OiBoy already warned you as well. I can assure you with two warnings, there is no way they are not going to give you a hefty ban if you do it again.

Sarastro777 23:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions

212.219.8.231 just reverted to POV again. Could you take a look; I will warn about 3RR. Tewfik^Talk 16:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tangentially, I seem to be having a problem where I can't revert the old-fashioned way, but only using popups, and thus can't leave edit-summaries. Do you have any idea how to fix this? Tewfik^Talk 16:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not the "normal" way, but it fixes my problem. Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 16:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a Sock. Tewfik^Talk 16:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you noticed, but user:212.219.8.231 seems to be editing as user:The-Don now, and has reverted, as well as deleted large chunks of the page. Tewfik^Talk 16:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the line with Jay; wait a min. Tewfik^Talk 16:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He suggested a 3RR report if we're sure... Tewfik^Talk 16:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can't know 100% without checkuser, but they made the exact same reversion that the IP made a few minutes before... Tewfik^Talk 18:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Ethnic cleansing

Please do not blank out an entire section without discussing it first. The section you removed is not completely blatant POV and thus shouldn't be removed without at least some discussion.

Feel free to leave me a response and happy editing! east .718 18:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about the revert on ethnic cleansing, I only saw that you hadn't posted on the main Israel-Lebanon talk page and assumed the same with the ethnic cleansing talk page. My apologies.

I still disagree with your removal on the conflict's article, but other editors have started reverting your edits. I'll cease to do so.

Also, please WP:AGF next time. east .718 19:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not, as another editor's made edits after me and I'll have to trawl through diff to revert it. I don't really have the time for anything but a popup revert. east .718 19:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert your own revert? (section in Israel-Lebanon war article)

Can I get you to revert your own revert and restore the (admittedly problematic) section you deleted? Yes, I know; not a single reference. I've got my staff working overtime on it (me, myself and I). If you could see your way clear to restoring it, the references can be found, I'm sure. Let's face it: this article is never in any kind of finished state anyhow. What do you say? +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse me of perpetrating a copyright violation. I'm aware that the material was lifed wholesale from a Yahoo (AP) report, but this was done by the person who originally inserted the (badly written) section; I was trying to rectify that, by replacing material with other sources, paraphrasing and rewriting, when someone (not you) summarily removed the whole section. I'm giving up for now; too much damn trouble. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert the article about Jostein Gaarder?

Why did you revert the article about Jostein Gaarder when everything written can be cited from the articles listed under references?

The article about Gaarder is not from a personal POV at all. Everything in there is from the articles written in Aftenposten where the chronicle was published and the responses were written (back and forth).

Unless you can document what can be considred POV i will revert it back.

The only thing I've done is to quote the articles. Cvik

First of all, I strongly disagree that I quoted too much. Second. I don't understand how quoting too much or that it was "rife with spelling errors" can be considred POV. In fact, I'm not sure in what way the article was unbalanced. I'm not jewish, nor christian nor moslem so it would be nice to know what makes it POV. You don't just delete a large part of an article because of spelling errors, specially not when it should seem obvious that I was working on it. The quotes were 1-3 lines from the most controverisal/debated parts of the op-ed.

About the word "chronicle". Aftenposten called it "kronikk" in Norwegian which is why I translated it to "chronicle" and not op-ed. I agree with you that op-ed is a better word. However I can still not find anything that makes my article a POV. The one that is currently active however seems to mostly support the opposition of Gaarder as they differ from Gaarders opinion (as explained in the interview, the reponse to Mona Levin and the op-ed). What is worse is that the purpose of the op-ed is not mentioned once.

I, too, would like to read your explanation for these reverts. In general, when you revert such large sections, you should give an explanation. In this case it seems that there is no justification for your reverts. In that case it is ñot constructive and bordering to vandalism. Pertn 08:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse me of vandalism when it is clear I did nothing of the sort. I have provided adequate reasoning for the edit.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the reasoning was....? Pertn 06:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read around.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for saying you found it funny :) No one else did. Javsav 18:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 15:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to try integrate and improve the information in the Palestinian article. I understand that the information may be "politically sensitive", but I am an archeologist of the region and I know what I'm talking about. There may be differing points of view. See what you can do. --Haldrik 23:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine

Feel free to try integrate and improve the information in the Palestine article. I understand that the information may be "politically sensitive", but I am an archeologist of the region and I know what I'm talking about. There may be differing points of view. See what you can do. --Haldrik 23:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

persian jews

I disagree with your reinserting of the redlinks on Persian jews. The section is on "notable persian jews" yet does not assert their notability. For instance, what IS the Moinan group? If it was notable, would it not already have an article? What about the "conservative rabbi in Encino". Are all persian jewish rabbis notable? Of course not. Would you consider removing them again until the articles are written, or some notability can be established for htem? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove them then. I have no problem with red links. I just have a problem with redlinks in sections that are supposed to be "notable". Will CC to your talk page. Thank you for your efforts.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIPAC

Hello, with the summary "rv pov" you removed the following from AIPAC:

The Economist magazine claimed AIPAC's political power is the one of the main reasons for America's support of Israel. "Why is America so much more pro-Israeli than Europe? The most obvious answer lies in the power of two very visible political forces: the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) and the religious right." ^[1]

^ "To Israel with love". The Economist. Aug 3rd, 2006. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Would you mind explaining why you believe this is POV?

Also, why did you change the title of "AIPAC espionage scandal" to "Franklin, Rosen, Weissman"? Surely the former is a more descriptive and well known title for that section? Thanks. ANW 08:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've replied on my talk page. Thanks. ANW 09:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin H. Freedman

There is an article at Benjamin H. Freedman which seems to be a somewhat illiterate mishmash on a minor anti-Semitic/conspiracy theorist. I assume there are people on Wikipedia who are used to dealing with this sort of stuff, and was wondering if you know who I should point at this article? - Quietvoice 00:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis do you claim that the above mentioned B H Freedman is an anti-Semitic? The man in my opinion is probably one of the most notable in history Quietvoice, you obviously have a problem with that history? Go see a councillor maybe. -Theblackbay 14:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NewASAnti-Semiticposter.jpg

Thanks for the note. I was unaware that my administrator actions at Wikimedia Commons were being used at Talk:New anti-Semitism as an argument against rendering that image here. I'm not happy about it. I would like to suggest, if possible without being understood to be exerting any authority in intellectual property law or without being understood to be giving advice on internet publishing practices, to question whether the statement that the original designer of the placard is irrelevant applies to every signatory in the Berne convention and is binding in every legislation that a potential reuser might be in the jurisdiction of. If this is in fact the opinion of your counsel, it would be very helpful if they could get in touch with User:BradPatrick or User:Soufron, as it would revolutionise Commons policy on such media. Jkelly 01:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikimedia Commons we're making the claim that every derivative work of every image is freely reusable, including your hypothetical crop of everything but the poster. Do my actions there make more sense to you now? Jkelly 01:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, within the United States, there is very different precedent within the Ninth Judicial Circuit when it comes to works published outside the U.S. than anywhere else in the country thanks to Twin Books v. Walt Disney Co., so the idea that copyright decisions are made at the federal level could lead to error. Just as a point of trivia. Jkelly 02:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, was there a reason you reverted out the addition of the {{unverifiedimage}} tag when you also reverted User:Deuterium's edit? Template:PUIdisputed specifically calls for that tag to be included in the image caption. Thanks. (→Netscott) 16:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no actually not. Our previous disccussion had nothing to do with abiding by tagging policy. The image is tagged with {{PUIdisputed}} and in accord with that tag the corresponding image is to have {{unverifiedimage}} included in the image's caption(s). Am I missing something here? (→Netscott) 16:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously as far as I'm concerned there's no problem with the image staying however with that image being the lead image it's implies that Wikipedia is saying that it is demonstrative of new anti-Semitism. I tried to edit in text to cite who was saying it was demonstrative of anti-Semitism and my edits were reverted. Have a look at this less controversial example and hopefully you'll better understand. (→Netscott) 16:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant apart from the copyright issues (I have no problem with the image per se). Obviously copyright is another question. But I've said all along that I didn't think the image should be actually removed from the article (review the talk and you'll see). What I did say at the end of the talk (at which point you responded) was that it likely didn't matter due to copyright problems. (→Netscott) 17:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one editor that has been pursuing the copyright issue and that's User:Liftarn (a valid issue none-the-less). Given the response I recieved despite my good faith efforts to meet neutral point of view on the issue of that image and a citation about it I think any rational person would understand why I'd not have a problem seeing it deleted. (→Netscott) 17:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So by your response am I to understand that you think these examples aren't logical? (→Netscott) 17:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Blanket removal

Hi, can you explain why you removed all this accurate, well-sourced information from the Human rights in Israel article and again in Arab citizens of Israel?

A 2003 amendment of the Nationality and Entry into Israel law prohibits Palestinians who are married to Israelis from from gaining Israeli citizenship or residency. Critics argue that the law is racist because it is targeted at Arabs, since Israeli Arabs are far more likely to have Palestinian spouses than other Israelis.^[1] The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination unanimously approved a resolution saying that the Israeli law violated an international human rights treaty against racism.^[2] The Association for Civil Rights in Israel filed a petition to have the law struck down^[3] but it was upheld by a High Court decision in 2006. ^[4] Defenders say the law is aimed at preventing terrorist attacks and preserving the "Jewish character" of Israel by restricting Arab immigration.^[4]

I like to assume good faith, but I have noticed a pattern of you habitually removing cited information that criticizes Israel. You can't delete stuff just because you don't agree with it. Deuterium 03:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you are no permitted to use sources to prove an unsupported and novel thesis that is not mentioned in any single reference provided.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? What "unspported or novel thesis"? All of the sources agree that the legislation is being criticized as racist and discriminatory, even by the United Nations. Deuterium 04:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue this discussion on Talk:Human rights in Israel. okedem 07:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts?

I have rewritten one section of the article Israel lobby in the United States and would like your thoughts on it. I think it accurately sums up the core controversial thesis of the Mearsheimer and Walt paper:

See: Distinguishing between fair criticism and anti-Semitism

Best. --Ben Houston 08:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

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) 20:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 10:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

check out the Lehi page

User:Zero0000 is trying to push his WP:POV and WP:OR to slur the group in a non wikipedian fashion. Amoruso 05:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do check what happened. The correct version is my version of 16:28. since then, Ian Pitchford has corrupted it in order to make Lehi look monstrous and put it all in the intro too and there's much that he reverted as well with the help of some friends. See if you can help. Thanks. Lehi (group).

Amoruso 20:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Moshe, regarding [1].

Referring to "a number of governments": please review WP:WEASEL. Neither Merkel nor Steinmeier assert Israel's right to self defense in this matter. Stop lying.
Reffering to "media critique": The editor does not link to Anderson Cooper, but to Michelle Malkin, who is a racist. Please review WP:RS. Thanks. -- Svm07 12:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maronite Catholics

Way ahead of you; I ultimately changed this to Maronite Catholics, with links to both. I feel it is imprecise to lump this group in with Protestants, and it is general knowledge that Catholics are Christians. -- Kendrick7 12:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, they are in full communion with the Catholic church, and so are precisely refered to a Catholic, not Christian. Though looking here I suppose this is overgeneralizing; what I really want to get at isn't demographics balance per se, but the balance of power (e.g. the Lebanese president must be a Maronite), whose breakdown lead to the civil war. -- Kendrick7 12:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to let you in on a secret: the whole edifice, if you will, of the Catholic Church relies a worldwide group of churches which each individually has more in common with the sect down the road than the one on the other side of the earth, and yet all are technically, to use your word, part of the Catholic Church. Such differences are historically more definable between the Eastern Rite and Latin Rite particular Churches, though the greatest liturgically diffence, i.e. the Rites being done in Latin in the Latin Rite Church, disappeared half a century ago. Now whether, when the Crusaders showed up circa 1182, the declaration of the Maronites that they were loyal to the Pope, in a sort of we-were-wondering-where-the-heck-you-were fashion, was completely honest or a shrewed political calculation, is debatable, but it hardly changes 900 years of subsequent indisputable Catholicity.

Of course, now I have no idea what to do with that whole sentence the more I look at it; it's still somewhere between a gloss and a stretch of the factual truth. -- Kendrick7 13:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions to Migraine

I wasn't clear what your edit [2] to the Migraine article was about, I have commented on the talk page. Could you clarify? Thanks. --apers0n 13:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA: Malber

Thank you for your support in my recent nomination for adminship, even though it was unsuccessful. I admire someone who has the courage to avoid the pileon oppose. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Zionism

Please dont revert without feedback. See Talk:Anti-Zionism the intro needed cleanup. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 04:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may very well need a clean up but that clearly is not what you are doing, you have rewriten the entire article to be more in line with a particular pov. Reversion was the appropriate action.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I re-wrote the introduction, not the entire article. Most of the changes removed repeated comments. Please discuss on talk instead of a blind revert thanks and maybe let others comment as well. --Uncle Bungle 04:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If others would like to comment then they should go for it, none of my actions prevented them from doing so. I was asked to look at the article and that is exactly what I did, what I saw was helpful and productive edits mixed in with an inappropriate amount of pov and conjecture. I will stick to my argument that reversion in such a situation is appropriate. I can understand if it is difficult to see your work rmeoved in such a manner, but it did not fit in with wikipedia policy.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you are trying to preserve a NPOV. The issue was not that my edits were reverted, but that it was done without discussion as was explicitly requested. Jayjg has agreed to help clean-up the introduction. Please remember WP:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes since reverting changes without discussion is generally discouraged. Thanks again. --Uncle Bungle 02:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Guy Montag is banned from articles which relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Guy Montag's Probation under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Guy Montag placed on probation is extended to include one year from the final date of this decision. KimvdLinde and other administrators are encouraged to effectively enforce Guy Montag's Probation in appropriate circumstances. Should Guy Montag violate any ban imposed by this decision he may be blocked for an appropriate period. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 00:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taborites

It seems to me much more likely that the Taborites named themselves after mount Tabor, and that the Tabor formation is named after them... AnonMoos 03:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Taborite. AnonMoos 23:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I think you went over 3RR...

You seem to of reverted ParadoxTom (I assume his first edit was from that IP address) three times and myself once on the Jews for Jesus article within 24 hours, making four reverts :/. Homestarmy 15:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[3] made on October 15 2006 to Jews for Jesus

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 19:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Zionist political violence

Hiya,

In taking a step back from the article, it occurred to me that there's no need to include any reference to "Zionist terrorism" in the text. The article no longer has that POV title, and no where is the issue brought up, except in that sentence. The contentiousness over the statement that "Zionist terrorism" is a political epithet (which I agree with, BTW) is really a separate discussion, which has overshadowed this otherwise straight-forward article -- thus, the sentence is actually unnecessary (and potentially deleterious) there. Best, --Leflyman^Talk 00:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct...

...there are other subfamilies of baboon spiders, "baboon spider" should be a dab page to those. I haven't worked on spider articles for a while though. --EngineerScotty 20:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Gil-White

Hi, It could be that [[User:Ryan4|Ryan4] is Gil-White's mother rather than Gil-White himself ;-). That's about the end of the possibilities. The page on him is so obviously a vanity page that it doesn't really matter. As you can tell, I'm not around much these days, but I'll vote for delete if you propose it. --Zero^talk 11:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AskJolene

Hi Moshe,

I'm wondering about your recently created article AskJolene.

Will you be able to expand it in the future?
Is it notable enough to warrant an article as outlined in WP:WEB?

I'll monitor your talk page to keep the discussion centralized.

Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 03:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted talk section

I deleted the section about a possible sockpuppet. Sorry! -- [[User:Kendrick|Kendrick<sup>[[Talk:Kendrick|talk]]</sup>]] 06:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC) oops -- Kendrick7^talk 06:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, my thoughts on the matter is if he is being disruptive the proper channel would be AN/I or ArbCom or something to that effect. Bringing it up on the talk page, where all admins are already involved in recently heated discussions won't achieve much (because involved admins have their hands tied) except more rancor. Also, people involved in the heated dispute don't have the detachment to judge the matter fairly, you need uninvolved people for that. That is why I said your charges do not belong on that article talk page but elsewhere. --Deodar 14:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not up to you to decide what can and cannot remain on a talk page. Removing discussion like you just did can result in a block. Do not try to pull such a stunt again.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. If you wish to cast aspersions be my guest. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "asperations" in this case were relevant to the discussion, as it showed that a consistently problematic editor had returned under the guise of a new username trying to cause more of the same kind of problems that he had been for more than 6 months now.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistalking

I don't know anything about the site, I was only writing it as a peripheral matter to another article, please stop wikistalking me as it is beginning to become tiresome. I really do not want to go through dispute resolution and AN/I as I would hope you would be mature enough to not follow me around out of revenge for some percieved spite you think I inflicted upon you.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:wikistalking, there have been multiple precedents of users being blocked after following around another user who they disagreed with on an unrelated topic. Although I tend to disagree with you I never thought you could be this petty.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I assure you that you're not being "wikistalked". All the edits I make are with the best interest of Wikipedia in mind. If you have any specific contention with an edit I've made, or my conduct, I'm open to discussion. Thank you and best regards. --Uncle Bungle 00:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You suppose anyone will believe that you just happened to come across Gilbert Gottfried and ask jolene by coincidence? I was not planing to make a big deal out of this unless you persisted, but if you insult my intelligence by insisting that you did not come to those articles by looking at my contributions, then I fear I will be left with little choice.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not intending to cause annoyance or distress to you or anyone else. My edits have been clearly justified in the summary, relating to specific WP policies. If you feel that my edits are not well-intentioned, then please take whatever action you deem necessary. Regards. --Uncle Bungle 00:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you misunderstand the harassment policy. You can feel that your edits were justified all you want, however it is against wikipedia policy to look through another user's contributions in an effort to find edits that you can revert. It makes it all the worse that it is a user that you have been in several recent conflicts with.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not feel that my actions are in any way unjustified and will defend myself against any allegations made. My edits have all be made in good faith, and regardless of my browsing habbits, the intention or result is not harassment, annoyance, or distress. I have not been Wikistalking you, otherwise I would be editing a lot more articles. I will continue to monitor the articles on my watchlist, and edit any others I see fit within the guidelines of wikipedia policy. I do not appriciate these baseless accusations. Regards. --Uncle Bungle 05:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, baseless accusation? So you basically admit that you went into my user contribution log and looked for stuff you could revert even if you had never touched either the article or even the wider subject it was in, but you swear that it was not harassment and to suggest it was is "baseless", wow I'm not sure if I should laugh out loud or feel sorry for a little person who was not given the gift of reason or common sense.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I find your remarks offensive. Please refrain from making any further edits on my talk page with regards to this matter. I have stated my position, and intentions. If you feel I am in error, I kindly ask that you pursue other avenues. Thank you for your kind co-operation in this matter. Regards. --Uncle Bungle 06:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with User Strothra

If you're having problems with another user, you might wish to try WP:RFI as a step in resolving the problem.

FrozenPurpleCube 05:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malice

This posting, "Yes, but his deliberate attempts to stir up conflict on the talk page are far from benign, in fact like his previous edits, they reak of malice" is an unacceptable personal attack. While he certainly is a critic of Israeli policies and practices, saying that his edits "reek of malice" is malicious itself. Please reconsider the tone of your response. By the way, you are certainly correct regarding his identity, but he is currently in negotiations with Jimbo, SlimVirgin, and myself regarding the terms of his participation. He is not under any ban, other than his own voluntary restrictions at the present time. Fred Bauder 13:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I don't think that my comment qualifies as a personal attack any more than you referring to it as malicious is. Notice that I said his actions reeked of malice, not his person.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A distinction without a difference. You cannot continue to attack him without suffering serious consequences. Fred Bauder 20:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is a difference, and please do not threaten me, it is quite uncalled for. There is really nothing in the WP:NPA which states that I did anything that inappropriate. As I said before, if you could say that I made a personal attack then it would be much easier to say that you made one against me.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Mckinney

Hello Uncle Bugle, I am letting you know that you are in danger of violating the 3RR policy, if you revert more than 3 times in 24 hours, you can be blocked from editing.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, thank you for your concern. Please see Talk:Cynthia_McKinney. Just to let you know that reverting poorly sources controversial material is an exception to the 3RR policy. Again, thank you. --Uncle Bungle 21:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Yeah, thanks. I know how 3RR works.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

With regards to your comments on User_talk:Uncle.bungle: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Specifically the remarks: wow I'm not sure if I should laugh out loud or feel sorry for a little person who was not given the gift of reason or common sense posted at [4]. While I understand I'm several days late, I still feel you should be officially warned should there be further issues. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 04:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I certainly hope that you sent this before my last message. Anyways, it was a rude comment for me to make but your campaign of wikistalking was at least just as distasteful. Anyways, I am not sure if you understand this but "warnings" are not official when issued by the "offended" party.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not wikistalking. See below, I saw a pattern of disruptive behaviour and followed up on it. I was not reverting to harass, but rather what I felt were genuinely inapropriate edits to articles. I was wrong in my judgement, but not in my means. I do appriciate your apology though, thank you. --Uncle Bungle 04:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how you justify your behavior by your "intent" wikipedia has a very clear name for what you did, as with every rule there is some ambiguity involved, but your actionswere quite far from any grey area. I would hope you could understand how unpleasent it is to feel that your every edit anywhere on wikipedia is being scrutinized for something that one could revert without being disciplined. If you do not understand this, let me just tell you that the feeling is not very gratifying.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS the notice board for NPA specifically says you have to have been flagged with the template before being reported. Next time you'll be reported, thats what I meant. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 04:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it was an apology, it was more an offer of truce and friendship that you rudely rebuffed.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rough start

Look I think we got off to a rough start, I generally pride myself with being able to have a good relationship with editors of differing viewpoints as long as they are reasonable. You seem to be reasonable so lets just both accept that we acted disrespectful and unreasonable towards one another and be polite to each from now on. Deal?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to go digging for all the evidence, you know your talk history. If these were official proceedings, the situation would be different.

I am not the first person you've attacked personally User_talk:Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg/Archive_7#Civility (here). You've been warned several times in the past about the 3RR, and once officially blocked for it. You skirt the 3RR, and then warn me about the same. You reverted my edits to anti-Zionism, an article I've worked on in the past, and refused to engage in discussion (which is all I really wanted). You fought me bitterly for days over a simple fact tag on Zionist political violence, and called my argument laughable.

I sincerely think you have the best interest of Wikipedia in mind, but you truly need to learn to work better with others. This last week has been extremely trying for me, and has really sucked the joy out of Wikipedia.

Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, with the exception of the article allready on my watch list (which I have a long standing interest in), I am going to deliberately avoid articles which you are also editing. Should I witness any of the above behaviour in the future, I'll have no choice but to report it, as you've been repeatedly warned. Thank you and regards. --Uncle Bungle 04:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me this last week of interaction with you has been some of my least enjoyable time on wikipedia, I did not mention this on the last message because I was trying to be polite, you however showed no such restraint, I believe that what prompted you to send that ugly reply is the same thing that prompted you to begin a campaign of wikistalking. You have no idea of the context of those old disputes that you so happily pointed to as evidence that you were in the right. I would be happy to never come into contact with you again, but I thought such a wish was unlikely so I at least thought I would try to admit my own mistakes and attempt to call a truce. Your reply leads me to suggest that you look at your own advice that "you truly need to learn to work better with others". I hope that you (as I know I will do) will truly avoid conflict with me in the future, but if I feel I am being wikistalked again, I feel I will be left with little option other than to report you just as you would report me.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

believe that what prompted you please do not presume to know what prompts me to do anything. My reply was ugly, yes, and I thought hard before saving it, but the words that I wrote needed to be written. Nothing I wrote was inaccurate. --Uncle Bungle 05:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you think you "needed" to write such a thing after I reached my hand out in friendship makes what I wrote all the more applicable. It also leads me to believe that you are either unable to understand or simply do not care about your own wrongs this past week.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways this is not going anywhere so please consider this conversation over and do not write any more messages on my talk page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I considered the conversation over ages ago, and wrote my last reply only here, as a followup for anyone who reads my talk page history in the future. I asked you in the past to not post on my page any more regarding Ask Jolene, and you disregarded my request. You came out of nowhere, would not discuss my edits, insulted me, and became offended when I called you out on it. Agreed, this is over. --Uncle Bungle 05:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and then you followed me all around wikipedia, denied it when I asked you to stop and then followed me around some more.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Israeli marriage law blocks citizenship for Palestinians". San Francisco Chronicle. August 1, 2003.
^ "UN blasts Israeli marriage law". BBC News. 15 August, 2003. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Ben Lynfield. "Marriage law divides Israeli Arab families". Christian Science Monitor.
^ ^a ^b Ben Lynfield. "Arab spouses face Israeli legal purge". The Scotsman.

[sfgate1-2] "Israeli marriage law blocks citizenship for Palestinians". San Francisco Chronicle. August 1, 2003.

[3] "UN blasts Israeli marriage law". BBC News. 15 August, 2003. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[4] Ben Lynfield. "Marriage law divides Israeli Arab families". Christian Science Monitor.

[scotsman1-5] Ben Lynfield. "Arab spouses face Israeli legal purge". The Scotsman.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]