User talk:Zeq

Click here to leave a new message.

Archive 1 Archive 2

Suspected sockpuppet

The sockpuppet you directed me too has a Norway ip. That one edit is the only edit from that internet provider. There are no edits by any registered user. Fred Bauder 13:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

We can't solve all the problems which affect an entire area of editing through one arbitration case. The problem we were presented with was the problem raised by your behavior. We may not even have solved that problem but that is what we focused on. Fred Bauder 14:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Extensive research shows no use of sockpuppets by Zero0000. Fred Bauder 15:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Typical arrogance

This story earlier in the week about the words of Weissglas illustrated the type of arrogance of power I may have told you about in the past, and today a Haaretz writer had the same reaction. here. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the text you linked to, and I could see absolutely no arrogance or even any mention of using power whatsoever. But the entire article seems to be written wrong way, so I perfectly understand why you are agitated! -- Heptor _talk doesn't understand a word i Hebrew on 23:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC).

Arbitration case

I see the relative severity of the behavioural issues differently than you do, and in my opinion your posts to my page are further examples of the issue. In order to edit successfully on Wikipedia, one must be able to interact in a civil way. It's actually policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're talking about being "banned"; the case does not include any remedies which would ban you from Wikipedia, merely from two specific articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I wish you could consider me your friend and supporter. I want you to edit here, just use better sources and let other viewpoints be fairly expressed. But you need to quit fussing and imagining everyone is biased against you, most of us are not. Fred Bauder 15:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting on the content of articles is not practical. You have to be intensely involved in editing an article to be able to judge it in that way. Fred Bauder 18:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Palestine

So the Jews started to enforce the decision on the ground is a 'clear lie', but then you replaced it with the Arabs started to attack Jews. Both are POV. You should either have a source for these kinds of statements, or remove them both. Please try to NPOV the section, historical evidence would be most welcome. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Per policy, you cannot use another Wikipedia page as a source for this Wikipedia page. Also, NPOV may mean providing different POV, but each POV has to be presented neutrally. So saying "Jews attacked Arabs and Arabs attacked Jews" include both POVs, but it is not presented neutrally. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hamas

Zeq, could you please discuss your reversion in talk page? You insist on reversing changes made in order to avoid redundancies. So why should'nt we revert you? Regards, Tazmaniacs 18:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I respond to all your posts in talk page; the same can't be said of you. Discussion is carried on overthere. There is no reason to revert to before today's changes, because all of these changes did not change the content, only created a subsection (you wisely did it) and placed other contents in appropriate subsections. You very well know that if you start speaking about things concerning the January elections, then you're bringing up everything concerning them, not only the statements which interest you. Tazmaniacs 19:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation on Talk:Amin al-Husayni

Mediation has started; please join us and have your say. --Cyde Weys 07:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hamas

Hi. Please read more closely. The passage reads: Hamas is best known throughout the world for its military wing, which [i.e. this military wing] has carried out suicide and other homicidal attacks against Israeli civilians and military targets. Thanks. El_C 10:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Question

I am trying to understand the proposed decision .

Is it acce[ptable or not to:

"It is unacceptable to remove relevant material from an article if its source is a scholarly work by an authority in the field."

If it is acceptable , under what conditions ?

In the normal course of editing other relevant material might be substituted, or the material might be removed in put in a more detailed subtopic, or the article might be reorganized in a way which makes the material no longer relevant. Fred Bauder 16:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If it is not acceptable, does it mean that ANY amount of such material should never be removed ?

Of course not, any number of reasons may arise. Fred Bauder 16:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

How does this new rule in relation to NPOV ?

Not a new rule, it is an application of NPOV. Material which is needed to fairly represent a significant point of view should not be removed. Fred Bauder 16:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

These are all serious questions as I am trying to understand what are the "terms" of my probation and what excatly did I do wrong (in hope not to return it).

What you did wrong is twofold, removing well sourced information and adding information from propagandistic sources. Fred Bauder 16:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Article

Thanks for the link. Cheers, Pecher ^Talk 21:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Machsom Watch

Just to let you know, your edit was reverted (again) by Zero on the basis that Arutz Sheva is not a respectable source. I am now arguing with him about it, please have a look. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 11:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: adminship

Thanks but I am not interested. Details on [1]. Pavel Vozenilek 19:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

The edits I saw showed large-scale changes, not just the small one you mentioned. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks

תודה.

אולי הוא יהודי אבל אני לא חושב ישראלי... Ramallite ^(talk) 22:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Said

Thanks for the link. See also the link to which criticism of "Orientalism" is sourced on the article itself, especially the quote from Bernard Lewis. Pecher ^Talk 15:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

email

I am afraid I can't send you an e-mail through Wikipedia at the moment. It says "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users." Have you confirmed your email address in Wikipedia? I had to do just that only a few days ago to make it work again, so I thought maybe that's the problem? -- Karl Meier 20:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's working again. I have just send you an e-mail. -- Karl Meier 20:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq

This arbitration case has closed. Zeq is banned from articles he has disrupted and placed on Probation. Zeq and Heptor are cautioned regarding sources. Zeq is cautioned regarding removal of well sourced information. Others are cautioned to use the procedures in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Where applicable, these remedies are to be enforced by block. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Hi, can you look at these votes for deletion:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Vedic studies
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas McElwain
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslim Christianity scholars

Cheers, Pecher ^Talk 16:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Queeran

Hi Zeq. We are in agreement here. I reverted because I also thought he made it worse. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for believing in me, but I don't feel like it right now. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Misquote?

Dear Zeq.

First I do not understand what you business is in reverting and deleting sources without participating in the talk. Please dont accuse me for not participating in talk and threaten me with ArbCom, when the talk page clearly displays that I try to reach a discussion about your constant reverts, and you have not replied one single time. US and EU have threatened to withdraw their aid to PNA if the new government does no accept the three conditions, EU has afterwards decided to fund the PNA anyway. I have not heard about Russian and UN agreeing on freezing the funds. If this is the case please provide a source before you re-enter it. Bertilvidet 09:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Hi - questions for you here. Thanks. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Edward Said

How? If you read most of his writings, he always campaigned for Palestinian 'rights'. I don't see how it is POV to say that somebody was an advocate of Palestinian rights. It is POV to say that somebody MUST advocate for Palestinian rights, or something like that. But to simply describe what Said was, in his own words, I don't see how that is POV. Can you explain to me how? This is nothing political, it is simply describing the work and ideals of the man. Pecher (and maybe you?) seems to disagree that what Said called 'Palestinian rights' are not necessarily 'rights', but the definition of 'rights' is not what is important in the description of the man, that is for another category, I think. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive

Dear Zeq, I would like to point out that I have nominated the Hamas article fro Article Improvement Drive, as I believe the article can be much more clear and comprehensive if an effort is done. I assume that you, despite previous disagreements, will agree with me on the need for improving the article. So please have a look at Wikipedia:Article_Improvement_Drive#Hamas. Bertilvidet 15:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Video

Thanks. She is a great woman. Pecher ^Talk 21:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I think you made a good point in Al-Husayni. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Banned editors etc.

Yes, that was the banned editor Alberuni. Thanks for letting me know. Regarding the other information you put on my talk page, did you want me to get involved in mediating on that page? If so, that was a confusing and rather aggressive way of doing so. Why don't you just politely ask (i.e. not demand) that I do so now? I'm sure that would work well. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: RFM

Please re-read the information on the RfM page: Any request that includes additional information, particularly commentary, will have the additional information removed. Parties should adhere to the format strictly. In most situations, improperly formatted requests are simply rejected and delisted; I was being lenient in simply removing the incorrectly formatted entries. Please familiarize yourself with the procedure for making requests before doing so; I don't appreciate being accused of incivility when it is you who failed to familiarize yourself with procedure and you who failed take notice of the repeated boldtype notices on the page clearly stating that improperly formatted text would be removed. Any further non-complaint requests will be rejected with prejudice. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 12:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point, mediation would certainly be better than another round of arbitration. I don't get this reject a mediation case with prejudice. Fred Bauder 16:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Which article

Which article would you like me to help mediate, 1948 Arab-Israeli War or Nakba? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, the issue, frankly, is that it is very difficult to work with you. Nevertheless, I'm going to try to help you out as best I can, because it seems to me that there is at least some merit in some of your complaints, and that people dismiss them entirely solely because of the way you interact with them. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

hello

Please try to email me again. I have enabled it now. Sorry for the late reply, I rarely log in into Wikipedia. Or I try to email you later. Regards, --doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 18:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I got your email, but there was no text. If you want to write me something, please do so. You can also contact me on my talkpage. Just remember that I rarely log in into wikipedia, and it might take some while until I read your message. Regards, --doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 19:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

69.40.27.200

Not sure it is him yet; will keep an eye open. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Machsom Watch

Why won't you just report Zero for 3RR violation? Pecher ^Talk 17:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Opinion of checkpoints

Yes, that was my mistake, I meant it was irrelevant to the lead. It has now been clarified, thanks for pointing it out. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 18:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Machsom Watch again

Why did you remove criticism from the intro in your latest edit? Pecher ^Talk 19:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"Nakba" page

The response I have gotten indicates that you can edit the Talk: page, but that if you become disruptive there you can be banned from it, as per the ArbCom ruling. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Myths and Facts

Fred, can you ask ArbCom to clarify if this book can or can not be used as source ? Thanks. Zeq 10:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Leonard J. Davis and M. Decter, Eds., Myths and facts: A Concise Record of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Washington DC: Near East Report, 1982, I think you should consider that it is a book published by a nation that is at war and can be expected to reflect that reality. That does not mean everything in it is false, just that it strongly represents a purposeful point of view. It should be cited with care. I would independently verify the information in it if I were you. By the way, as this book is quite inexpensive I have ordered it and will have it in a couple of weeks so that our conversation regarding it can be of a more particular nature. Fred Bauder 03:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Good morning, Zeq, and Thank you ;-D

for: [2] Regards, Huldra 08:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC) PS: (& hope it is not as "#&%$&# cold in Israel as it is up here ;-( ´cuse my language)

Shut up, shut up, SHUT UP!!! I suddenly felt like getting violent, hitting you on the head.... I hate you!!! (....and anybody else who is anywhere where the temperature is above freezing point...;-( Huldra 08:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

(PS: I´m an old diver: diving in a wet-suite in Scandinavia ..in the winter ...has given me countless frostbites (I think that is the English word )...now my "nerve-ends" go numb (and hurt!) whenever it is cold: typical for all "old divers" up here. I sleep with woolen socks, even in Dahab in the summer...

Thanks, but after having spend $$$$ over the years (to no great help) I have (mostly!) learned to live with it (exept on some frosty March mornings..) The best advise is what they give on Raynaud's disease: "keep warm by wearing gloves and socks."

It is extremely common around here (among "old" divers); some have what we call "banana fingers" (fingers swell and become like bananas or cucumbers as soon as it gets a little cold)..I´m not so bothered by that (I always protected my fingers/hands reasonably well...but my feet....my feet/toes seemed so, well, unimportant back then... ) (Good Lord, what an idiot I was (in fact: we all were, but that knowledge doesn´t help)). I think that more (far more) than 50% of my old diving-buddies have similar problems. (We are "The Cold feet Club") Recently the doctors in charge of the Navys Diving here have starting working for greater awareness of the problem (10-20-30 years too late, but better late than never, etc..). I cannot count the number of 2.degree frostbite (thats what we called it) I have had. Now it has stabelized: but I can never dive in Scandinavia again. Dahab, however...;-) and Ras Mohammed ooohhhh...... Huldra 10:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC) PS: ahem, BTW: isn´t KindHearts a Wikipedia:Copyrights violation?

Thanks, I´ll keep it in mind, (though my belief is slim, I`m afraid..) Also: feel free to remove any of my (frozen) comments above: ahem; I guess threatning to hit somebody could be seen as personal attack ;-D

...Anyway: on another note: I have looked quite carefully on all your additions to Israeli Arabs#Participation of Israeli Arabs in terror acts against Israeli citizens: do you know what? With the exception of the first (=the suicide bomber) my own father did equally "bad", and some far, far worse things that any of the events mentioned... people like him were called "terrorist", at least until May 1945, when they officially became "Resistance fighter" over night. Think about it. Regards, Huldra 09:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC), the daughter of a terrorist.

Good show

Like I said, it will be a good show. Of course, now there are many Palestinian criminals (rapists, murderers) who probably escaped from the Jericho prison because the army didn't care about them running away. And the overall effect is that the US and UK reputation is in the trash can, Olmert's poll numbers will go from 38 to 43%, Palestinians just have more rubble, destruction, and dead people (pretty standard), and the security of Israelis is enhanced by zero percent. Actually, I enjoyed reading this headline:פרץ בירך הממשלה על הפעולה; נתניהו רק את צה"ל Good old Bibi - who ordered the army? Anyway, all this for Ze'evi? You guys must really have liked him a lot!! In fact, just yesterday an article came out about how his dream of kicking Palestinians out is coming true: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=694026&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0 Ramallite ^(talk) 19:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Any chance of getting this in English? -- Heptor _talk 23:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Heptor: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/693728.html Ramallite ^(talk) 23:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

National pride huh? Did somebody win the Olympic gold medal for stupidity? It's not like they caught a fugitive - the guy woke up in UK custody, he wasn't hiding in a cave - so it's a day of national pride because Israel got a wanted man handed to them by the UK? Anyway, this kidnapping thing in Gaza is BS - unemployed young men acting like gangsters - they should all be castrated. But it's evidence of a broken society - economic condition is the key to everything. Horrible economy plus humiliation leads to things like this. What made me really angry is all those Palestinians being paraded in front of international cameras almost naked - typical Israeli army humiliation tactic and therefore a stupid move. So anyway, as far as rioting goes, hopefully these idiots will stop this stupidity - they even attacked the HSBC Bank branch in Ramallah because it is British-owned, even though all its employees are local Palestinians, even the director. At least when a foreigner gets kidnapped in Gaza, it's nothing more than a few hours inconvenience for the kidnapped person before they are let free, as opposed to getting kidnapped in Iraq, where it's an entirely different outcome. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, if everything were just black or white.....

There is a very interesting debate about this: Norwegian heavy water sabotage#Aftermath: although the article here is not very clear on the issue (and the film is a falcification on this point): the point is: the sabotours knew that there would be civilians, ordinary passengers (not collaborators), on board, and that they would be killed, too (Even if they survived the blast: you simply don´t survive long in a mountain lake, that time of the year). (I think it was about 12 Norwegian civilians who were killed..it is some time since I read about it) So the question is: did they do the right thing planting the bomb there?? Were those people terrorist, or resistance fighters? (I can tell you my thoughts about that, later), I really would like to hear your thoughts about it. Regards, Huldra 10:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC) (I could of course also mention something about dropping a 1 ton bomb over Gaza, in order to kill one Hamas leader, killing, oh, what was it, 14(?) more, but I will let that rest for now..)

Oh, the Nazis weren´t hiding or using civilians as shield in this case: there was only one ferry they could take, and that ferry happen to be also a normal commercial ferry, carrying civilians. But from your reply I take it that the people who did it were not "terrorist"? (in your view, as their main objective was a military one). But then I have to ask: that one Israeli Arab suicide bomber: from what I have read (somewhere) he targeted soldiers? (I think) (I´m not 100% sure here)-but if he did: then that would be legitimate? Regards, Huldra

--Just a few final words: starting a heading (about an incident I do not know about) with the words: "Arab Lies" makes me think: what would you have said if somebody had started a heading with the words: "Jewish Lies"?

Also, about the link under "Why not?" Really, Zeq; if you want to spend your time reading garbage on the internet, well, you are of course free to do so. I try to spend my time differently.

--I´m always interested in discussing what -broadly- can be called moral philosophy. The things you call "simple" are simply not so simple in my mind. Take Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: I assume we both can agree that he would be a "valid" "military target". However, how many other (innocent) people can you morally justify killing in hunting him down? The way you put it, it sounds as if it is totally irrelevant as to how many innocents "bystanders" are killed, as long as the "target" is legitimate.(..and you "minimize casualities", whatever that means.). In its ultimate consequence: can you justify dropping an atombomb on a town where you know Zarqawi is hiding.....? -if there is no other way to destroy "the military target"? (I hope you will agree with me that that would be an "overkill", quite literally....) But I repeat: how many (innocent) people can you morally justify killing (or risk killing/hurting) in hunting dow a "valid" target? The words about "minimizing casualities" sounds very pretty, but really doesn´t tell me anything substantial.

--Lastly, just for the record, regarding WWII: it doesn´t really matter what you or I or the Geneva convention thinks about what terrorism is or not. What matter (or rather: what mattered back then) is what the "rulers" of that time defined as terrorism. And the nazi regime defined all non-military opposition/acts as "terrorist" or "criminal". And, btw, this opposition (almost) always targeted occupation (military) forces, one simple reason for this was that there were no civilians to target! (No immigration of German settelers..) The only exception that comes to mind were nazi informers: i.e. local civilians who collaborated with the occupation forces; often by joining a resistance group, and then informing on them to the nazi forces, often with devastating consequences. Now, would such an informer be a military or civilian target in your view?

--Anyway, I don´t know if I will spend much more time on this (It is much more fun to write articles...), however, I just wanted to point out that things that seem so clear-cut on paper isn´t always clear-cut to me. Regards, Huldra 12:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

-Ps: I only use Zarqawi as an example; you might substitute him with any "military target" you like. And certainly: I agree with you about not using the nazi as a yard-stick; the point I try to make is that for the people in a given situation it doesn´t matter one bit what you or I think; the only thing that counts is what the people in charge thinks. Regards, Huldra 13:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Irish Times

Hi Zeq, you asked about this edit. I agree that the Irish Times point could be included, but it's inappropriate for the intro, unless you have a source showing that the special unit you mentioned exists and that it was created because of Machsom Watch. The second quote, from the Guardian, doesn't belong in the article at all because it isn't about Machsom Watch. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

NOR and V

Thanks for your note. If you want to question the policies, the places to do it are on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and Wikipedia talk:No original research. I agree that the policies should be applied evenly throughout the encyclopedia, but if we find it being done badly in one place, it doesn't mean we do it badly in another in order to achieve consistency. ;-) If you find people evaluating mainstream published sources in other articles, refer them to the NOR and V policies, because they are not supposed to do it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Shiqaqi Poll

Thanks for the link - I think it does indeed reflect the mood, because Hamas voters wanted two thing: no more corruption, and no more bullshit on peace. It's also what I call the 'Sharon Syndrome', Sharon inspired Palestinians to elect right wingers because they saw how popular a right winger (and in their eyes a terrorist) became for Israelis and also the world. So it looked like only strong right wingers can make peace. The majority who voted for Hamas want peace with Israel in my opinion and now also as this poll shows - but a strong peace not based on BS. But I don't think Hamas will follow the 'Road Map' as the article says (and why do you guys call it road MAPS? I thought there is only one map - or do you like to go in many directions?) The Road Map does not contain a basic requirement for Hamas: that Israel recognize the rights of the Palestinians to exist and for self-determination. That is also why Hamas will refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist, because they feel that the recognition has to be mutual. The Oslo years was a result of Arafat and his gang recognizing Israel's right to exist in return for Israel recognizing the PLO as a negotiating partner - which is not the same as Palestinian rights to self-determination. Hamas wants to make the recognition mutual. Plus, I think they will be extremely stupid to do any more attacks of any kind. We'll see. In the meantime, I think there are a few more prisons the IDF hasn't destroyed yet (in Bethlehem and Hebron), so if you guys are in the mood to lift Olmert's numbers a bit higher, or just bored, there are a few prisons ready and waiting ;) Ramallite ^(talk) 19:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - that's what I meant - 'many roads' not 'many maps'. I don't recall the Israelis ever recognizing Palestinians' right to self determination - they recently talk about a state but that's not the same thing since you can take a piece of land, close all the borders and control the air space and decide to call that a 'state'. But there has never been an Israeli recognition of Palestinian rights (of course the Palestinians have not always behaved like they deserve such rights especially after the PLO was taking advice from stupid Arab leaders, but on the other hand self determination is a human right supposedly guaranteed to every human being). Do you remember when Israel made such a recognition?

That's exactly my point - they are pushing for a Palestinian state, but without recognition of Palestinian right to self-determination, what kind of state will it be? It is well known that they do not intend it to be a fully sovereign state, but the idea is to have some kind of limited entity, and afterwards they can call it a 'state' or a 'box' or whatever you want - at least that's what the thinking has been for some time (i.e. it doesn't matter what you call it as long as it suits Israel's demands). Calling for a 'state' is not the same as recognizing the right to sovereignty, especially with the ex-Likidniks' definition of a 'state'. Ramallite ^(talk) 05:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian exodus

Zeq, I haven't "dismissed myself" from this promise, I'm just not aware of any outstanding POV issues. Again, if you could describe specific sentences or paragraphs which you think are POV, and propose alternatives, that would be fine; however, you seem unable to do that. The chance of the article being deleted is nil, particularly as there is no proposed replacement ready. You can add it to WP:AFD if you wish. I did suggest that you write a new article and propose it, but I haven't seen any results yet on that front. Are you nearly finished? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Myths and Facts

I have received this and have been reading it. It is a powerful book. Fact based but with a very strong Israeli point of view. Fred Bauder 22:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding right to exist, nobody, whatever the excuse, has the right to take over a country that other people already live in. However, an established state, explicitly established by the United Nations in a League of Nations Mandate, recognized by most other states, has a clear right to exist. While that may seem contradictory I am quite comfortable with it. Once a mass movement began to settle Palestine, there was little choice but to proceed and make the best of it. Likewise we must move forward and make every effort to facilitate a mutually advantageous peace. Most of the movement has to come from the Muslim side and its going to be a very long process. When you see Jews living peacefully in Mecca, as they once did, we'll know peace is at hand. Fred Bauder 16:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Better Writing and Original Research

First of all let me say that I have not (yet?) personally reviewed the sources given in the paragraph, and simply relied on the more coherent piece. You must understand that, while WP:NOR is a very important policy, so are the guidelines on Wikipedia readability. It's better to have a properly written paragraph with 90% verifiable info and 10% original research (assuming it's logical and not ludicrous, which is the case now), than to have a completely verifiable and incoherent article.

Please understand that I'm not trying to belittle your arguments, because I agree with you about the sourcing, but much of what you write is not just poorly written, but completely impossible to understand for an English speaker. Don't forget that this is the English Wikipedia, it is not meant to accomodate users with poor English (maybe try the Simple English Wiki for that). If your new paragraph was even a little understandable (for a reader such as myself who did not read the source), I would've edited it for better English.

My current suggestion to you is say what you think should be in the article on the talk page, and then other editors can convert it to proper text in the article. I'll see to it that anti-Israel editors (won't name names...) don't vandalize what you insert (as long as it's properly sourced, etc.) However, I'm quite surprised you're not fluent in English if you work with/for the UN.

On a side note, you might want to archive old discussions on your talk page.

-- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 22:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually even policies should always come hand in hand with common sense. The primary goal of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia - many encyclopedias may insert bits of loosely based data, but you will never see an encyclopedia that's practically impossible to understand. Taken from Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines:

Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. ... A policy is similar to a guideline, only more official and less likely to have exceptions.

Basically this says that a policy is the same as a guideline only it must be enforced as opposed to less official guidelines (not set in stone). However, it clearly states that exceptions can be made in both cases. Common sense and public concensus are a good guide to decide that.

-- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 00:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

He seems to have stopped editing 2 hours ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Machsom Watch

I'm a bit myustified by your last edit summary. The only thing we can certainly say about the checkpoints is that they control movement of Palestinians. That may be for one reason or another, but it is their purpose and is manifestly precisely what they do and not a side-effect. Are the checkpoints within the West Bank really meant to stop "Palestinian terrorists" entering Israel? Palmiro | Talk 18:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Arab transference from Israel

Please take a look at Talk:Israeli Arab transference from Israel (and the article itself), basically Lokiloki, the article's author, asserts that Liberman's current political agenda is to forcibly transfer Israeli Arabs from Acre, Sakhnin, etc. to the Palestinian Authority. Now, we all know Liberman doesn't love Arabs, but with all fairness, he has abandoned that campaign for a more moderate approach a long time ago. The 5 or 6 sources used to support this claim are also questionable, as they are all opinion pieces, and there was even an article written by Uri Avneri (the archrival of Arutz 7, so to say). -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 10:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Your 4RRs

I believe you have made 4 reverts on Israeli Arabs: it is probably in your best interest to back off for a bit. Lokiloki 18:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

reading for anybody interested in events in 1948

I tried to edit Ben Dunkelman and was at once reverted by "our twins" Slim&Jay. I therefore copied the source into: User:Huldra\Newstuff. I don´t know if you are familiar with the quotes (or the book). I find the quotes quite interesting. I´m particularely touched by Rabin´s: "Great suffering was inflicted upon the men taking part in the eviction action". Ah, my heart bleeds. Regards, Huldra 19:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC) PS: I haven´t had time to edit it into the articles yet; must log out now.

Lieberman

Please look at the subsequent version of the section I created, before you made your comment. I believe you will agree it is entirely factual. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA Results and Thanks

Zeq, thank you for your constructive opposition in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. In the meantime, I will do my best to address your concerns in the hope that when the opportunity for adminship arises once again, you will reconsider your position. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path. --- joturner 05:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion (Excellent to my mind :D )

Hi Zeq, This is regarding the dhimmi, jizya and rules of war in islam articles. I think RFC is not a good idea since we are not sure if both articles are free from any problems. I have a suggestion: All editors involved in this mediation nominate a few editors(not among themselves). They are better to be administrator or at least experienced editors(e.g. Zora ) and concede their editing right to their nominated editors. These people will form the editor committee. All the editors have to promise not to edit the articles directly anymore, but just try to convince the editor committee if they want to make any change to the article(The articles can be blocked from editing). The final decisions are however made by the editor committee(maybe voting). I hope that concensus could be achieved easier there. How is my idea? Please post your opinion at [3] Thanks --Aminz 06:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, I have made an slot for you on the mediation page.[4] Please post your opinion there. thx--Aminz 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for your comment. I have replied to it on the mediation page. By the way, Thanks you for your help on the mediation page and on the articles.--Aminz 06:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Komemeiut

As far as I know "Komemeiut" means "erect" or "upright". Jayjg ^(talk) 18:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Link

Thanks for the link. I expected that something like that would be unearthed one day or another. Pecher ^Talk 20:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The mediation

Hi Zeq, I agree that we can not say that the mediation has failed for sure, but I think my suggestion, assuming the committee is well chosen, is fair and does not stop anybody to edit the article at a deeper level. Can you please post your opinion on the mediation page[5]. thx --Aminz 21:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Tamam

lo harbe - thanks for the link. These things happen a lot, there was a bunch of Palestinians stuck on the Libyan/Egyptian border for a while a few years ago (they might still be there, I don't know what happened to them after Qaddafi kicked them out). I hope this goes to show that, no matter what Israelis think, the Jordanians are not our 'brethren'. This is an example of why I can't stand it when people think of all 'Arabs' as one people. The unfortunate thing is that these people are trying to get into Jordan because they have nowhere else to go, but Jordan is probably a worse place than Iraq to live. Yesterday I heard that Syria has agreed to let them in, but that's just an announcement. I doubt if the government will actually carry out their promise, but we'll see. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Mosque FAC Comment

I have responded to your comments on the Mosque FAC; I hope I have addressed your concerns sufficiently. Feel free to comment more on issues with the article on the FAC page. joturner 07:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to await other's comments. If I still hear complaints of POV, perhaps something can be done. I used words like "small" as you indicated in the FAC because I didn't want it to sound like one can step into any mosque and just hear condonements of bombings and terrorism, as that clearly is not true. joturner 08:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hamas

Zeq, I've reverted your edit because the information you put in is already n the article, twice, by my glancing quickly. Try not to lace articles about which you hold a atrong opinion with your own slant on things, or repeat the same sentiments over and over. It potentially violates WP:NPOV, even if I tend to agree with you wholeheartedly. - CobaltBlueTony 15:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Just another RFA thank you note

Dear Zeq, I really appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Benny Morris

Hello Zeq. Please, have a look at my comments on the talk's page of Palestinian exodus. I remember several times you wrote that "too much place was given to Morris theory". Please, have in mind absolutely NO PLACE is given to Morris theory in the palestinian exodus article. Just place for "some parts" of it ;-). Unfortunately I will not take the time to fight on the English wikipedia and only, step by step, correct the French one to introduce there the real NPOV wikipedia's policy. Alithien 18:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Zeq, you should know by now that blogs are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. If you are going to continue to edit you could consider working with another editor until your English reaches encyclopedic standard. Heptor's English has improved enormously since he has been working on the project and perhaps he could help. --Ian Pitchford 09:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, you've re-written Nakba Day again in pidgin English with multiple misspellings. Nakba Day is 15 May, not Israel's independence day and it began in 1998, not 1988 as the sources verify, i.e., good sources published in English. Please reverse these changes. --Ian Pitchford 15:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles should be written in encyclopedic English and use good sources. If you don't understand the basic errors then ask someone for help, or at the very least use a spell-checker. At the moment it reads like pidgin English. Just complaining wont do. With regard to the facts: Nakba Day is on 15 May, Israeli independence day isn't (and as you've already pointed out this year it's on 3 May) and also independence was declared on 14 May not 15 May. Israel was never granted independence from the UK anyway. --Ian Pitchford 17:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the links you've added to this article: [6] says that Nakba day is on 15 May, which is not Israel's Independence Day. [7] says it marks "the formation of Israel on May 15, 1948. The Israeli government website points out that 14 May is independence day. Nakba Day isn't Israeli Independence Day. --Ian Pitchford 18:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Arguing that 14 May is 15 May just wont fly. --Ian Pitchford 19:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

These sources you are adding confirm you are wrong in claiming that Nakba Day is on the same day as Israeli Independence Day. Haaretz says:

Every 19 years, the dates on the Jewish and Gregorian calendars line up. This year, as Israel celebrates 57 years since the founding of the state (three multiplied by 19), it happens again on Independence Day. The fifth of the Hebrew month of Iyar falls this year on May 14, the Jewish and Gregorian dates on which the State of Israel was declared, though ironically, Independence Day celebrations were brought forward to tomorrow because the holiday would otherwise fall on Shabbat. The following day, May 15, markes the official end of the British Mandate in Palestine and the date the Arab armies invaded. This is the day that the Palestinians and Arabs mark as Nakba Day, "The Catastrophe."

Bahrain news says: ""Every year in May, Palestinians commemorate their forced displacement And dispossession (al-Nakba, the catastrophe) resulting from the establishment of the state of Israel" (i.e., 15 May and not 14 May). --Ian Pitchford 17:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Al Fateh

Hi Zek! I am pleased to see that you finally interested yourself in this propaganda TV set up by Hamas. However, in all honesty, while understanding your legitimate concerns (which I share with you), I would also like you to think about another concern: do you really think making an article to deal for this TV is an efficient way to denounce this intolerable propaganda? You may be right, in which case I support you. But you may also be wrong: let me explain myself. You surely remember dada: before Andy Warhol (was it him? anyway), they used to say: "people that like dada speak about dada, people that don't like dada speak about dada, both ways everybody is talking about dada!". I'm sure you understand this concern of mine. Think that people who will have access to this article will probably be, like both of us (and despite eventual other political differences) opponents of Hamas - in which case I believe it is enough to state the existence of this TV (which I have done since February in the "Others" section of Hamas, if you remember) in the Hamas article; or they are admirers of Hamas, whatever their reasons, and this anti-propaganda will probably have, at best, no effects on them, at worse, counter-productive effects. I may be wrong, but I hope you do give a minute to think about this issue. Creating an article is giving it importance; do we really want to? Best regards, Tazmaniacs 01:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Block

Zero0000 who usually object my edits have blocked me. In His reason he claim that I have delibertly posted details about his real-life identity. I have done no such thing. The accusation is rediculus as I did not delibertly done any such thing. Zeq 19:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, would you e-mail me please with the diffs where you allegedly posted personal details? Do not post the diffs or repeat any of the information here. Please e-mail them so I can evaluate the block. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to block you indefinitely, and I've had no response from Zero, so I've unblocked you. I did find a reference to some recent activities that you posted, so perhaps that's what he was referring to. In future, please don't post any details about a user's personal life without his permission, as it's regarded as a blockable offense, and in some circumstances, users can be blocked indefinitely. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I assumed someone would unblock you and I won't reinstate it. However, if you violate my privacy again I will not only block you but start an arbitration case against you. --Zero^talk 06:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

You asked me to e-mail you, but I do not know where to find your e-mail address. I have never sent or received e-mail from anyone on Wikipedia before. 6SJ7 20:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Banned from Nakba Day

Under your probation in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq, I'm banning you from editing Nakba Day, for tendentious editing, particularly removing well-sourced information from the article [8]. --Tony Sidaway 23:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still trying hard to get other people experienced in the subject matter to review the ban. Meanwhile I am rescinding it because you have raised several legitimate points that case doubt on my original decision. I'll remove the ban notice and place an update on all relevant notices. If you really need to be banned from this article then some other administrator will be just as capable of imposing it. In the meantime I apologise. --Tony Sidaway 18:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish

I called it rubbish, not trash, but now that you mention it trash would be a fine description too. Like most of your edits. --Zero^talk 10:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack on your user page

I notice that you have a colored box on your user page that says " This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox."

This is a personal attack on another Wikipedian, and an unacceptable use of your user page. Please remove that text. --Tony Sidaway 19:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Who do see is being attacked by that user box ? Zeq 19:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Cyde is being attacked. It's an expression of personal animosity by you towards Cyde, and would tend to promote animosity towards him on the part of others. --Tony Sidaway 19:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was Cyde himself who put that userbox on the pages of people who supported him, as a joke? Sorry for butting in here, but it looks like wires are crossed. Palmiro | Talk 19:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was Cyde who put it. Zeq 19:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I made that userbox myself  :-P It was my RfA thanks. Over 130 people got it. And it's not really a "userbox" per se as it isn't templatized; it's just a bit of code on someone's userpage. Zeq, if you wish to restore it, of course you can. --Cyde Weys 22:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've apologised to Zeq elsewhere and happily repeat that here. I completely misunderstood the nature and purpose of that userbox and this led me to the conclusion that in naming you he was attacking you. ---Tony Sidaway 18:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Note on English usage

Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack, which put a seal on the so-called 3-month-Hudna announced on July 2003.

"ended" would be much more understandable in English than "put a seal" Fred Bauder 12:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Nakba issues

Hi Zeq

As you can see, my talk page is very busy, and I'm involved in a huge number of other issues. I don't have a lot of time, so I'm trying to apportion it, and I do like to spend some of my time actually writing or adding to articles, rather than being involved in or mediating disputes. If I can I will take a look at the issue on Nakba. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem

-- Karl Meier 18:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Bad news. They have blanked the page, and mentioned copyvio as the reason. I am not an expert regarding copyright issues, and I have posted some questions re this on the Wikisource admins talk page here:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User_talk:Shanel -- Karl Meier 19:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Religious Freedom in Saudia

We already have Status of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia and I encourage you to add information to it. It's not really appropriate to have an article sourced entirely from a document that reflects the POV of the United States government.

By the way, maybe you should archive your talk page... Gazpacho 06:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

To merge an article, add the information to another article. You should not simply cut and paste the whole text; try to keep the other article readable and do not add information that is already there. When you are done, redirect the old article.

Australian Federation of Islamic Councils

Not a problem Zeq - pleasure to help Peripitus 12:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Robin Hood 7000 - Robin Hood 1212

They certainly look similar, but CheckUser wouldn't help in this case. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Regards

Just a note of appreciation for your calmness and patience this week. I know you got very angry at first and assumed I was deliberately abusing my powers. But you gave me the benefit of the doubt and worked to convince me that I had made a misjudgement. Thanks for that. It's great to meet a true Wikipedian. --Tony Sidaway 22:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The memorial

The newspaper link about separation of names on the memorial belongs in Haredi Judaism, but needs to be handled sensitively. That article currently contains no information about this internal Israeli problem, at least not as it is framed in the Haaretz article. Fred Bauder 12:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Editor / User Page Review

Hey Zeq –

You opposed my last RfA in March on rationale I believe may have been related to my user page. In the time since then, I have changed my page to be more universalist (which still conforms with my personal beliefs) and removed the majority of information regarding my conversion to Islam in favor of a section on my philosophy (as well as yours if you desire). Now, I'm looking for your feedback on what you think of the redesign of the page and whether it is sufficient in quelling the March controversy over the page as well as solving the issue about possible inability to maintain a neutral point of view, especially in religion-related articles. For what it's worth, the reason I kept a condensed version of the timeline was because there were, and still are, many people who find it interesting instead of a form of proselytization. Many people have also given me positive feedback on my talk page regarding the look of the page. I personally believe that it is okay to insert individuality onto user pages, especially if it still promotes a sense of community. That is what I was going for with this current version of my user page.

Please make comments regarding the user page on my editor review page. Thanks in advance. joturner 14:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

True Torah Jews

Hi, I posted a defense of the article True Torah Jews, I would like to ask you to be so kind and read it, and than rethink your position on deletion.

Bloger 00:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:FYI

Thanks, I know it. Pecher ^Talk 20:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Response to inquiry

Probably does not belong in the introduction. Additionally, there is no showing that Amin al-Husayni was involved in Nazi efforts to recruit Palestinian Arabs to attack Jews. Fred Bauder 22:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That he was an associate of the Nazis during World War II establishes him as an anti-semite. Fred Bauder 12:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Arab citizens of Israel

Hi Zeq, I apologise for upsetting you, but my question on the Arab citizens of Israel talk was completely rhetorical in nature. I should have made my point without that confusion. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Your attention is appreciated

Hi Zeq,

Several editors are mentioned here. Is there anything here we should be aware of?[9],[10], [11],[12].Timothy Usher 05:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Disputed edits

Zeq, please remove the disputed edits from the introduction to the Amin al-Husayni article. Sources that either do not mention Husayni at all or others that give incompatible reports of the same work (i.e., all of them) should not be there. Please note also that the introduction was mediated at your request. --Ian Pitchford 10:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at this. Fred Bauder 18:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Mallmann and Cueppers

I think Ian is being overly strict, but the obvious solution is for someone who reads German to look at the study. Fred Bauder 13:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie

Hi Zeq, could you post any queries about this on the article talk page? Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[13] What makes you think Rachel Corrie had any connection whatever with arms smuggling? Fred Bauder 23:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

about these articles

I changed my username lastly. I edited them in the past. I think my English is not good enough for me to edit the articles. When there will be a real collaboration in these articles, I will be there. I wrote most of the French version while we were all quarelling here : French version of 1948 arab israeli war Alithien 12:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

אני בחו"ל but thanks for asking, I haven't seen a list of casualty names but I think the mishpacha is okay. On the other hand, your PM gave an impressive speech today. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Grossmufti

Hi Zeq, my time is limited these days, but I'll be happy to help if I can. I've heard that new information came to light. I see that some agreement has beenm reached at the talk page, correct? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Why not? The whole story does not seem notable. Pecher ^Talk 13:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:FYI

Thanks. Pecher ^Talk 08:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

hey man, don't let JeremyGByrne get to you. His editing's been territorial there for a long time. He's got an agenda and he's gaming wikipedia's rules and policies. Any sourced information he doesn't want shown, he reverts and attacks. Simply put, he's a dick.ThuranX 06:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, re MA beign a dick too, but still, it's better to have an NPOV article on this sort of person. Hitler's article, if NPOV still shows what a sick monster he is without the article ever saying 'Der fuhrer vas eine scheisskopf.' Moderately intelligent people can read ' he opened camps, advocated eugenics, rounded up 6 million jews, and those jews disappeared after entering the showers in those camps, showers that sprayed out zyklon b.' If you don't get that hitler was a douchebag, then it doesn't matter. JeremyGByrne doesn't get it, or does but wants to ignore it. What's most frustrating is that his bias is inconsistent. One day he wants anti-israeli statements out, the next he wants anti jewish stuff out, the third, he wants MA's nuclear agitation statements about nucear weapon intents to wipe nations off the earth IN. It's bad editing. I tried to go against him here at one point, but he just does nothing but edit warring and edit reverts. ThuranX 06:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

don't know how. no email listed in your pages

No the article is not "NPOV"

The article describe something that does not exist. To be NPOV this has to be the first line:

despite the use of the term by antisemitis who try to deligitimize israel right to exist israel is not an aprthied" ....

Zeq 15:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That may be a notch too far to claim just that, but I was considering to describe the term as a political epithet, just as Islamofascism is described. What do you think? -- Heptor _talk 15:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

why too far ?

I can not understand you. user:Zeq forgot to sign this on 29 May 2006, (God bless you)

Well, it seems Wikipedia limits itself to describing politically perjorative terms (and describing them as politically perjorative), without trying to suggest that the term is correct or incorrect (again, see Islamofascism for a comparison). Labeling the term as "something that do not exist" is, IMHO, expressing a POV. -- Heptor _talk 16:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:Please look at this article

Well, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say. I don't think it violates WP:RS on the whole, but think it should be moved to a more neutral title, such as Accusations of Israeli apartheid. Same with Israel Occupation Forces (I think that's what the article was called).

Is there any particular section you want me to comment on?

-- Template:Country data flagicon Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasabout to put this on the talkpage of Israeli apartheid (phrase) but got blocked

Per wikipedia policy I have placed the info from a non WP:RS source on the talk page until a decision on the issue:

Is Global exchange a source for wikipedia article per WP:RS ?

Please address this issue to get to consensus or start a mediation process on this question.

Do not just editwar this content back in. It is disputed and wikipedia works by consensus and discussion. Zeq 18:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

misuse of admin power (blocking a user with whom he has a dispute)

.. Instead of working to resolve the edit dispute with editor User:Homeontherange during which he had blocked me (clear misuse of admin power)

He have done that because I took part in reporting his violation of 3RR on several occuastions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=55777387

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=55774179

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=55772101

Zeq 18:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As can be seen here: [14] I was acting in good faith according to wikipedia policy after sevral editors question if the site that user homeonetherange used was suitable according to WP:RS Zeq 18:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The blocking admin removed the block within 3 minutes of making it. --pgk^(talk) 19:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock}}

Unblocked. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"He have done that because I took part in reporting his violation of 3RR on several occuastions:"

No, I blocked you because you vandalized Israeli apartheid by blanking a large section of the article after having been warned not to do that again. I unblocked you three minutes later because I thought it would be better for someone else to block you or to take you to ArbComm.Homey 19:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

How, exactly, did you try to "resolve" the dispute? What compromise did you suggest? What concession did you make? All you did was repeatedly try to blank a section of the article you didn't like.Homey 19:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It is in the talk page of the article. read it instead of ignoring it may help us resolve the dispute. Zeq 19:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Israel Apartheid --> anti-Zionist?

I notice there are claims that Israel Apartheid is used by anti-Zionists and that people that use the term are trying to destroy the Jewish state but I would disagree. I think that Israel Apartheid is used specifically to express opposition to its policies in the Occupied Territories -- its aim is to stop those policies. I do not think that it advocates specifically a binational solution. I think you are skipping a few steps in making these connections and unfairly tarring some. --Ben Houston 20:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Mis-use of admin power by an admin who was blocked himself

{{unblock}}

There was clear consenus of reviwing admins that Homey has mis used his admin power in the first block:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Zeq

The blocking admin used a sockpppet to block me cause he himself was under a block while banning me.....talk about due process and justice in wikipedia ....

Zeq, I see that you are unblocked now. The latest blocklog:

1. 19:41, 29 May 2006 Homeontherange unblocked Zeq (contribs) (will reapply block tomorrow afternoon)
2. 19:31, 29 May 2006 Homeontherange blocked "Zeq (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (tendentious editing in Israeli apartheid (phrase) as per AdminCommittee probation and discussion with Fred Bauder.)
3. 10:50, 29 May 2006 Homeontherange unblocked Zeq (contribs) (Actually, this should go to Arbcomm)
4. 10:47, 29 May 2006 Homeontherange blocked "Zeq (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism of Israeli apartheid article)

This looks like intimidation. What happened? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock}} Again my IP is blocked. this seems some type of hrrasment.

09:24, 30 May 2006, Essjay (Talk) blocked 85.65.56.28 (contribs) (expires 09:24, 30 June 2006) (IP of banned user)

Zeq 10:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked your IP. Have no idea what is going on (agains, this user's log shows unblocked), but please let's behave everybody. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Homey sent me an email about your probation and I wrote back that you could be banned from an article which you were disrupting by tendentious editing, but somehow he misinterpreted it to mean he could block indefinitely. Most likely the usual conflation of ban and block. Fred Bauder 12:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed your unblock request because you appear to no longer be blocked. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq. Zeq is on parole and is not to engage in "tendentious editing". In my opinion he has clearly violated his parole with the following two edits. [15], and [16] . He is therefore subject to being banned from the article and, according to the enforcment section of Zeq's arbcomm page, may be banned from the project for a period of time. It is within my authority to ban him, at least for a temporary period. As some have objected to my doing this I have asked the ArbComm to weigh in on whether Zeq has violated his parole and on the appropriate punishment. Note, the ArbComm ruling leaves it to admins to decide on this themselves but, so as we can be clear on this and so there can be no accusation of conflict of interest I have, nevertheless, referred the matter of Zeq's parole violation to them for an opinion. Homey 22:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Admins cannot block or ban editors with whom they are involved in a dispute. That's the basics of adminship, and you just cannot be an admin if you're unaware of that. Pecher ^Talk 22:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Another misuse of admin power

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FIsraeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29&diff=55898998&oldid=55898511

A friendly note

Hey Zeq:

I see you and I have been editing some pages in common, and I thought I'd drop by your talk page and say hello. You haven't asked for my advice, and perhaps do not want it, but I hope you take it in a spirit of friendship, as it's not meant to discourage you from editing but rather, to make WP maybe a little less frustrating for you.

First, I'd advise you to soften your tone somewhat when dealing with editors you disagree with. Nobody likes to be yelled at, even virtually. It doesn't matter if they "deserve" to be yelled at (the more they deserve it, in fact, the less you should do it; don’t feed the trolls); what matters is that we build a good, neutral encyclopedia.

Also, in terms of neutrality, I see you are interpreting "be bold" a calling it "as you see it." At the same time, you imply that there are some editors out there who agree with MA's antisemitic remarks. Well, I agree with your second statement: there are some truly vicious antisemites who edit here (although they are a tiny minority). But think of this: if we're all "calling it like we see it" then antisemites must also "call it like they see it." And where does that leave us? Endless edit-wars with people inserting their own, often heinous, opinions in articles, when we must only insert the notable opinions of others, not our own. So, for example, even though I personally believe MA to be an antisemite, and see evidence of genocidal rhetoric against Jews, I cannot, as a good WP editor, insert a sentence like, "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would like nothing more than to see the death of or ethnic cleansing of Jews." Even though it's likely true, I have no right to put that into the article, because it's just my opinion, any more than people are allowed to place in the article sentences like "Well, everybody's just misinterpreting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the guy really loves Jews."

My last point, and I sincerely mean no offense by this, is that you might consider making a draft of all your edits on a program like Microsoft Word with an English spellchecker. When you put in edits that aren't grammatically correct and contain numerous spelling errors, you make it very easy for people to justify reverting you. Anyway, sorry for the long message. I think you have the potential to contribute good things, but reacting emotionally to things just hurts one's ability to edit. Cheers. IronDuke 12:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Golden words from IronDuke :) I second all points above and I am sure you'll see that you'll achieve more. Back to your Q.: I've voted once and commented many times. Yours. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Banned from Israeli apartheid (phrase) under terms of probation.

Hello, Zeq. It is my unfortunate duty to report that I have banned you from the article Israeli apartheid (phrase) under the terms of your probation, as set out in Wikipedia:requests for arbitration/Zeq. Edits such as [17] are not acceptable, and you are well aware of that. Thank you for your time, and please respect this ban.--Sean Black 02:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

why you think there are grounds to ban me. I was not the one violating 3RR. In fact I have almost did not edit the article at all.

BTW, I would like this issue to be reviewed by all mebers of ArbCom. It is very critical to see what the mebers of Wikipedia ArbCom think about this article. Zeq 13:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: My edit to this article were removal of info which (according to the guidelines set im previous arbitration case) do not meet WP:RS. If I can not now delete them will you do it ?

Zeq 13:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I would not have banned you, but I don't think it was an abuse of discretion for Sean Black to ban you. You made a couple of extremely aggressive point of view edits; for example "false analogy". It is just an analogy, one that doesn't fit particularly well, but not self-evidently false. Fred Bauder 13:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you made some very good points on the talk page. I don't like that article. Apartheid really should be used only in the South African context. (Not that the Palestinians don't have legitimate complaints). Fred Bauder 13:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

An off-Wikipedia note. I am very disappointed with the election results, with Hamas winning. It makes a fair peace settlement almost impossible. Fred Bauder 13:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ban rescinded

Dear Zeq, it is with hope for the future that I tell you that I have decided to lift your ban from editing Israeli apartheid. I've considered this at some length, and I feel that if you attempt to work with others and edit the article in a neutral manner, then you will be able to do so. However, further disruptive editing at this article will not be taken lightly. Thank you, and please heed my advice.--Sean Black 04:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid (disambiguation)

Please note that this is not a neutrally worded description of the term "Israeli apartheid", nor is it grammatically correct or properly punctuated:

Israeli apartheid is a a focused, targeted propaganda epithet which is at the center of a campaign for a political platform is attempting to rewrite and redefine the history of Israel as that of a "racist apartheid state".it's sole purpose is to to demonize the State of Israel[18]

Please read WP:POINT, if you haven't already. Thank you. -- Ec5618 21:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources

http://www.palestineremembered.com obviously has a point of view and ought to be used carefully. The use of the term "ethnic cleansing" is particularly inappropriate. Fred Bauder 12:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a "neo-Nazi"

Lawrence Davidson is Professor of Middle East History at West Chester University ie he's an academic and therefore a "reliable source". What evidence do you have that he's a neo-nazi. Homey 20:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Some links

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/11.htm http://www.monabaker.com/pMachine/more.php?id=A2024_0_1_0_M http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=spence200605311107

And I ask again, where is your evidence that Lawrence Davidson and/or Mona Baker are neo-Nazis? We do have policies against libel you know and I don't think it's very wise of you go to around smearing people as neo-nazis when they are not. Homey 04:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Re;Wrong protection

I've replied there. Feel free to disagree that I've protected, but don't say I protected the wrong version (as protection is not an endorsement of a particular version). It wasn't clear which of those you were disputing. Petros471 16:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Spamming

Zeq, why are you spamming people with links to the AFD on Israeli apartheid? See Wikipedia:Spam. Homey 19:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think what I did was wrong first palce a warnning, I was not aware that asking people to vote is against the rules. I suggest you read the policy

I have not violated any policy (see WP:Spam. There is nothing wrong with promoting that few people will participate in an important vote. If the admin who blocked me does think this is wrong he can folow the guide line and warn me (this is the first time I saw this policy) after a warnning I can consider what to do next. Blocking me without warnning was an abuse of admin power Zeq 19:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

PS I just noticed that you have removed the ref to the policy here : [19] So it must be that you know I did not violate it (it is not even a policy but a guideline)

still blocked unjustly. Please {{unblock}} and remove the autoblock as well.

Zeq, you can be quite a good editor, but also have the capacity for being quite disruptive. Vote spamming is a horrid practice and has gotten people blocked before. Please just ride out the block and return to your productive edits when you come back. Shell ^babelfish 11:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I was not ware that this is violation of any policy. In any case a warnning would be enough to get me to stop. I only placed 5-6 messages. Zeq 11:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Your unblock request was already declined. Do not add it again or I will protect this page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ziopedia or Judeopedia?

http://robertlindsay.blogspot.com/2006/04/wikipedia-ziopedia-or-judeopedia.html Fred Bauder 21:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Fred, I await your reply on this. If you think Wikipedia is pushing a ziowiki agenda we have a serious problem. Zeq 16:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course not, just wanted you to take a look at the another viewpoint. Fred Bauder 17:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI

http://www.freewebs.com/kingdomofheartschainsofthoughts/guestbook.htm

Aloni

BTW Zeq, Aloni is in the Israeli apartheid article as an example of someone using the phrase "apartheid state" since the opening of the article explicity mentions "apartheid state" as a synonym for Israeli apartheid. So, I'm afraid their no room to be pedantic. Homey 02:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Your History

Hello Zeq, Read your history. ALl I can say that it closely reflects my family's history as far as the migration goes, save that ours was not a government foced migration, but one brought on to us by circumstances. Do leave a message on my talk page, should you want me to help you in any way.Jordy 17:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

AL

Zeq,

We had a discussion about this a while ago. AL is not a public figure, and re-creating the page is considered harrassment. There was a specific ruling to this end. Please do not recreate the page. CJCurrie 05:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Be specific - which Afd? No editor is expected to know what went on few years ago. Zeq 09:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As I recall the "Fascism and Communism" article went through what was then called a VFD and the conclusion was redirect to anti-Communism. Homey 09:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See also [20], that article was created by neo-Nazis as a form of harassment and was deleted by an AFD. Homey 09:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Harassment

From Wikipedia:Harassment

Posting of personal information

Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether the information is actually correct) is almost always harassment. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor or not.

Homey 09:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You should have objected in January but if you want to ask Slim, go ahead. Homey 09:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Slim is back, she's been editing her user and talk page. She deleted the article, if you want to challenge her decision you need to talk to her about it. Homey 09:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Canadian politics

Your interest in Canadian politics is clearly tied to your involvement with an editor here. Wikipedia:Harassment will not be tolerated. Please focus on the edits, not the editor. -Will Beback 09:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Probation violation?

Zeq, you were disciplined by Arbcomm for removing sourced material. Do you really think it's smart to do the exact same thing that got you banned from editing several articles and put on probation?[21]Homey 15:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would remove this link [22]. Did you even read it? Fred Bauder 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of both the article and honest reporting. I removed a whole section (which is explained in talk) and therefore there was no need in the part of the sentence that delt with the response about the verbal gymnastics. I removed the section for two reasons:

1. The word "Hafrada" has nothing to do with Apartheid
2. the "apartheid wall" has just finished an Afd.

I am getting really concerned about your ignoring the numerous policy violation by homey. He violates almost any possible policy and almost any edit he makes is a violation of WP:Not. 16:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Zeq

Well, I'm sorry to hear you're having trouble, although I wouldn't say having an article protected means the other side "wins." Protection is temporary. I still think grammatical edits accompanied by talk the meets AGF is always better than venting frustration at people. I know how frustrating this place can be, but you just undermine your own position if you get into endless revert wars or lash out at people. It might feel good for ten seconds, but it doesn't help the article in question or WP. Right? Cheers. IronDuke 23:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Article bans

I am banning you from the following articles under the terms of your probation [23]:

• Hafrada
• Israeli apartheid (phrase) (or whatever name that article might end up having after the ongoing moves)
• Israeli West Bank barrier
• Apartheid (disambiguation)

You may still use the talk pages. You may not move the articles. --Tony Sidaway 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The pot calling the kettle black

You asked Jay about this English phrase, which he used to refer to someone's complaint about you. There is a Wiktionary entry on this. It means criticising someone else for a trait that you also share. On the internet, it is sometimes abbreviated to "pot kettle black" or even just "PKB". --Tony Sidaway 15:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitely no mellowing whatsoever has been detected

Hi Zeq, by "Zeq edits from a strong POV," I meant that you believe strongly that articles about Israel tend to be biased against Israel. Otherwise, you're right that it has been difficult to discern exactly what your POV is. I apologize for suggesting you had mellowed. Foolish of me. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

ADL

Don't worry, I was just making a point about sources, and it wasn't aimed at you... some editors really consider "Palestinian source = garbage" but that's a separate matter. Hope your stuff gets sorted out, I'm not sure I understand what the problem is, it seems that there are other articles also... but I haven't had time to see what's going on. Ramallite ^(talk) 03:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ontario, Canada "sockpuppet"

I currently have Jayjg's talk page watched because of some interaction previously between me and him. I notice you brough up an Ontario, Canada "sockpuppet" although technically it is just someone that is not logged in. I think it is incorrect for you to appeal directly to your favorite admin -- its really not proper. You should bring first try to establish that it is who you think it is very a user check -- see Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser. --Ben Houston 08:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Page move

Zeq, I have indicated it was a conditional move, if there would be substantial resistance against it, to be judged by the number of disagrees at the appropriate place at the talk page, I will move it back. I just had a look, and 3-3 is not an consensus, so it has been moved back. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Your bans and Homey

I've asked you to stop badgering me, but you've become progressively more abusive. Please take your complaints to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Zeq_article_bans as I have requested. The more time I spend dealing with the vast amounts of clutter you leave on my talk page, the less time and inclination I have to deal with Homey. I'd like to see if arbitration would work in his case, but I cannot construct a case for the arbitration commmittee if you persist in flooding me with nonsensical complaints and false accusations of abuse. --Tony Sidaway 18:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Post by neo-Nazi removed. Homey 22:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Socking to avoid blocks

This is not permitted. If you are blocked again, do not try to circumvent the block, even openly as you did here. --Tony Sidaway 22:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

70.29.185.180 is a dynamic IP. The person who used it today isn't the same person who used it on May 11. Homey 06:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to trust me on that. Homey 06:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No consensus  ?

That certainly is no way near consensus, which is usually a majority of over 70% at the very least. - Mailer Diablo 07:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocks

"On the other hand, In your case, you as an admin, should not have blocked a person while you your self are under a block. This is a serious violation."

A serious violation of what, exactly? Zeq, the function on my dashboard that allows me to block people is operative regardless of whether I am blocked or not. I don't think you realise that and I get the impression that you often assume what policy should be (often making an assumption that would be to your advantage) rather than being familiar with what policy actually states. Can you quote me where the policy says a blocked admin cannot block? Homey 13:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Your dash board is clearly not the issue. Nither is "your function here" Zeq 13:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)"

The function on my dashboard refers to the mechanism for carrying out a block. So I take it from your post that you've been unable to find anything in policy that supports your claim that blocking someone while blocked is a violation of anything? Next time actually look up the policy before making claims. Homey 13:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As for your ad nauseum claim regarding the AOL user posting a tag on your page it should tell you something that *everyone* including Jay has ignored your baseless accusation. Homey 13:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS

I am quite aware of the WP:RS policy. I am affraid that nothing in the areticle is going to change as long as there is no normal conversation possible. To much conversation is about the editors and not the content, and to much is politically charged to have a decent discussion. If I would remove a single very bad source based on WP:RS, I am sure other will jump on me crying it was a good source, and visa versa. The only way out is to get a decent disucssion, based on the content and as political free as possible. And everybody can contribute to that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, I think your idea is a good one, but I think we are currently in the stage of getting people to limit their comments to the content and stop the accusations of 'biased', 'political motivated', etc. I am affraid that at the moment, an excersice with the current sources will just result in the next shouting match. Tonight, I will make a more extensive post, this page is going to take time. Along that line, can you agree with the first sentence (not the second) of Hormy's proposed lead. If so, that one seems to be supported by everybody, I just did not get a clear picture from you about it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You do not have to stay away as far as I am concerned. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Nickname

Hey there! Thank you for the new nickname you gave me - Bert. No one called me that before. I really do find it cute, even though it sounds a bit anglophonic! Bertilvidet 21:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If this in any way insluted you I apologies. If it didn't I hope you are cool with it. Zeq 21:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Take it easy, I am completely cool with it and do not at all find it insulting. On the contrary it might help to loosen up a tense atmosphere! Bertilvidet 21:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

cool

I think you need to read WP:Point . best, Zeq 21:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am familar witht that policy, and dont think I have breached it. Let me know if you think I have. Bertilvidet 22:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

IP editors from Ontario

Zeq, I think it's highly unlikely that those IP editors from Ontario are Homey. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jay. Zeq, I'm waiting for your apology. Homey 07:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not Homey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.60.226.91  ???? Zeq 13:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for the apology, Zeq. Homey 02:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey

Listen. I realize that tempers are flaring a bit right now, but could you please step back a bit for a few days to let things cool down? If the dispute is unresolvable, there's always the option of listing the issue for an RFC to get outside opinions. Looking at the dispute you posted to 3RR, it was pretty clear to me that Homey's edits were making a good faith effort to find a compromise so as not to violate the 3RR rule. I've asked Homey to step back from the issue a bit as well, so please don't feel like I'm singling you out — but I will say that conflating distinct edits into a 3RR pseudoviolation to discredit an opponent who hasn't actually broken any rules isn't exactly the best way to make yourself look like the one who's in the right. Bearcat 23:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

RS?

Since I would never use those sources I really have no idea what you are referring to.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal

Well Zeq, I expect you will no longer criticise me for removing comments from my talk page. Homey 20:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks. The if does not change it, as the condition under which you would say that applies already to various editors who hold that opinion. However, I think you are smart enough to realise that such a statement of not going to fly with the community, and I rather have you remove it yourself than that I needed to do that. And yes, I was aware of the time time difference. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid propaganda

Zeq, I put your excellent article at Apartheid propaganda and it's beeing challenged for deletion already!

Arab citizens of Israel

Hi, Just wanted to let you know that I twice replaced your edits with similar content phrased differently. Hope you don't mind, Tewfik^Talk 04:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Zeq, I am not going with your assertion that we can only look at the current sources. The issue os to resolve the problem, and if that can be done with new sources, that would be perfectly acceptable. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

O no, I am not avoiding it. I was already busy with the whole list, when my comoputer crached, so I have to do it again. But I do try to avoid to many discussions at the same time, as that just gets to confusing. This is the next step. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

West Bank barrier

Which parts do you think are not NPOV etc.? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Menace in Europe

Thanks for creating the stub (way back in early May). I expanded the article. Wikipedia desperately needs more articles (and expansion of existing articles) on the themes dealt with in Menace in Europe. When I have more time (perhaps in a few weeks) I might try to start some sort of "working group" to deal with these themes. I'll keep you posted if you're interested. (And if you wanted to start such a group, I would be an eager participant.) --Cultural Freedom talk 10:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comment

I note your comment about the Gregory Lauder-Frost article abuse, about which I left a note for Jimbo Wales. I'm afraid I did not quite understand it. Regards. Sussexman 18:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

One minute before you attacked me for not wanting the page unlocked I asked for the page to be unlocked. I'm waiting for your apology. Homey 19:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

About "killing civilians"

We are in agreement then... Not taking enough precaution to avoid hitting civilians is criminal negligence, but still not the same as killing someone deliberately. -- Heptor _talk 22:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

what about delibertly tragting ?

what about delibertly tragting civilians with hundreds of rockets but miraculsly only wounding seriously one civilians and the rest is damage to property ? I think this is a war crine. Zeq 03:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What you are saying is not even controvercial - it is indeed a war crime. As a precaution against the pedants out there, I am not really sure if it is a war crime or just a simple crimial act, because Hamas is not an army. -- Heptor _talk 18:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the term is "terrorism". --Ben Houston 19:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

amusing

It is amusing that you are trying to keep me banned from an article you can not edit...Hope you see the irony in thisZeq 21:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are amused why are you protesting so much including making a false accusation about NPA?Homey 21:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI: huh?

"Human rights watch now confirm that it might have been an old shell (unexploded or part of a land mine)" Yes, and that's what the article says. "Stop the POV pushing and stick to what sources say. If you continue this POV pushing this will go to ArbCom." I'll chose not to respond to this. — JEREMY 11:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, your latest comment on my talk page is largely incoherent. Your translation has been brought into question by someone who does understand Hebrew, and it seems that no English language source is reporting what you're suggesting the UNSC President said (which, as I've said several times, belongs in the body of the article and not in the Lead paragraphs in any case; the remarks you're saying she made don't bear directly on the blast.) This is trivial; please pick your fights, or you risk being perceived as a crank. — JEREMY

Because you've asked nicely, I'll go over my objections again, with additional commentary:

1. The quote is your (original) translation and has not been verified (in fact, it has been refuted) — This is being addressed currently on the talk page, although I'm still to be convinced that translations by wikipedia editors aren't original research.
2. The quote in question does not bear directly on the issue (being about how the UNSC deals with the Israeli/Palestinian issue) — The article is about the Gaza Beach explosion, not about what the UNSC President thinks of the Israeli/Palestinian situation in general. What she said about why she would not hear the case is relevant, but her off-topic political digressions are not.
3. The quote, even if relevant, would not belong in the WP:LEAD. — The lead paragraphs in an article are designed to be a summary of the rest of the article, and (unless the article is very short) shouldn't include material that's not referenced elsewhere in the article. Thus, the quote from the UNSC President — were it relevant to the article — would be included lower in the article (eg. in the new "Reactions" section) and, again were it relevant, mentioned or briefly summarised in the lead section.

"I am just not that smart. explain in plain english so i will be able to understand." I hope that helps, and I'm sure you are not that dumb. — JEREMY 15:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:can you help

See Red dawn (disambiguation). Pecher ^Talk 11:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

what else is amusing

I'll tell what else is amusing. This is delicate so hopefully you will not misunderstand. make an effort to listen.

I am very sad about the situation of individual Palestinians who now suffer greater poverty and reduction in basic services because Hamas elevation to power. I know many Palestinians who voted Hamas although they don't share the ideology of destruction of Israel that come from Hamas.

But I can not be amused on how the events have turned out:

There is a whole propaganda campaign to try and destroy Israel by using an economic boycott. It had many different names (such as "Stop tax aid to Israel" or something similar to that – a.k.a SUSTAIN) The idea of those on the loony left was that Israel will be brought down the same way that SA was. But it did not work. Other than fringe success (like the prebertarian church and one workers union in some part of Canada not a single entity joined the boycott) Even Caterpillar with all the campaign about using D-9 have not stopped selling to Israel. Even after the UN court decalred the wall illegal nothing happened as if the world does not care.

One might think the world is no longer capable of such boycotts but … surprise when hamas came to power the world was able to declare a sort of boycott. So I am amused that efforts to create a parallel between Israel and SA have backfired. I am sad that Palestinians suffer because of this but this is also caused by people who convince the Palestinians to avoid compromise. You know who are those people. Some of them show up on Wikipedia once in while and even here they are unable to compromise, so articles they edit have to be under consatnt mediation and protection. So you see banning me from 2 or 6 or 10 articles does not get anyone a milimeter closer to a boycott on Israel. amusing.Zeq 07:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Our role in Wikipedia is not to take sides, which is effectively what you want us to do, but to describe.

Let me tell you a story though. About 15 years ago or so my cousin came visiting from Israel and we both went down to New York City for a few weeks where she met up with a friend of hers who was an Israeli diplomat at the UN. This guy was a hardcore Likudnik and a hardcore believer in "Greater Israel" etc. We talked and I asked him how much aid Israel got from the US and then asked him how long Israel would last without it. I then argued with him that if Israel continued in its course ultimately it would become intolerable to the West and the US would be under domestic pressure to cut off its aid, particularly since with the end of the Cold War it the US no longer had a strategic interest in propping Israel up indefinitely ie that the occupation would ultimately lead to Israel's destruction if it continued unabated. He actually changed his mind and agreed with me. I don't know if this change in his views took - I don't know what happened to him, but the logic of the situation means that, barring miraculous messianic thinking, Israel really has no choice but to withdraw if it wishes to survive. That is the reality of being a small country dependent on foreign military and economic aid. Wikipedia won't change that and trying to ban any criticism of Israel from being referenced in wikipedia won't change that. Homey 14:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, you have been banned for your own actions, not because of anyone else. You need to take responsibility for that.

Yes, I know you are not a Likudnik but, nevertheless, you have been very aggressive in pushing a POV on wikipedia. Homey 15:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I also am bemused by your sudden involvement in the Gregory Lauder-Frost issue. You'd think that someone who is arguing there is no link between Israel and apartheid wouldn't intervene in the case of an individual who was an unabashed supporter of the apartheid-era South African government. Homey 15:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This edit

[24] - why did you do that ? Zeq 12:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Because there was no way people could agree on if his statements was about the state of Israel of the leadership of Israel. The best compromise I could think of was to cut it entierly. // Liftarn

do you think boycotts work ?

Is the boycott of the Hamas led government working? Seems to be. Homey 16:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, you would do much better if you stopped making assumptions. I have never stated whether or not I support a boycott on Israel - you are assuming I do and in the past when you've made assumptions you've ended up embarssing yourself. Homey 16:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, can you please make *some* effort to check your spelling and grammar before submitting edits?Homey 17:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: How are you

Thanks, fine. What about you? Pecher ^Talk 21:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm having problems with the server. This is the second day in a row that the server is down. Pecher ^Talk 21:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, I copied the content of the Sandbox to main article. This doesn't mean I agree with (or know all the details about) all of it. I thought it is a better version. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:what do you think about this

Not sure whether it matters a lot. Pecher ^Talk 20:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Please read this

I've read it. Are you sure about this: Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, Christian Aid... are the main channels for spreading the big lies of "war crimes" and "apartheid." I don't know the other organizations all that well, but I've been an Amnesty International member for many years and I would be very, very surprised if the organization actually used that kind of language. I would be absolutely shocked if they were promoting any kind of boycott; Amnesty simply does not work that way. Perhaps the campaign, if there is one, is not as wide and co-ordinated as you think. Su-Laine Yeo 08:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The Pogrund article was good. Thanks Zeq. Su-Laine Yeo 07:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Israeli boycott

Thanks for your comments.

In future, please do try to proofread since adding contributions that are full of grammatical and spelling errors is an embarassing not only to yourself but to the project. Homey 04:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, I agree with Homey that spellcheckers and grammar checkers are a good idea. It's a lot faster for you to find and fix spelling errors yourself in a word processor, than for someone else to do it for you in Wikipedia. P.S. if you need interpretation of the English expressions that other people sometimes use, I can help with that. Just ask. Su-Laine Yeo 07:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Suspected ban violation

Zeq, it looks like you just edited Israeli apartheid in violation of your ban. The fact that the edit was made within 10 minutes of your request and that it is replete with your tell tale poor grammar suggests the anon IP that made it is you. See [25].Homey 17:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait for the Usercheck result and see. Anyway Zeq, given the number of times you've asked for a Usercheck I don't see how you can object now.Homey 18:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, Checkuser will show us if you're that stupid or not. Homey 18:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, you have to admit the edit is suspicious. Given that you've asked for checkusers to be done on much less evidence - and been proven wrong repeatedly - and never apologised once - I don't think you can really complain now. Homey 18:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The IPs are unrelated so I apologise for the accusation.

Can you now apologise for all the times you wrongely accused people of sockpuppetry?Homey 02:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You've never apologised, not once - as I recall you started insisting to Jayjg that you must be right even after he said there was no connection - and no I didn't place the stupid tag on your page. That accusation insults *my* intelligence. Homey 03:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes and ten minutes (literally) after you complained on Talk:Israeli apartheid, an anon IP magically appeared and implemented your change and then disappeared from wikipedia never to be seen again. What are the chances of that happening?

I'm sorry, but suspicion is not fact and in both cases the IP addresses were found to be unrelated. If you expect people to give you the benefit of the doubt you must do the same. WP:AGF. Homey 03:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, I know you have an idee fixe and a victim complex and are embracing your sockpuppet theory like it's holy writ but it's actually common for one editor to ban whilst another tags. See for instance User:Sussexman - banned by Jtdrl, tagged by ChrisO. Now please, give it up. Homey 03:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Admins are allowed to block people even when they're blocked themselves. Sorry. Homey 03:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Accusation

Please explain your edit summary "(rev POV edits to last version by Jayjg)"; in particular, what do you feel justfies you referring to my edit as "POV"? — JEREMY 08:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zeq

Hello Zeq,

Sorry I didn't respond to your message earlier. I'm kind of buisy lately.I'm not going to send you an email just yet, but its fine with me if you wana talk via our talk pages. Would you care to tel me why you aren't a Meretz voter anymore (and what's your opinion on user categories such as wikipedians by politics)? Tal :) 11:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't withdraw an apology you never made, Zeq.

In any case, this is the first I've heard of that. FeloniousMonk is wrong and it looks from his page like Jayjg misled him. Homey 16:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the signature on Felonius' page the IP of the blocked user is nowhere near mine - not the same ISP even. This would be why Jayjg did *not* say it was 100% (I would say not even 50%). Sorry, but no cigar. Homey 16:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Creation of article about Homey

Zeq, what was the reason you decided to write the article about Homey? He suggests it was intended to intimidate him, and it certainly appears that that may be the case. Can you explain the extreme coincidence of writing a bio about someone you are in a content dispute with the day after you come off of a block? JDoorjam Talk 16:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I will continue this conversation with you via email provided I can forward the emails to Homey, and that he can elect to post in-context quotations from your emails as they relate to his privacy. I will remove your email address from the forwarded emails if you prefer, but this process needs to be kept as open as possible. (Is there a reason you deleted the above post? As this is an ongoing dispute resolution, I would appreciate it if you not delete messages related to this matter until it reaches a conclusion.) JDoorjam Talk 16:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have proposed a resolution to the conflict regarding the article written about Homey; as you are unable to respond there, I would ask that you do so here on your talk page. JDoorjam Talk 22:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There is another resolution to the conflict between you and Homey. Please acknowledge on my talk page that you have read it. I'm hoping to change your focus to being purely on the articles rather than wasting energy on each other. JDoorjam Talk 05:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Your 3RR complaint has been rejected. I hope that was the last of your game-playing. Please leave me alone from now on. Homey 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR policy

From Wikipedia:Three-revert rule (emphasis added):

Reverting without edit warring

As the purpose of this policy is to prevent edit warring it should not be taken to apply in cases where it is clear that no edit warring has taken place. For instance, consecutive edits by the same editor are considered to be one; thus if an editor makes three separate successive edits, each of which reverts a different section, but with no intervening edits by other editors, this is counted as one revert. Likewise, if there are intervening edits but they are clearly unrelated or non-contentious, such as a bot adding an interwiki link to a foreign language version of the page, this does not increase the 'revert count'.

---

You tried to complain about precisely what the 3RR provides an exception for - I had three sequential edits and you submitted them as three separate reverts. Next time, instead of being so determined to post a complaint that you disregard both the clock and actual policy try to be sensible. Homey 20:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like I am getting another vacation

I'll be back in few days after this block by Scrpte will expire. He may think this is some kinf of punishment but I see it as a gift. Zeq 20:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Your block.

I've blocked you because you're getting to the point of harassment - any contributions I see from you on AN are about Homeontherange and his latest "abuse". Just learn to be civil and not lash out at editors. Will (message me!) 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Zeq, please respond to my proposal at User talk:JDoorjam. Are you willing to leave me alone in exchange for getting a "suspended sentence" for harassing me with that article?Homey 21:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Better wording

If you can come up with a better intro, I'm all ears. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll need to think about it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

John Dugard

To User:Zeq: Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to John Dugard. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.. You could have at least made an effort to actually cite an appropriate source such as the actual UN report where he said that [26] which actually provides a balanced context rather than a biased op-ed piece. --  Netsnipe  CVU ^(Talk)  05:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Read the source provided. The edit is a quote from the source not my view. Please self revert or explain why you removed sourced info. Thank you. Zeq 06:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

From the UN Report: "20. The force employed by Palestinians is also contrary to the norms of international law. The shooting of settlers cannot be justified." Your edit to John Dugard smacks of bias. The report he has written is balanced, but your selective citation is an unfair attempt at slandering him as a supporter of terrorism. --  Netsnipe  CVU ^(Talk)  06:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

So he wrote a balanced text in his officila capacity and an inflamatory one in a diffrent publication. To ignore his attitude against israel is what 'smacked of bias". Duggard is a sharp critic of israel. Zeq 06:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No. The line you cited and the one I cited are from the same publication that criticises both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict equally. --  Netsnipe  CVU ^(Talk)  06:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at John Dugard, you may be blocked from editing.

Again you cite a right-wing magazine that supports your world-view rather than an original UN report that actually provides the necessary context to understand his quote. From the Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967:

VI. The wall, settlements and self-determination 36. In its advisory opinion the International Court of Justice stressed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. In recent times politicians of all persuasions have given support to a two-State solution, with the States of Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security. This vision is unattainable without a viable Palestinian territory. The construction of the wall, the expansion of settlements and the de-Palestinization of Jerusalem are incompatible with the two-State solution. Interlocutors within both Israel and the West Bank warned the Special Rapporteur that with the two-State solution becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible, consideration should be given to the establishment of a binational Palestinian State. The demography of the region increasingly points to such an outcome.

Dugard is making an observation that if the current situation continues to deteriorate further, than a binational Palestinian State should be considered. Dugard is criticsing the Israeli government's current policies and not as you deliberately misinterpret "Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state".

If you want to publicly label Dugard as an anti-Zionist on Wikipedia then the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes procedure is available to you, so please do not engage in an edit war unless you want to blocked from editing Wikipedia for the tenth time for breaking the three-revert rule.

--  Netsnipe  CVU ^(Talk)  08:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Terms for editing Operation Summer Rains

Hi. In light of your problematic edit history, I'm going to have to insist that you submitt proposed changes on the talk page first. Thanks. El_C 12:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. In light of the fact two users have reverted your lead changes, and that you still failed after this to discuss your proposals for it on the talk page, I have banned you from the entry. I realize you feel I abused my position in doing so, and I note that you are free to appeal my decision and call for a review of my actions in whatever way you see fit. Please respond to this note here rather than on my talk page. Thanks. El_C 04:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, note that you are permitted to employ the article talk page to depict individual edits [change x to y, add z, etc.], which someone else might then add to the article if they find these proposals worthwhile. Please do not be discouraged from doing so. Thanks again. El_C 06:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge of 3RR

Hi Zeq, I have just been looking through the WP:AN3 page and subsequently your talk page and it appears you are reporting people for violating WP:3RR without full knowledge of the rule. The rule states that all reverts must be within a 24 hour period (they can be full or partial). Also, subsequent edits by the same user (for example if a user edits a page 3 times in order to achieve a revert) that is still classed as 1 revert. Please re-read the policy before posting further complaints on the notice board as it takes time and effort for an admin to check through each complaint.-Localzuk ^(talk) 12:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Further to this comment and your response I must say that you have misunderstood my request. The point I am making is that the reverts by El_C were done in line with consensus and the changes you were making could have been seen as vandalism (as various users were making the same revert). She reverted various other changes (number of casualties being altered and references removed) which also are classed as vandalism and as such 3RR does not apply. Your ban from the article was implemented at the same time as the final change and was done in order to prevent disruptive edits.

Also, there are many complex edits being made that you may have seen as reverts but seem to me to be actual improvements to the article (such as removing sections, fixing numbers in line with references, re-adding references and links etc...).

Also, there is also another document that you should read WP:POINT and WP:DICK (note there is no offence meant by the last one). If you realise that the site runs on consensus then you should discuss the matters before jumping straight to WP:AN3.-Localzuk ^(talk) 14:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have already given my views on the matter. The edits you had made were against consensus and were reverted on that basis. The other edits (which as I have already stated include incorrect changes to numbers regardless of the references which is classed as vandalism, removing references which again is vandalism etc...). For each of the changes you have posted:

When reporting a 3RR violation you are supposed to provide an initial version that the user is reverting to. For example, in this case I would assume it was [27] which you state is the first revert (which it isn't). Next you have to show how the user has reverted/partially reverted to that version. She only did this once and then self reverted (which are numbers 2 and 3) so that is 3 of the supposed reverts that aren't actually reverts. 5 is self reverted by 4 (partially anyway). 6 is a revert of an anonymous user who changed the number of casualties without adding a reference. Number 7 is not actually pointing to the right thing, but I assume you mean the series of edits that occur before that edit. These edits consist of adding a reference and changing a date which again are not covered by the 3RR.

I do not see one violation of 3RR. If you think there is a case of the user being too controlling over the article take a look at WP:ANI as that would be more appropriate. -Localzuk ^(talk) 15:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just listed each of the reverts above. You are arguing over something that it appears is just to make a WP:POINT. The user reverted various items by various users on the article, but each one is justifiable under the exceptions to WP:3RR - most being vandalism or assumed vandalism. Please re-read my above analysis of the situation regarding each of the supposed edits. If you still wish to take the problem further, please make use of WP:ANI or WP:RFC as this seems to be more of a clash of your opinion against the other users than it is a case of 3RR violation. I am no longer going to discuss it as I have made my analysis of the situation and believe that the person did not violate 3RR at all.-Localzuk ^(talk) 16:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I know what a revert is. The point is that the reverts were all justified under the exceptions laid out in WP:3RR. Again, if you still wish to take it further, please use a different process. -Localzuk ^(talk) 17:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

3 things

1. Your source mentions 'rape' twice, once as a vague reference and the second time as an accusation (also vague). It is not a documentation of rape. But I won't object to inserting it if it's well-sourced and encyclopedic. I am not in the business of denying other peoples' tragedies. It does not mention 'mutilation' at all.
2. About Gaza, I've told you before, the moledet is going to be a good show; sit back and enjoy.
3. Are you ever going to archive this talk page? It's very long now...

Ramallite ^(talk) 18:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the BBC article... Ramallite ^(talk) 18:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeq

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeq

I am not User:Homeontherange[28], He's from Canada (or so I read in the article you started about his real-life identity) while I edit from either Stockholm or Amsterdam. The reason I used a sockpuppet was because of continuous harassment, including a few threatening emails. /SlaveCrixus 10:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)