User talk:Ashley kennedy3

Welcome!

Hello, Ashley kennedy3, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Kamope · talk · contributions 14:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Review and Improve: Template:Palestine topics • Palestine Liberation Organization • Palestinian views on the peace process • History of Palestine • Timeline of the name Palestine • Criticism of the Israeli government • Palestinian Centre for the Study of Nonviolence Requests and drafts: 1657 Ottoman campaign in Palestine • Abu Nuwar • Al-Hussein Stadium • Demographics of Gaza • Fahmy al-Zaarir • Fawzi Barhoum • Future for Palestine • Khaldoun Al-Halman • Lajee Center • National symbols of the State of Palestine • Palestinian dance • Suleiman Jacir • Weaving in Majdal Expand: Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority • General Union of Palestinian Students • Palestine Monetary Authority• Preventive Security Force • Walid Khalidi • Education in the State of Palestine • Sa'ir • Salman Abu-Sitta • Kawkaba • al Qastal, Palestine • Michel Khleifi • Al-Shajara • Sami Abu Zuhri • Yezid Sayigh • Yatta, Hebron • Qalqilya • Palestinian Scout Association • Arab Liberation Front • Palestinian literature • Muslim Quarter • Christian Quarter Update: Palestinian Christians • Israel's record: human rights in the occupied territories • Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Within WikiProject: Template needs to be edited so that space between bullet and text would be less new articles | edit | view template

Not the place

This is not the place to complain about writing for the enemy. Unless you have learned to write for the enemy...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

JIDF

Thank you JIDF for giving recognition of my work and showing why it is essential to continue editing. The JIDF web site list indicates by its title (List of Heavily Biased Anti-Israel Wikipedia Editors **UPDATED**) that JIDF is not looking for anti-Semitism but only trying to impose a strong pro-Israeli POV...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're spying on them, Ashley ol'chum, drop me a link from time to time. I just can't stir myself up to overcome a natural laziness in following that site. It bores me stiff, . . .not in the erotic sense.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noted itNishidani (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Have I been too obvious? [10].....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What profile? Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP Warning

Wikipedia is not the place to post derogatory, unsourced remarks about living people, as you did here. Our biography of living persons policy applies to every page not just articles. Jehochman ^Talk 14:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Source, now I can say that appletree and JIDF are nincompoops and extremists with a fixation on a "Global Islamic conspiracy theory"...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

second source translation of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung article....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ashley, it's too boring. They are extremists. The person and the page link to hate sites and to Meir Kahane, who was an anti-Arab racist. But the net's full of this bullshit, and we do well just to watch out that Wikipedia doesn't get dragged down to that level. Some people feel complimented by injurious insults, in that it implies recognition. That's what most of these stupid boards are about. Don't recognize them. Mokusatsu. Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Good advice. See also WP:DENY. Stick to discussing article content, and avoid excessively strident rhetoric. Extremists will discredit themselves. Jehochman ^Talk 18:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The abuse of the term Arab

On the I/P articles the term Arab has been used generally, in a racist manner. One link is extremely relevant and specific to the area of the West Bank Gaza and Israel, the other link is peripherally relevant and applies to Israel, Morocco, Libya, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Algeria, Tunisia, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Mauritania, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Andalusia, Marseilles, and Palestine. As such either the editor is unaware of the place (in which case they shouldn't be allowed to edit a sensitive area of conflict) and it is inadvertent vandalism or they are Politically motivated in which case it is intentional vandalism through POV and therefore not allowed by wiki's own rules of neutrality. All editors making a revert to Arab from Palestinian in I/P articles should therefore be considered as vandals. ..

In the context of Israeli-Palestinian relations, the abuse of the term 'Arab' has been used to push the POV that Palestinians have no nationality, and so should be denied statehood. The UN recognises the ethnicity of the Palestinian People.[11] The Ideology of "There is no Palestinian and no such thing as a Palestinian" is based on the ideology Jabotinsky and that of the discredited book by a non-academic, Joan Peters, "From Time Immemorial" and the influence it exercised on later polemicists like Alan Dershowitz, whose work itself partially plagiarised Peters'.[12] Moshe Dayan recognised the fact that Palestinians were there before Zionists. “There is not one single place built in this country [Israel] that did not have a former Arab population,” said about Israel in response to the Peters thesis. Wheatcroft, Geoffrey (1996), The Controversy of Zion, or How Zionism Tried to Resolve the Jewish Question (London: Sinclair-Stevenson, ISBN 0201562340 p 345.

The Israelophile extremists have been trying to turn the Palestinian People into a non-People. "The apartheid regime viewed the blacks as inferior; I do not think the Israelis see the Palestinians as human beings at all. How can a human brain engineer this total separation, the separate roads, the checkpoints? What we went through was terrible, terrible, terrible - and yet there is no comparison. Here it is more terrible. We also knew that it would end one day; here there is no end in sight. The end of the tunnel is blacker than black.

In 1970 Arie I Eliav in The New Middle East number 2 8-9 maintained that "We shall never deny the Palestinians their right to self determination". this has been proved to be false where Palestinian nationalism is denied and even the use of the term Palestinian is being denied. Prominent Israeli Zionists, Military Hawks have not denied the existence of the Palestinian people. Only Israelophile extremists have done that.

User:NSH001

Just caught the ratbag fiddling around on-line. He's hyper-secretive, a Titus Oats version of the Invisible Man, or of Sherlock Holmes' older brother. But if you want suggestions on the technical side of your user page, he's the man, if you can nab him before he takes off for another marathon (Forrest Gump with grey matter).Nishidani (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Tee, hee, Ashley, just ignore Nishidani's humorous exaggerations about me. But as a quick response to your questions:

• always happy to assist anybody
• may not do so immediately - I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak, but can't seem to stay away
• there is a lovely young lady called Phaedriel (whom I'm in wikilust with ) who will design you a user page if you ask her nicely. I don't like the small type she uses, but apart from that, she's brilliant. I notice she hasn't edited since 28 September.
• failing that, plagiarise someone else's page you like
• see WP:UBX for userboxes you can put on your page
• best to learn, I think, by doing things in small increments (not that different from the way articles are written, really)
• hope this helps, as a start anyway

--NSH001 (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, just noticed Phaediel hasn't been around since 28 September 2007 (I glanced too quickly, thought it was 2008)

--NSH001 (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Re things not mentioned, hebron

St.Luke's hospital there was founded originally as part of a Scottish mission to convert both Jews and Mohammedans, and was run from 1893 onwards by a quixotic figure, for some decades. His life, and apparently a lot of detail about Hebron, can be found in an otherwise rare book that however should be accessible if the Brits have an inter-library loan service. I'm referring to William Ewing, Paterson of Hebron, "the Hakim": Missionary Life in the Mountain of Judah, J. Clarke, 1930. I've a fair bit of data on Paterson, but only from secondary sources like Michael Marten's Attempting to Bring the Gospel Home: Scottish Missions to Palestine, 1839-1917, I.B.Tauris, 2006 pp.99-115 (two photos). Missionary Scottish Pat(t)ersons get around: there was one in my favourite country, Tibet. Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Re books

Don't want to burden you with my own interest, A. Just correcting a wee mispelling on your bibliopage. But have you ever read anything by Raul Hilberg? I think he is one of the greatest historians, ranking up there with Gibbon, Thucydides, Tacitus, etc. If you ever find a copy of his 'Destruction of the European Jews', first or the bigger expanded editions, it's worth buying, and reading very slowly. A lot of detail, but it is the quality and temper of the analytic mind one admires, and can learn much from. Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ever dependable. Fanks, guv. Surprised Sheikh Jarrah =French Hill, the former often mentioned in municipal reports, the laterr wiki page no clear mention of it. Still, for starters. . .Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion looks like it might help. Post a note there? Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Panias/Banias

Quick copyedit down to the Crusaders without checking it. Bit of a mess up only with the refs to the Synoptic Gospels. Fine job so far though, you're a credit to the joint. Will review the rest after savaging dinner. Best Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Your account has been blocked for making egregious personal attacks [13] after a warning. [14] Should you wish to resume editing sooner than one week, you should explain how things will be different in the future, and suggest what you might do to correct your past actions. Even if the other editor is in the wrong, there is no excuse for you to have made the comment you did. Jehochman ^Talk 17:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that I dislike persistent stalkers...and I do hope that you apply controls on NoCal100 for his past stalking and also keep a check on his future behaviour...I do realise I was intemperate in the comments...I just don't like stalkers...I have had run ins with other editors of different political persuasions. To cut down on the conflict I go around articles that are way off the beaten track, unreferenced and badly written. So I am at a loss of what more I can do to "keep my head down" when there is a wiki stalker around...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The evidence to NoCal100s wikistalking has been collated by Nishidani...I will be complaining about NoCal100s wikistalking in one week....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing

Nevertheless appeared to have reined in its suicide bombers, giving its tacit support to its fragile cease-fire and stating that it would not unleash more suicide bombers on Israel as long as Israeli troops did not kill Palestinian civilians.

The government of Israel is suspected of using extrajudicial executions as a method of ensuring a violent Palestinian reaction.

Chris Hedges a reporter from the New York Times is visiting Israel and the occupied territories at this time. He later writes of his experiences.

both Islamic Jihad and Hamas formally declared an end to the truce between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in early July.

Israel's assassination of two leading Hamas commanders in Nablus, Jamal Mansour and Omar Mansour, as well as 6 bystanders, including two children.

In the blast 15 people (including 7 children) were killed, and 130 wounded. The Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing came 10 days after the extrajudicial execution. August 10, 2001.'The street was covered with blood and bodies: the dead and the dying', The Guardian, August 10, 2001.

Israeli reaction

As ambulance workers began ferrying out bodies covered in black plastic - some pitifully small - from the blackened shell of Sbarro's, furious crowds strained against the barricades chanting the slogans of hate that have become a ritual in the aftermath of bombings. "Death to Arabs!" they screamed. "War, war, we want war!"

A number of Palestinians, residents of Arab east Jerusalem, were beaten by mobs near the site of the blast and on the outskirts of the city.

Guardian

Shaufat

Shaufat is in what the Israeli authorities have defined as east Jerusalem. Shaufat RC was built to house the 1948 refugees from Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem refugees (al Mu’askar camp) in 1966 and also houses refugee from the 1967 war. Is a conglomeration of displaced slum-dwellers. It has been noted that Shaufat has a problem with arbitrary IDF actions making routine life intolerable during the first Intifada. Shaufat inside the Israeli drawn borders this has caused a system of deterioration by the Israeli policy of denial of basic rights but ensured that schools remained open during Israeli Defence Force curfews that closed schools in the Palestinian Controlled West bank. Where the Jerusalem Municipal authority collect taxes but provide the bare minimum of services especially when compared to the Jewish settlements of Ma'ale Adumim and the UNRWA and the Palestinian National Authority’s Department of Palestinian Refugee Affairs has supplied services normally provided by a municipal authority (repairs to water [the Jerusalem Municipal Authority accepted responsibility for the repair and upkeep of the water and sewage works in 1967] and sewage systems, electrical line, roads, nursery schools and other youth facilities). The Israeli authorities has implemented a series of complex strategies coupling confiscation and expropriation of Palestinian land (In September 1995 the Jerusalem Municipality announced its intention to expropriate 380 dunums of Palestinian land from the Jerusalem suburbs of Shufat.) with a lack of investment in the town of Shaufat.

The residents of Shaufat has a strong sense of Palestinian National Identity.

During the First Intifada Shaufat residents inaugurated a system of “camp guards” through locally organised committees to ensure that timely warnings were received when Jewish settlers attempted to invade the refugee camp.

Olmert, the mayor, said the demolished houses were being built on designated “green areas,” public land where construction is banned. He said “criminals” should not be allowed to break the law and “build wildly.”

While the international community finds that Israel is acting illegally in land confiscation in the West bank. East Jerusalem, which is incorporated within the municipal borders of Jerusalem, though this de jure annexation under the Jerusalem Law is not recognized by the international community but is a de facto border.

The Abu Kweiks acknowledged that they do not own the land, saying they believed they had permission to build from Islamic Trust religious authorities. Palestinians and human rights organizations say Israel makes it difficult for Palestinians to obtain building licenses.

City officials had given the families 24 hours’ notice, skirting the usual grace period allowed for legal appeals. The Abu Kweiks acknowledged that they do not own the land, saying they believed they had permission to build from Islamic Trust religious authorities. Palestinians and human rights organizations say Israel makes it difficult for Palestinians to obtain building licenses.

Hasbani

The Hasbani River (Arabic: الحاصباني, al-Hasbani; Hebrew: נחל שניר, Nahal Snir), also known as Snir Stream within Israel, is a tributary of the Jordan river. The Hasbani River derives most of its discharge from two springs in Lebanon, the Wazzani and the Haqzbieh, the latter being a group of springs on the uppermost Hasbani. The Hasbani runs for 25 miles in Lebanon before crossing the border and joining with the Banias and Dan Rivers at a point in northern Israel forms the Jordan river valley. For about four kilometers downstream of Ghajar, the Hasbani forms the border between Lebanon and northern Israel.

The Wazzani's and the Haqzbieh's combined discharge averages 138 million m³ per year.. About 20% of the Hasbani flow emerges from the Wazzani Spring at Ghajar, close to the Lebanese Israeli border, about 3 kilometers west of the base of Mount Hermon. The contribution of the spring is very important, because it is the only continuous year-round flow in the river in either Lebanon or Israel. 1955 US ambassador Johnson negotiated the Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan, this has formed an important precedent. Existing utilization patterns have also serve as an important factor in determining the allocation of water in the region. Utilization of Hasbani water has been disputed since 1964 and suspected of being one of the major reasons behind the 1967 six day war. After the 2nd Arab summit conference in Cairo of January 1964 (with the backing of all 13 Arab League members), Syria in a joint project with Lebanon and Jordan, started the development of the water resources of Banias for a canal along the slopes of the Golan toward the Yarmouk River. While Lebanon was to construct a canal form the Hasbani River to Banias and complete the scheme The project was to divert 20 to 30 million cubic metres of water from the river Jordan tributaries to Syria and Jordan for the development of Syria and Jordan. This led to military intervention from Israel, first with tank fire and then, as the Syrians shifted the works further eastward, with airstrikes.

In 2001 the Lebanese government installed a small pumping station with a 10cm bore to extract water to supply Ghajar village. In March 2002 Lebanon also diverted the Hasbani supply to Wazzani village. An action that Ariel Sharon said was a "causus belli" and could lead to war.

cs:Hasbani de:Hazbani es:Río Snir id:Sungai Hasbani it:Hasbani he:נחל שניר jv:Kali Hasbani no:Hasbanielven pl:Hasbani

Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Banias

The Book of Enoch indicates that the sanctity of the area was well established. The heterodoxy of the northern kingdom of Israel is well atested.

The East Ghor canal project was part of a unified plan, suggested by minister Lahoud of Lebanon, for the irrigation of 10,000 ha in Jordan.

British Mandate to contemporary

The Syria-Lebanon-Palestine boundary was a product of the post-World War I Anglo-French partition of Ottoman Syria. British forces had advanced to a position at Tel Hazor against Turkish troops in 1918 and wished to incorporate all the sources of the river Jordan within the British controlled Palestine. Due to the French inability to establish administrative control the frontier between Syria and Palestine was fluid. Following the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, in the unratified Treaty of Sèvres from the San Remo conference, the 1920 boundary extended the British controlled area to north of the Sykes Picot line, a straight line between the mid point of the Sea of Galilee and Nahariya. In 1920 the French managed to asserted authority over the Arab nationalist movement and King Faisal was deposed after the Battle of Maysalun. The international boundary between Palestine and Syria was finally agreed by Great Britain and France in 1923 with the Treaty of Lausanne after Britain had been given a League of Nations mandate for Palestine in 1922. Banyas (on the Quneitra/Tyre road) was within in the French Mandate of Syria. The border was set 750 metres south of the spring.

During the 1930s there was an rising demand for water, created in large part by the increased demands of agricultural and enlarging population.

In 1941 Australian forces occupied Banyas in the advance to the Litani during the Syria-Lebanon Campaign. When Free French and Indian forces invaded Syria in the Battle of Kissoué Banias's fate was to be left in a state of limbo when Syria came under British military control. After the cessation of WWII and at the time of Syria being granted Independence (April 1946) France and Britain bilaterally signed an agreement to pass control of Banias to the British mandate of Palestine against the express wishes of the Syrian government who declared Frances signature to be invalid. While Syria maintained its claim on Banias, it was administered from Jerusalem.

Following the 1948 Arab Israeli War, and the signing of the General Armistice Agreements in 1949, and DMZs included in the Armistice with Syria in July 1949, were "not to be interpreted as having any relation whatsoever to ultimate territorial arrangements." Israel claimed sovereignty over Demilitarised zone (DMZ), on the basis that, "it was always part of the British Mandated Territory of Palestine." Moshe Dayan and Yosef Tekoah adopted a policy of Israeli control of the DMZ and water sources at the expense of Israel’s international image. The Banias spring remained under Syrian control, while the Banias River flowed through the contested Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) and into Israel.

In 1951 the tensions in the area were raised when, in the lake Huleh area (10 km from Banias), Israel initiated a project to drain the marsh land to bring 15,000 acres into cultivation. The project caused a conflict of interests between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Arab villages in the area and drew Syrian complaints to the United Nations. On 30 march in a meeting chaired by David Ben-Gurion the Israeli government decided to assert Israeli sovereignty over the DMZs, consequently 800 inhabitants of the villages were forcibly evacuated from the DMZ. From 1951 Israel refused to attend the meetings of the Israel/Syria Mixed Armistice Commission. This refusal on the part of Israel not only constituted a flagrant violation of the General Armistice Agreement, but also contributed to an increase of tension in the area. The Security Council itself strongly condemned the attitude of Israel, in its resolution of 18 May 1951, as being "inconsistent with the objectives and intent of the Armistice Agreement"

Under UN auspices and with encouragement from the Eisenhower administration 9 meetings took place between 15 January and 27 January 1953, to regularise administration of the 3 DMZs. At the eighth meeting Syria offered to adjust the armistice lines, and cede to Israel's 70% of the DMZ, in exchange for a return to the pre 1946 International border in the Jordan basin area, with Banias water resources returning uncontested to Syrian sovereignty. On 26 April, the Israeli cabinet met to consider the Syrian suggestions; with head of Israel’s Water Planning Authority, Simha Blass, in attendance. Blass noted that while the land to be ceded to Syria was not suitable for cultivation, the Syrian map did not suit Israel’s water development plan. Blass explained that the movement of the International boundary in the area of Banias would affect Israel’s water rights. The Israeli cabinet rejected the Syrian proposals but decided to continue the negotiations by making changes to the accord and placing conditions on the Syrian proposals. The Israeli conditions took into account Blass’s position over water rights and Syria rejected the Israeli counter offer.

On 4 June 1953 Jordan and Syria concluded a bilateral plan to store surface water at Maqarin (al-Wehda), so as to be able to utilise the water resources of the Yarmouk river in the Yarmouk-Jordan valley plan, funded through the Technical Cooperation Agency of the United States of America, the UNRWA and Jordan.

In 1953, Israel unilaterally started a water diversion project within the Jordan River basin by the Israeli National Water Carrier. This caused shelling from Syria and friction with the Eisenhower Administration; the diversion was moved to the southwest. September 1953 Israel advanced plans to divert water to help irrigate the coastal Sharon Plain and eventually the Negev desert by launching a diversion project on a nine-mile channel midway between the Huleh Marshes and Lake Galilee (Lake Tiberias) in the central DMZ to be rapidly constructed. Syria claimed that it would dry up 12,000 acres of Syrian land. The UNTSO Chief of Staff Major General Vagn Bennike of Denmark noted that the project was denying water to two Palestinian water mills, was drying up Palestinian farm land and was a substantial military benefit to Israel against Syria. The US cut off aid to Israel. The Israeli response was to increase work. UN Security Council Resolution 100 “deemed it desirable” for Israel to suspend work started on the 2nd September “pending urgent examination of the question by the Council”. Israel finally backed off by moving the intake out of the DMZ and for the next three years the US kept its economic sanctions by threatening to end aid channelled to Israel by the Foreign Operations Administration and insisting on tying the aid with Israel's behaviour. The Security Council ultimately rejected Syrian claims that the work was a violation of the Armistice Agreements and drainage works were resumed and the work was completed in 1957.

1955 US ambassador Johnson negotiated the Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan.

After the 2nd Arab summit conference in Cairo of January 1964 (with the backing of all 13 Arab League members), Syria in a joint project with Lebanon and Jordan, started the development of the water resources of Banias for a canal along the slopes of the Golan toward the Yarmouk River. While Lebanon was to construct a canal form the Hasbani River to Banias and complete the scheme The project was to divert 20 to 30 million cubic metres of water from the river Jordan tributaries to Syria and Jordan for the development of Syria and Jordan. This led to military intervention from Israel, first with tank fire and then, as the Syrians shifted the works further eastward, with airstrikes.

On June 10th, 1967, the last day of the Six Day War, Golani Brigade forces quickly invaded the village of Banias where a caliphate era Syrian fort stood. Eshkol's priority on the Syrian front was control of the water sources. This action has meant that Israel utilizes all water resources for the agricultural development of the Hula Valley. In 1967 Rafi Rubinstein was able to see the poverty that Israeli policies has caused to the Palestinian citizens of Israel and why the Syrian had fought for the Palestinians cause.

The southern slopes of Mount Hermon (Jebel esh-Sheikh) as well as the Golan Heights, were unilaterally annexed by Israel in 1981.

Jordan being a country that borders on the Jordan has riparian rights to water from the Jordan basin and upper Jordan tributaries. Due to the water diversion projects the flow to the river Jordan has been reduced from 1,300/1,500 million cubic metres (mcm)to 250/300 mcm. Where the water quality has been further reduced as the flow of the river Jordan is made of run-off from agricultural irrigation and saline springs.

The water agreement forms a part of the broader political treaty which was signed between Israel and Jordan in 1994, and the articles relating to water in this agreement do not correspond with Jordan’s rights to water as they were originally claimed. The nature and significance of the wider 1994 treaty meant that the water aspect was forced to cede importance and priority in negotiations, giving way to areas such as borders and security in terms of armed force, which were perceived by decision-makers as being the most integral issues to the settlement.

These problems can be seen to have emerged in 1999, when the treaty’s limitations were revealed by events concerning water shortages in the Jordan basin. A reduced supply of water to Israel due to drought meant that, in turn, Israel which is responsible for providing water to Jordan, decreased its water provisions to the country, provoking a diplomatic disagreement between the two and bringing the water component of the treaty back into question.

Israel's complaints that the reduction in water from the tributaries to the river Jordan caused by the Jordan/Syrian dam look to go unheeded due to the conflict of interest between Israel and her neighbours.

see also

Water politics in the Middle East

suggested further reading on water issues

Water for the Future: The West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israel, and Jordan By U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Inc NetLibrary, Jamʻīyah al-ʻIlmīyah al-Malakīyah, Committee on Sustainable Water Supplies for the Middle East, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences (U.S.) Published by National Academies Press, 1999 ISBN 030906421X

Allan John Anthony, (2001) The Middle East Water Question: Hydropolitics and the Global Economy I.B.Tauris, ISBN 1860648134

Amery, Hussein A. and Wolf, Aaron T. (2000) Water in the Middle East: A Geography of Peace University of Texas Press, ISBN 029270495X

Stick to it

back to this article, the Guardian article does not claim any of the things it is used for as a reference. If you would like to use it, please stick to what it actually says. NoCal100 (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Why should anyone stick to any verbatim reporting when it is abundantly clear that you dont...

From Lucy Dean (2003) The Middle East and North Africa 2004 Taylor & Francis Group, Routledge, ISBN 1857431847,

Nevertheless appeared to have reined in its suicide bombers, giving its tacit support to its fragile cease-fire and stating that it would not unleash more suicide bombers on Israel as long as Israeli troops did not kill Palestinian civilians. However in early July both Islamic Jahad and Hamas formally declared an end to the truce.

turned into:- Hamas had appeared to have reined in its suicide bombers, while publicly giving conflicting messages as to its support of the truce.

plus of course your ref directly backs up the Guardian article on revenge attacks for Israeli forces slaughtering Palestinians. The article you deleted..Nocal...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but it does. eg Judaism, by Dan Cohn-Sherbok: "In consequence, the Jewish people was able to enter into communion with God" [15]. Or The Body of Faith, by Michael Wyschogrod: "Traditionally, the Jewish peoiple was spoken of as Knesses Israel, the 'Assembly of Israel'".[16]. The term is even used in another book title, When the Jewish People Was Young by Mordecaii Aoloff. [17] This is the correct usage, and I need no lessons in writing grammatical English, thank you. RolandR (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Depopulated villages 1967

Za'ura, Banias, 'Aynfit, Bayt Mar'sam, Bayt Awa, Habla, Jiftlik

List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict

• Beit Nuba
• Imwas
• Yalo
• Dayr Ayyub

ref notes that 4 villages were razed contrary to the usual 3 mentioned //The Middle East and North Africa: A Political Geography By Alasdair Drysdale, Gerald Henry Blake Published by Oxford University Press US, 1985 ISBN 0195035380 p 299//

Books

Schwarz, Yehoseph (1850) A Descriptive Geography and Brief Historical Sketch of Palestine Translated by Isaac Leeser A. Hart,

Geog incorrect, biblical refs incorrect, Crusaders period called Belinas.

van de Velde, Charles William Meredith (1854) Narrative of a Journey Through Syria and Palestine in 1851 and 1852 W. Blackwood and sons, p 425

Insignificant village subject to the Emir of Hasbeiya with the ruins of Caesarea Philippi being the only thing of any interest to European travellers, with the village houses clustered around the spring. Crusader period Belenas.

Kartic system of Banias

Frankish Rural Settlement in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem By Ronnie Ellenblum Published by Cambridge University Press, 2003 ISBN 0521521874 p 142 Bethgibelin

Stalking 2

All of my page may presently be archived. Archiving does damage, and makes reconstructing certain connected edits hard (or perhaps I just don't know the ins and outs of diff-making and hunting). So, with your permission, Ashley, I'll post the evidence I garnered here on that twit. You can remove it if unnecessary. In principle, I don't complain to administrators (I think in any case it an extreme waste of time to argue the obvious to distracted editors who are unaware of the real backgrounds, and contexts, all the unsaid that flows like the waters of Alph between editors over time. I just like to keep the records clear, so that people know how I thought or this or that. By the way, few really pay attention in AN/1 complaints and these things are judged according, mostly, to preconceived political or personal biases irrespective of arguments ('He's out for one of our guys. To the defence!' etc.). But if you have in the future occasion, since you will now be niggled extensively, to lodge a complaint, you'd better master the details of presentation. The page you've drafted is hard on the eyes, and no one is likely to look at it closely, however impressive the evidence. Look at the AN/1 page, and ChrisO's presentation, that is a lucid model to follow. My forensic style of analysis, by contrast, only loses as many readers as it wins over, so it is a self-cancelling strategy, if one must speak of delivery strategies. Cheers, and best wishes. I'll keep my wiki page, a blank one, just in case anyone wants to ask me something I might be helpful on, like copyedits, checking, etc.

                             - - - - -

Draft

(1) I encountered NoCal100 in an AN/1 page discussion on Eleland, whose banning he supported. There I simply, en passant corrected his confusion over the distinction in English between 'flaunt' and 'flout', since he used the former in the sense of the latter

(2) This trivial note appeared to seed a grievance. He trailed me to the Nafez Assaily page, which I wrote, and which the now banned User :Einsteindonut had, as a measure of retaliation, but also for his own POV-pushing on I/P articles, just endeavoured to get deleted. Hardly anyone had looked at that page. It is only known to people who scour my page. Einsteindonut did so as to wipe out evidence of the existence of a Palestinian pacifist which I had documented.

(3)While reverting an anonymous I/P tagteam push to revert, without prior discussion or response to requests for discussion, on the Shuafat page, which I have edited, NoCal100, turned up and posted a warning on my page admonishing me not to call their anonymous tagteam behaviour vandalism.
. He did not post any such message on the corresponding pages of the two anonymous I/P editors involved in the abuse, aside from confusing several facts. (See note a. below)

(4)Palestine Liberation Organization

(5) A day after Ashley kennedy3 asked me if I could go over an article he has worked extensively on, and I had, in reply to the request done a preliminary copy-edit on the first part, NoCal100 turns up and did a mass delete Banias

Note (a) On Shuafat.

Anonymous I/P editor 24.62.27.63 restored an edit made three months earlier. Namely,

‘Shuafat is an Arab town within the borders of Israel as part of north-eastern Jerusalem' here

(1)I reverted on the 16th of October back to

'Shuafat is a Palestinian town within the de facto borders of Israel as part of north-eastern Jerusalem'.

My edit explained: 'reverted ideology’. Why? 7 experienced editors including strongly ‘pro-Israeli’ editors like User:Canadian Monkey, had found since July nothing wrong with the original edit by Ashleykennedy, which conformed to the reference note 1 to Kershner. (I’d noted way back that her name is misspelled, in the footnote directed to colleagues. While all are prepossessed by possible POVs, no one will change this, one more proof that POV hunting predominates over serious editing.) Kershner wrote:

‘the latest such finds is a narrow strip of antiquity that runs down the middle of a main road through what is now Shuafat, a Palestinian neighborhood in north Jerusalem. . . . touching on one of the most contentious issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the ownership of the city that the Israelis and Palestinians claim as their capital. . . The government expanded the city limits to take in outlying Palestinian villages like Shuafat, and annexed them. The Palestinians were offered Israeli citizenship, but considering themselves illegally occupied, most refused, choosing permanent residency . . most of the world do not recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem and other areas occupied in the 1967 war.’

The edit therefore ignored the source and was ideological. The reference supports Ashley Kennedy’s nuanced version ('Palestinian' 'de facto'), as several editors for thre months did not question. That 'Palestinian' for 'Arab' is by now the vox propria does not have to be argued on several hundred pages, repetitively. 'Arab' could be anyone from Saudi Arabia to Morocco. It has been also accepted that Israel never annexed that land, and that the borders (which are not in international law determined unilaterally) are provisory de facto borders. Many articles accept this.

(2) Within another half hour, my revert was reverted in turn by a new anonymous IP editor, and I immediately reverted it with the explanation ‘Undid.The border is not recognized. Hence de facto’

(3)Only on the third revert in what was now a tagteam operation by again 24.62.27.63 did I explain my revert back by remarking on vandalism, ‘Rv vandalism’.

(4) The anonymous IP editor 24.62.27.63 reverted my restoration back again the next day, and, after a half a day has passed without any other traditional editor intervening to restore the damage, I cancelled his revert, explaining the edit as Revert ideological vandalism'.

(5)Three days later his anonymous companion 64.119.142.118 restored the ideological POV-driven edit and, within an hour, I restored the consensual edit speaking of Rt vandalism of an ideological kind'.

(6) At this point, as Ashley Kennedy and I, both customary editors there, were editing, User:NoCal100 steps in to post a severe warning over my page on reverting the tagteamers’ abuse as ‘vandalism’. The tone of voice was that of an administrator, not of a mere editor like myself here. Several things were wrong. He was wikistalking. Secondly he warned me against edit-warring, without saying anything on the pages of the two anonymous I/P editors who were certainly edit-warring in a tagteam effort to restore a non-consensual and false statement that did not reflect the source. Third, I’d explained twice the reasons why the anonymous tagteam revert was false, the two editors did not reply but persisted. I therefore branded their combined effort ‘ideological vandalism’. Fourthly, I'd spoken of vandalism thrice not four times. Fifth, he tried to make this out to be a content dispute by (a) ignoring that seven editors had never challenged AK’s edit for three months (b) ignoring that the source quoted for the controversial sentence supports AK’s edit, and does not support the tagteam anonymous IPs’ edit, Since he aimed his dart only at me, and had obviously ignored an examination of the content of Kershner’s note, this was further evidence that he had me in his sights, and not the need to write to that page to NPOV standards.

(7)He then proceeds to edit the Shuafat page, challenging (in my view legitimately, PR). But his attack on me for behaving responsibly motivated his entry there, as did his subsequent behaviour.

(8)On the 28th of October, the second of the 2 tagteamers, after NOCal’s warning to me, reverts back to the false statement they wish to push. In the meantime User:Coppertwig had appeared, and tried to turn this into a content dispute (as NonCal100 argued) to be discussed. Coppertwig’s invitation to reargue this struck me as an suggestion I engage in an attrition war over what was the commonsense neutral phrasing. Neither he, nor noCal100, nor User:Jayjg who also joined in, had cared to justify the two tagteamers' edit, or show why the consensual edit in place was wrong. So we have three pro-Israeli editors watching the page of a sudden, and I posed them a test Well I'll just watch on, amused that those who have come here to monitor the article and the behaviour of a few of us, are silent on the controversial and persistent tag-team revert that occurred, again, yesterday. In my book, silence is assent

(9)What has occurred over the last four days? None of the three has checked the Kershner reference, none has warned the two anonymous I/P editors of edit-warring, none has reverse them, despite the fact that the edit they supporti s not supported by the source. They in short approve. Their problem is monitoring Nishidani, PR, or Ashley Kennedy, not writing according to sources. This is what much of I/P editing is all about. If you don't have the courage to make a bad edit, wait for some anonymous I/P to do it, and attack any pro-Palestinian editor who challenges it. That is why Ashley Kennedy got pissed off, and that is why I think far too many colleagues in here are engaged in an irresponsible farce. I challenged PR, they back each other, even if in their midst an idiot or two crops up. I suppose, for Elonka, this is just another piece of Nishidani's 'rhetoric' Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nishidani, I was monitoring you talk page. But thanks for moving it across..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Schwartz

Parting pignus amicitiae as token of great work at Banias. See Rabbi Joseph Schwartz, A Descriptive Geography and brief Historical Sketch of Palestine, tr Isaac Leeser, A.Hart, Philadelphia,p.48,60f. on Banias and associations in Jewish lore. (downloadable copy from Huldra's bibliopage I think, or generally on net.13 mega)Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately he gets the history incorrect...Identifies Banias with Dan. But he does clear up the reason why the crusaders called it Belias. (due the incorrect Ba'al association)...His geography shows he didn't actually visit, his positioning of Paneas is way off and the wrong side of the river...how to include a source that is 90% incorrect?..It's why there is still the willingness to associate Banias and Dan continues against Eusebius, E Robinson and archaeological evidence...(which was then continued in the original article before I removed it)...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

A good many sources, even modern, get things wrong, and there is much to learn from this. That is why I described it as 'lore'. I think he spent 16 years there, but it goes to show (a) how difficult travelling was (b) how much book study prevailed over concrete knowledge (c) how a biblically-focused mind struggles to work out a topographical imbrication between the transmitted mythogeography of the OT and what stray notices by hearsay, inquiry or perhaps some travel allowed him to gather. I often get as much information from poor sources as I do from good ones,(rereading Marco Polo, Carpino and Mandeville at the moment) but that's a private vice. CheersNishidani (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Unforced errors show the value that a writer places on previous sources....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Draft for ANI

ANI

This is not a dispute of content. NoCal100 uses the technique of edit by deletion and then claims that consensus must be gained for anyone to be able to have information inserted thereby initiating edit wars. NoCal100's actions are incorrect, the wiki policy is that consensus should be gained before editing. NoCal100 turns up on an article that he has no previous experience of editing therefore he should seek consensus prior to making an edit, he does not do that. When NoCal100 needs to be adopted and his edits vetted until he learns to use the references in an NPOV manner and not be allowed to remove any material until he has learned to edit sensibly and not an "I don't like it" manner and to control his wikistalking. NoCal100 edits (both deletion and insertions) show that NoCal100 is editing for a POV and not NPOV.

It is a dispute over the inability of NoCal100 to edit constructively. NoCal100's edits have generally been to reduce the information available, to remove links that he/she finds not to his/her Ideological liking using a myriad of nonsensical spurious arguments. In the pursuit of an ideological goal he/she has become the antithesis of the founding principal of the ethos of wiki the "access to information". That is Edit by deletion without consensus.

a) Banias

With no other editor involved. NoCal100 with no previous edits on that subject deleted with no attempt at consensus. Wiki Policy clearly states that consensus should be reached before editing with interested parties. (deletion is an edit) NoCal100 made not such attempt. examples below.

i) NoCal100 repeated removal of sourced material here

His/her argument being "Not directly related to Banias".

John Francis Wilson, the academic and author of Caesarea Philippi: Banias, the Lost City of Pan I.B.Tauris, (2004) ISBN 1850434409 thought that the incident was of such note to Banias that he included it in his book on page 178. (the Wilson (2004) book has been repeatedly used throughout the Banias article and as the book is available electronically one must assume that NoCal100 must have read it before editing on the wiki article that he/she recently wiki stalked his way to)

ii)NoCal100 repeated bad faith edits here

repeated reversion to "by mutual agreement"...it is a facetious statement; in that all agreements, if made, are by the fact, of an agreement being made, obviously by mutual consent. In this instance, no agreement was made therefore there was no mutual consent. His edit is only to try to repeatedly expound his/her ideological POV of the myth of Israel as the peace maker whereas the reference given pointedly show that it was a Syrian offer that it was rejected by Israel, as shown in the references supplied.

b) Shaufat

again NoCal100 bad faith edits here

NoCal100:-

No one was yet living in them.

quote from reference supplied by NoCal100: At least two of the houses destroyed Monday were occupied by families; the others were empty. The Abu Kweiks moved into their one-story, four-bedroom house four months ago, the family said, after saving and scraping for five years to build it. Members of the family have lived in the Shuafat camp since fleeing their original home–in what is today central Israel–during the Jewish state’s 1948 War of Independence.

NoCal100 makes a blatant false statement. Nocal100 either doesn't read or is only cherry picking to suit his own extremist ideology.

c) NoCal100 Bad faith edits in Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing here where he/she removes work that is supported by the reference that he supplied.

From Lucy Dean (2003), The Middle East and North Africa, 2004 Taylor & Francis Group, Routledge, ISBN 1857431847 p 915

Nevertheless appeared to have reined in its suicide bombers, giving its tacit support to its fragile cease-fire and stating that it would not unleash more suicide bombers on Israel as long as Israeli troops did not kill Palestinian civilians. However in early July both Islamic Jahad and Hamas formally declared an end to the truce.

NoCal100 uses the reference to remove all sentences (which had citations) to the previous behaviour of Israeli troops a removal of which is 180° at variance with his own reference.

The bombing came 10 days after Israel's assassination of two leading Hamas commanders in Nablus, Jamal Mansour and Omar Mansour, as well as 6 bystanders, including two children.

d) NoCal100 bad faith edits In the Category:Suicide bombing in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Removal of category nationalism by substitution of category here I can only assume because it mentions Palestine and nationalism which would fall under the category of an "I don't like it" edit to an Ideological extremist.

e) NoCal100 bad faith edits [18] category removal..while on Palestinian subjects category additions [19] [20] blatant POV

f) NoCal100 bad faith edits placing POV [21]

g) NoCal100 bad faith edits puts 1965 rather than 1930s because the initial cause was increased Jewish immigration into Palestine [22]

The allocation of the Jordan's headwaters began to be taken seriously in the 1930s when increased Jewish immigration into Palestine created a need for sustained water management for agricultural development and drinking.[23]

h) NoCal100 bad faith edits here calling University papers in the public domain "original research"...

i) NoCal100 bad faith edits [24] the group was known as the Stern Gang, historical fact. (it was only known as Stern gang in the English speaking world).

j) NoCal100 bad faith edits here removal of pertinent material.

k) NoCal100 bad faith edits here again edit by deletion without gaining consensus for edit.

NoCal100's Previous history of bad faith disruptive and vandalism in his/her editing and stalking patern:-

[25] [26] [27] [28] and identified as a wikistalker tracking both Nishidani and CasualObserver'48 here

• 15:17, 29 October 2008 CasualObserver'48 (Talk | contribs) m (7,597 bytes) (misc grammar, technical)
• 19:30, 1 November 2008 Nishidani (Talk | contribs) (28,427 bytes) (chur) (undo)
• 15:06, 2 November 2008 NoCal100 (Talk | contribs) (29,743 bytes) (→British Mandate to contemporary: not directly relevant to banias) (undo)

Gilo [29]

• (cur) (last) 17:34, 16 October 2008 Nishidani (Talk | contribs) (11,840 bytes) (→Shooting incidents: fixing phrasing) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 21:57, 16 October 2008 Ashley kennedy3 (Talk | contribs) m (11,842 bytes) (→References: condense refs) (undo)
• 01:55, 17 October 2008 NoCal100 (Talk | contribs) (11,673 bytes) (→Land dispute: ref does not mention Gilo) (undo) again after no previous record of editing gilo

Palestine Liberation Organization [30]

17:27, 30 October 2008 Nishidani

17:53, 30 October 2008 NoCal100 with no previous record of having edited PLO

previously exhibited stalking behaviour on non-ME articles

[31] Oh, and something struck me that I should have realised earlier. 100 = "ton" (to quote from Ton - "In Britain, ton is colloquially used to refer to 100 of a given unit"). Given "NoCal100" = "NoCalton" and your stalking behaviour, I'm inclined to think I've got enough evidence to the contrary not to assume good faith. _GB^T/C 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Out of 246 Edits on articles NoCal100 has a very high percentage of disruptive behaviour. here

Jayjg

a) Jayjg bad faith edits Revision as of 03:42, 2 November 2008 (edit) (undo) (wrong cat, Zionist not Jewish) here

removes category Jewish terrorism and fails to replace with category Zionist terrorism

bad Faith Edits by Nudve

here What has the Hamas charter got to do with a line established in 1949?

Cats to add to all jayjg bad faith edits;

1. Category:Terrorism in the British Mandate of Palestine
2. Category:Zionist Terrorism
3. Category:Jewish Terrorism
4. Category:Victims of Zionist Terrorism
5. Category:Irgun
6. Category:Stern Gang

Kayseri

Caesarea Philippi should not be confused with Caesarea Maritima, on the Mediterranean, (now Caesarea in Israel) or with Caesarea Mazaca in Cappadocia.

needs top piece

Hebron

the refs with ISBN: Halpern, Ben and Reinharz, Jehuda (1998) Zionism and the Creation of a New Society Oxford University Press US, ISBN 0195092090

Hyamson, Albert Montefiore Palestine, the Rebirth of an Ancient People BiblioBazaar, LLC ISBN 0554409283

Masalha Nur (2007) The Bible and Zionism: Invented Traditions, Archaeology and Post-colonialism in Palestine-Israel Zed Books, ISBN 1842777610

Laqueur, Walter (2004) No End To War: Terrorism In The Twenty-first Century Continuum International Publishing Group, ISBN 082641656X p 114

Peace Now

November 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing multiple accounts, for more evidence please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ashley kennedy3. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 06:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ashley kennedy3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am contesting the block. Because I have not used a sock puppet.

Decline reason:

First of all, there is actually evidence that you did, namely, this CheckUser case. Second of all, calling people names in your bid to be unblocked is akin to shooting yourself in the foot...multiple times. — kurykh 09:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ashley kennedy3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have not used a sock puppet. Wilson, John Francis. (2004) Caesarea Philippi: Banias, the Lost City of Pan I.B.Tauris, ISBN 1850434409 has been cite 20 times throughout the article, I do not control Charlie O'Sulivan. I have spoken to him from face book but he is very much his own man. What he does is not at my bidding. You have in effect had a court case and not allowed me to be present at the time and then sprung this on me. Where was the notification of a case? Where was any defence allowed? I know Charles through a mutual friend on face book, but that is all..You're placing suspicion where there is no guilt and then acting on that suspicion..and giving me no chace to defend myself..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have not seen the technical evidence (which includes the IP addresses), but it was declared as likely. Additionally, the accusations of bad faith seem t oconnect the accounts. Please read this section of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry - accounts which are indistinguishable from each other can be treated as a single person. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Have you checked on the range of the IP etc etc. because you will fi8nd that we are not the same person...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ashley kennedy3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

wiki administration has held a case with only the prosecution in attendance. Many Israelophile editors also speak to their "mates" and act in tandem, I have had email contact with Charles O'Sullivan and yes we did discuss Banias and NoCal100, but we are 2 separate people. That is allowable and not sockpuppetry. Please see paranoia, that is NoCal100. My talk page is open to all to see if Charlie O'Sulivan has used my page to take some of the arguments I can't stop that. I can not control his actions as he is a separate person. I am sorry but I would like some sort of arbitration on this as paranoid suspicion is not proof of anything. Charles O'Sullivan and I are 2 separate people using 2 separate accounts and I do not know how to prove that. Short of Charles O'Sullivan and myself presenting ourselves at an admins front door to present our Identification papers?

Decline reason:

Checkuser blocks are not undone on an editor's say-so. Your only option is to appeal to WP:ARBCOM by mail, who may review the checkuser evidence. —  Sandstein  11:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ashley kennedy3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

could someone please put the email address of WP:ARBCOM so that I can appeal the decision of the check user case.

Decline reason:

The Arbcom e-mail address is prominently displayed in the page, in the pink box. (It's arbcom-l[at]lists[dot]wikimedia[dot]org.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thanks but what pink box on what page?

• WP:ARBCOM, of course. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

seen, eventually, thanks (only I don't get the box as pink, to me it was transparent)Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• • I have asked for another enwiki checkuser to review the evidence. Please note that per Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets, multiple accounts acting in tandem to evade blocks and bans may be treated as sockpuppets even if the actual people behind the account may be separate. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I have also run a check, and I endorse Avi's findings. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)