User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg/Archive 5

Apartheid disambig
Please explain to me how these sentences are POV:

"Israeli apartheid is a term used by some critics of Israel's policies towards the Palestinians." and "The apartheid wall is a term used by the same critics to describe the Israeli West Bank barrier being built to seperate Israel from the West Bank."

Do you deny critics of Israel use the term "Israeli apartheid" and "apartheid wall"? Try googling these terms. Saying a term exists is not POV. Homey 05:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As to your last point, does this mean you will now give Evil empire the same treatment you're trying to give Israeli apartheid?Homey 05:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"I'm not denying that some critics use the term, however it is far from mainstream."

The phrase "Israeli apartheid" receives 264,000 hits on google. In any case, Wikipedia does not confine itself to "mainstream" phrases.Homey 05:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know about it now so go ahead, try your argument there and see how far you get. Sorry, but your POV is transparent and your argument is built on sand. Homey 05:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you consider "mainstream" anyway? I don't believe that there is any "mainstream" society. To say so is to believe that there are the large groups of people who are exactly the same in ideology and custom where in reality there is no such group. There is no black-and-white society. --Strothra 05:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue that philosphical ramifications of the word "mainstream", any rational person understands that the word "mainstream" has to do with its context, it doesn't mean everybody believes in the same everything, it means the vast majority of people believe or don't believe whatever is being discussed in the context, which in this case is that Israel is an Apartheid state.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"probably every two words in the English language produces that many results on google."

Not at all, the phrase "Palestinian apartheid" only generates 271 hits. Do you have any more excuses?Homey 05:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, I got over 2 million hits for the same search, did you spell something wrong?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I just know how to use google to search a phrase while you evidently do not. When you are searching for a phrase in google you should put it in quotation marks ie "Israeli apartheid" or "Palestinian apartheid". You simply put both words into google and thus got any page that had both "Palestinian" and "apartheid" even if the two words are not even in the same sentence. Compare to  and you'll see the difference. Homey 06:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You're kidding right? You voted to keep Jimmy McMillan today and you're going to talk about fringe groups? --Strothra 05:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"Obviously you already have your mind made up despite all evidence and arguments to the contrary. I no longer see any reason to continue with this discussion."

I've been able to refute all your "evidence and arguments to the contrary". If you can't put forward a viable argument you really have no basis on which to continue this line of (non)reasoning. Homey 05:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"One more revert in Israeli Apartheid and you could be blocked for the 3RR."

One more tagging without providing a citation from What Wikipedia is not and you could be banned for vandalism and/or brought before the Arbcomm. Homey 05:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

He's still a fringe figure but you voted to keep him. All I'm saying is that if you're going to do that then you shouldn't be against the apartheid article for it being a term used only by fringe groups. I feel that you have very valid other reasons for concern which you could stick to. Also, I think that everyone should just call it a night with this article. --Strothra 05:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

ok..well I'm stating that I support it or don't. I will say that I need to see a better article with more support to its notability. I believe that it could be updated to do this and I feel that you disagree with that. We'll just have to see how it turns out. --Strothra 05:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg Homey 05:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Irgun
Check out user:BetterDeadThanRed's other edits... Forgot to sign -  Tewfik Talk 19:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

New "Israeli apartheid" article
Hi Moshe: Vigorous editing and debate is taking place at Israeli apartheid (phrase). Please take a look at it and add your comments. Thanks a lot. IZAK 20:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

behavior not acceptable
Hi

you RV my edits on the suicide bomber children among the Palestinians without discussing it on the discussion page. This is not a good way of doing things.

That peace on the suide bombers is a piece of cheap propaganda. it needs be changed.

Hope you do not do it again.

--Thameen 20:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not appreciate the tone of this message. I provided adequate reasoning for the edit, that is enough.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

HOTR vs. Zeq
You are more experienced on W. than I am; is there any official way to protest or challenge Home's misuse of his administrative powers? Admittedly Zeq does "push the envelope" at times, but obviously it is wrong for Home to start an article with an obviously POV title, then get into an edit war over it, and then start blocking and banning people for tangling with HIM on edits to the same article. Is there some specific rule about what administrators can and cannot do in disputes in which THEY are involved? It would seem to be a matter of common sense that they should either be an editor or an administrator in a particular article, but not both... but then again, I have noticed that common sense does not go very far on Wikipedia. 6SJ7 10:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid
Don't worry, there are plenty of other editors who will revert. Homey 02:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make things up. It's clear from the talk page that most editors agree with me and you are in the minority. Thus there are plenty of other editors who will revert you. Homey 02:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines are not binding, particularly not when a particular guideline is universally ignored. If you disagree and are confident consensus is not against you then why don't you take the article to AFD? Homey 02:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeq
As to Zeq, another admin has now banned him from the article in question after an Arbitrator put the issue to Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement (shortcut WP:AE).Homey 03:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert War on Apartheid (disambiguation)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. 03:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I provided adequate reasoning and did not violate the 3RR.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Humus
Humus' edit is tendentious and completely POV and is in the same character (and uses many of the same words) as the tendentious edit that was found by other admins and arbitrators to be a violation of Zeq's probation. Fortunately, Humus isn't on probation so he won't be facing Zeq's fate. Homey 06:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No. I should have kept my cool rather than break 3RR. It is rather frustrating being ganged up on by people making largely emotive arguments and I lost my patience at one point. Homey 06:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be willing to consider that if the critics represented a broader array of opinion. When all the critics come from one particular narrow ideological school, as is the case with these articles and you and your comrades, it suggests they (ie you) are being driven by POV rather than objective reality. What would it tell you if the *only* people who opposed a particular wording were Islamists? Homey 06:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Disgrement with me.
Moshe Hi,

No problem. I can see why you would in general disgree with the way I edit. I am really cool about and respect your methods which are more conservative than mine.

But in that specific article my edits were examplary:

I edited once, participated in talk, tried to convince. When homey violated 3RR for the 4th time (without responding to my argument in talk) I reverted him (ONCE) and when he contnued I banned my self from the article and opened a snadbox to discuss how the article should be. This is exapmlary behaviour. Review the exact record of on my contrbution page. Zeq 07:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

here's a barnstar


Defenders of this template claim it's for contributions regardless of confession or POV, in which case, you've certainly earned it.Timothy Usher 06:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Mu'tah
Salman01 v.2...Timothy Usher 07:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Page move - Bacteria, Eubacteria
Is the move controversial in any way, or has it been agreed to? Jayjg (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So, move it or not? Jayjg (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Left Zionists and Israeli apartheid
From the Jerusalem Post:


 * May. 15, 2006 1:41 | Updated May. 15, 2006 9:18
 * Left appalled by citizenship ruling
 * By SHEERA CLAIRE FRENKEL


 * Israel was branded an "apartheid state" by left-wing Knesset members on Sunday, who responded fiercely to the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the existing Citizenship and Entry Law.

Homey 17:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

1) It's not for us to determine what is and isn't hyperbole 2) there are a number of examples of the term "apartheid" being used in relation to Isreal by left wing Zionist MPs (Yahad is in the WZO). The article does not assert this is "party policy" simply that the phrase has been used. If it were only used once by one individual you would have a point but it has been used a number of times by several MKs and former MKs. Homey 17:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

As to your other point, my talk page has never been deleted so users are free to look through the history.Homey 17:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, what is the policy on personal talk page archives?Homey 17:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The history page is sufficient. I've never bothered with archiving, in the past I've just blanked the page once it becomes too long. Homey 17:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd assume to look in a history page. Homey 17:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the Israeli apartheid article with survive AFD (Zeq has posted around saying that it should be renamed or merged regardless thus showing a disregard for the process) as will the Apartheid disambiguation page. This will no doubt upset you and prompt an attempt at retaliation by the three or four editors obsessed with enforcing their own version of pro-Israeli political correctness. I urge you to accept the outcome with grace rather than petulance - perhaps you can have a talk with Zeq and talk some sense into him. Homey 18:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on, you can't deny that you, Zeq and Humus have been editing in concert and doing so in a very aggressive fashion against "Israeli apartheid" and related articles. Homey 18:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's best not to lie when accusing someone of lying. I emailed a handful of editors while I was under a 3RR block.Homey 18:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

""Thusfar, 8 people have voiced support for including the links, and have cited policy to show that the links are valid disambiguation links. Homey, Calton, Sam Blanning, Ec5618, MCB, JoshuaZ, Sandstein and abakharev. These people were opposed by Humus sapiens and Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg."

I was not the author of that, another editor was so there were several of us who saw a consensus. The fact that Israeli apartheid et al are no longer being removed from the article reflects the fact that, in fact, there was a consensus. Care to parse anything else?Homey 18:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No, he said that I approached him "in full confidence". Homey

You are reading into what he said and parsing it to fit your claim - for instance you neglected to realise that he was saying *several* people had indicated there was a consensus, not just me. Homey 18:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So first you claim I emailed every editor I ever encountered (when, in fact, I emailed a handful), then you claim an editor says I lied to him when he said nothing of the sort. And you have the temerity to accuse me of lying? Homey 18:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Zionist party
My only proof is their membership in the WZO? Are you crazy? Being a Zionist is a requirement of membership in the WZO. Meretz/Yahad could not be in the WZO if they were not Zionists.Homey 18:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We deal with facts, not your personal opinions. Meretz is a Zionist party by definition as they support the existence of a Jewish state and Jewish homeland and the fact that they are members of the WZO and WZC in good standing underscores this. Indeed, Meretz is descended from parties whose members were some of the leading founders of the state of Israel. You are not only showing profound ignorance of Israel's history but are allowing yourself to be blinded by your POV and disqualify any party that does not endorse your particular flavour of Zionism from being Zionist. Homey 18:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in a position to call you ignorant when you express ignorance as you just have in the area of Zionism and Meretz. Next you're going to argue that Hashomer Hatzair is not a Zionist youth movement or that the Meretz-aligned kibbutzim are not Zionist. Homey 18:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on Labour Zionism. I think I've addressed your points completely on Talk:Israeli apartheid. Why don't you write the WZO and ask them to expel Meretz/Yachad. Once they've done so we can stop referring to them as Zionist. Until then you're on your own. Please stop POV-pushing in the mean time. Homey 19:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So who sets the criteria of what is and isn't Zionist? You? Homey 19:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Not subjective standards, no. Homey 19:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop it
Moshe, Jayjg routinely deletes comments from his page rather than archiving them. You can lecture me on my talk page after you lecture him on his. Unitl then, leave my talk page alone. Homey 15:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

When you complain to Jayjg about *his* talk page policy you can complain to me about mine. Until then you're guilty of a double standard and hypocricy. Homey 15:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"I don't see how his possible violation has anything to do with yours.-"

Violation of what? Quote the policy you are accusing me (and him) of violating. Homey 16:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

And I'm not *deleting* anything, it's all in the talk pages history. Please go troll somewhere else and leave my talk page alone. Perhaps you can give Zeq a tutorial on wikipedia poicy since he's gone and gotten himself blocked again. Homey 16:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice that in your latest missive you have failed again to cite the policy you are accusing me of violating. Is there such a policy or did you just make it up?

You can respond to me on your own talk page. Posting anything further on my talk page will be considered harassment. You've been warned. Homey 16:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg is on ArbComm yet he removes things from his Talk page all the time. Give me a citation. Show me the policy or the precedent.

As for your spurious claim that I'm hiding things from *you*, I'm surprised you can say this having accessed my archives. Please stop making things up. Homey 16:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"It has been well established through precedents"

Cite the precedents. Homey 16:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation
Hello Moshe just letting you know that you have violated the 3RR and could be blocked if you do not revert yourself.- --Thameen 16:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

And do the words, respond on your talk page not mine mean nothing to you?

Re: Stop it
Your taking it to the next level by deleting pretty much all eveidence of past conflicts while he has arguably only deleted actual personal attacks, anyways even if your assertion was true I don't see how his possible violation has anything to do with yours.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break. First of all, Jayjg does not do the same thing that you are. Secondly I have not recently been involved in a conflict with Jayjg so I have no reason to request that his talk page remain static. Also I don't know if you learned a different definition of hypocrisy but the one I learned was that you can only be guilty of it if you are committing the actions yourself.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that doesn't make any sense. Your accusing me of harrasment by posting anything on your talk page? Do you want to try to explain that to someone else?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been well established through precedents that you are not to blank your talk page to remove evidence of past conflicts.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no desire to go digging through the incident pages and block logs when I know that you are quite aware of them.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are unwilling (or unable) to cite the precedents you have no business referring to them. I suspect the precedents, if they exist, are against actually deleting one's talk page (ie destrying the history). Given that you earlier suggested I was violating a policy but then were unable to produce the policy makes me suspect you're making things up. As with wikipedia articles themselves, claims made without citation aren't worth very much. Back it up or back off. Homey 16:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So what your saying is...
So I am not allowed to post anything on your talk page?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, if someone tells you to stop phoning them do you keep phoning them?Homey 16:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a problem with you
I had made lots of edits in wiki. i never used Reverts. But I'm having a real problem with you. what ever I edit you come and RV.

From my perspective this article on minors involved in suicide bombing needs editing, and I contributed what I think in NPOv. Now you can explain what you think is POV and we discuss it, not RV my edits.

You accused me of rewriting the article, but that is not true. I added to it.

I will seek the help from some supervisors on this issue. But your tactics will not discourge me from improving the article.

any ways. Plz do not send me messages unless you are welling to cooperate to produce a good article. I'm open to cooperation.

--Thameen 16:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

From Help: Talk page
(emphasis added)

Etiquette
Most users treat their user talk pages like regular talk pages, and archive the contents periodically to a personal subpage — either when the page gets too large, on a regular schedule, or when they take a wikivacation. Others delete comments after they have responded to them.

Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings. Redirecting your user talk page to another page (whether meant as a joke or intended to be offensive or to send a "go away" message), except in the case of redirecting from one account to another when both are yours, can also be considered a hostile act. However, reverting such removals or redirects is not proper and may result in a block for edit warring. If someone removes your comments without answering, consider moving on or dispute resolution. This is especially true for vandalism warnings.

If you feel that your user talk page is getting too large and is taking a long time to load, you can create an archive and move the comments there.

Feel free to decorate your personal pages as you see fit, but keep in mind that your user talk page has the important function of allowing other editors to communicate with you. People will get upset if they cannot use it for that purpose. ---


 * In other words I have a perfect right to remove messages from my talk pages rather than archiving them as long as I've replied to them. I've replied to your messages, so I'm now erasing them.


 * Now stop bothering me. Homey 16:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So what is the policy that states you can banish me from your usepage without me making a single personal attack?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Theres a difference, I'm not phoning you to chat, I'm confronting someone who is acting irresponsibly and rude.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You know phoning someone to confront them after you've been asked to stop is the sort of activity that restraining orders were designed for so I'd rethink your policy re phoning. (No, I'm not threatening you with a restraining order)

It's rude to keep posting on someone's talk page when you've been asked to stop. I seem to recall people have been tempbanned for this in the past. If you keep it up I'm willing to dig up the precedents and if I find the precedents then I'll tempban you accordingly. Therefore, I advise you to stop. I've provided a citation for my claim that I am perfectly within my rights to remove comments from my talk page (unless they are warning tags, block tags etc). This should satisfy you. Now go away and leave me alone. Homey 16:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Did whoever blocked me even read the report? The six reverts were in 6 days!.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Damnit, I see that the admin quickly unblocked me when he noticed the time stamps, but for some reason I still cannot edit. Can someone please help me?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)