User talk:Vcnez2017/Archive 1

Welcome
 Hi Zencv, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of Contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
 * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.


 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
 * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[Image:Signature_icon.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Otolemur crassicaudatus Good luck, and have fun.

March 2008
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. You don't own Wiki to define what constitute Vandalism and what is not based on your needs, is it? I had only included reasoned arguments, if you have any objections, you can discuss about it in the talk page..Reverting quite a lot of revisions without giving any reason constitutes vandalism. Until that time, please consider using sandbox by yourself Zencv (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * When you add phrases such as "awards from right-wing groups" without citing a source for your claim, even after you've been asked to cite and still do it, then yeah it's vandalism. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is your own definition..Also see hypocrisy
 * Also see WP:3RR and WP:SOCK. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have..What makes you think that I am a Sock? If you have any arguments against what I wrote, you can bring them in talk page instead of looking into my identity. If you think I am a SOCK, either you can live with that or you can consider complaining to admin. Let him decide.

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
Hi, the recent edit you made to Islamic Golden Age has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 15:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope - there is a detailed explanation in talk page. Mea Culpa for being 2 minutes late to commit talk page changes Suigeneris (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

Question
Are you the same person as User:Leaveout? Kelly hi! 21:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not. You are intelligent and seems to have an IQ of 198. Suigeneris (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi,,,m sorry to bother u ...but i got ur message sayin that u reverted my last edit to Kozikode..... but to be honest i didnt find the total point of the paragraph...whereas population of muslims have been mentioned as a whole,,,there is no need to mention population of Dawoodi bohras separately,,,as such statements lead to impressions that Dawoodi bohras are different from rest of the muslims;. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridwan Gazi (talk • contribs) 22:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

August 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. One or more of the external links you added in this edit to Mammootty do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. You may wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Washburn mav (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)-
 * I dont see any problem with the link provided - but if it is already blacklisted, I would consider looking for a more acceptable source. I think neutrality of the source is alright Suigeneris (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Comments may be unflattering, but if they are referenced, they will stay - You may have many reasons of your own to feel like removing a sourced content, but consistently removing sourced contents amount to vandalsim. Suigeneris (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The comments may or may not stay, but accusing another editor, who acts in good faith, of vandalism is a direct violation of the Wikipedia policy of "no personal attacks" WP:NPA.

My edits have been made in good faith because I have documented my reasons for the edits in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Hopefully we can resolve this disagreement without administrator mediation, but that will be up to you. I am allowing for the required cooling-off period for now. The verifiability of the sourcing is irrelevant.

Again my points are these:

1) Accusing Ms. Ali of "fraud" is redundant because she has already admitted the misrepresentation on her application for asylum. This has already been covered at length in an entire section devoted specifically to this issue, where Ms. Ali's explanation also appears.  So redundantly including this point twice distorts the neutrality required of Wikipedia articles, which I am willing to believe for the time being, would not be your intent.  As a compromise, if you want to merge this into the main section dealing with this, I would not have a problem with this.

2) Calling Ms. Ali a "chameleon" who reinvents herself is meaningless without any additional explanation. I am not even sure if it is a compliment or a smear.  As a compromise, if you want this to stay, you need to qualify this so that it has some meaning without requiring the reader to go read the source.

The ball is in your court.Freedom Fan (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of new section to leave a message
Pl use new section button on top the page to leave a message instead of leaving a message in previous section.and pl remeber to User talk:Yousaf465

Why Arundhati Roy is controversial writer
Hi, giving anti national ,an anti indian and pro separatists public statements frequently despite being Indian proves Arundhati Roy is controversial ,her statements are quoted by rivals of India in international world to prove India is wrong. everytime if truth is changed about her we will again write back this truth here, I am not alone many other patriotic indians are here who will make sure about this.Was she not a women I would have personally paint her face black when ever she is making any public apperance in and around delhi.Long Live India,Jai Hind —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raulmisir (talk • contribs) 06:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have answered in your talk page Suigeneris (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Whenever someone talks sense, He is labeled Anti-Indian. Oniongas (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Arundhati Roy is controversial
It is obvious that a person is controversial if she/he is making public statements against her/his country. I will again do the same and will assign other guys also to do this.everytime you revert back I will repeat the same ,if not me then others will do the same.lets see who is more in number Patriotic Indians or Traiter Indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raulmisir (talk • contribs) 11:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Some spirit is good - but looks like you have to read basic editing guidelines before you edit pages Suigeneris (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody can stop us from writing truth about Indian Traiters like Arundhati Wiki is not your personal property
Nobody can stop us from writing truth about Indian Traiters like Arundhati Wiki is not your personal property.

If you want same action on your contributions by true Indians Please refrain from trying to stp us in representing the truth.

I will send chain mail to thusand of Indians to regualry update wiki in this crucial issue. we all will lodge a complain against person like you. what else you want to prove that she is wrong

Please go through this article by Sify.com chief Editor

http://sify.com/news/columns/fullstory.php?id=14748260 Hey Ram: Let's give away Kashmir

ey Ram: Let's give away Kashmir Ramananda Sengupta

Give away Kashmir. Give it the azadi that the people are demanding.

Because our democracy, God bless it, does not allow us to ‘trample over’ the wishes of the people.

And while we are at it, perhaps we should ‘give away’ parts of the northeast as well. Because people there too are chafing over ‘Indian rule.’

In other words, instead of summarily trying and executing the people who blatantly abuse, denigrate and desecrate our nation, who openly raise anti-national slogans on our soil, we should actually bow before their demands. That has been the long-standing demand of our friendly neighbour, Pakistan.

But all of a sudden, sections of the Indian mainstream media -- and people like Arundhati Roy -- are echoing these views.

‘What if he (Syed Ali Shah Geelani, a separatist ‘leader’) and his followers were to adopt the strategies of non-cooperation and satyagraha, which were used (by Gandhi) to gain independence?’ asks Jug Suraiya in an article titled ‘India Minus K-word’, in the Times of India dated August 20, 2008. ‘Could the Indian state use physical force against such a peaceful mass movement — if in fact it did arise, as some say it now has — and still retain its moral idea of itself?’

By the same author: Why am I proud of India? | A troubled Pakistan bodes ill for India | Youngistan needs You

“If you believe in democracy, then giving Kashmiris the right to self-determination is the correct thing to do. And even if you don’t, surely we will be better off being rid of this constant, painful strain on our resources, our lives, and our honour as a nation?” argues Vir Sanghvi in the Hindustan Times. (Think the unthinkable, August 16)

“India needs azadi from Kashmir as much as Kashmir needs azadi from India,” pontificates Ms Roy, the writer turned whatever.

But if I was scared when I read all this, I was downright terrified when a reasonably reliable contact in one of our intelligence agencies hinted that this was actually a “trial balloon” being floated at the behest of the UPA government, to gauge the people’s reaction to such a proposal.

Full coverage: Amarnath land row

But then, should I expect better from a government which actually wanted the ban on the Students Islamic Movement of India, clearly linked to the recent terrorist attacks, to be lifted?

So, give in to the demands of people like Yasin Malik, the gent who is not sure whether he wants to be a Gandhi or a terrorist swine. The man who a few days ago was ready to go on a "fast-to-death" like the Mahatma, all for peace, and then let it be known that he was ‘co-ordinating’ his activities with Hafiz Sayed, the maniac who heads the Lashkar-e-Taiba. (External link). Let the terrorists win.

Give away Kashmir. After all, it has been a drain on the national exchequer for over 60 years. As Vir Sanghvi explains, “Kashmiri are Indian citizens but Indians are not necessarily Kashmiri citizens. We cannot vote for elections to their assembly or own any property in Kashmir. Then, there is the money. Bihar gets per capita central assistance of Rs 876 per year. Kashmir gets over 10 times more: Rs 9,754 per year. While in Bihar and other states, this assistance is mainly in the forms of loans to the state, in Kashmir 90 per cent is an outright grant. Kashmir’s entire Five Year Plan expenditure is met by the Indian taxpayer.”

Which is why J&K has 3.56 per cent poverty level while Maharashtra has about 25 per cent.

The BJP had pledged to rescind Article 370, which grants special rights to Kashmiris, but reneged on this after coming to power. Apparently doing so could lead to the accession of the state itself being questioned or revoked. Excuse me? So all that talk about the state being an integral part of India is horse manure?

So, after subsidising the state for so long, we should just walk away? After strident declarations, three wars, we should now hand it over on a plate to Pakistan, with our compliments?

Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American who was reportedly used by President Bill Clinton to mediate on the Kashmir dispute, once told me that “Pakistan had too much blood invested in Kashmir to just walk away.”

Read other columns: Why Kashmir is not the problem | Trade must come before Kashmir for India, Pak | PoK totally lacking in democracy

India, if we are to accept the Suraiyas, Sanghvis and Roys, obviously does not. We can shrug off the blood being shed by our men in uniform each and every day in Kashmir. Just like we did after the 1971 war, when we agreed to release 90,000 Pakistani Prisoners of War and return more than 15,000 sq km of captured territory, without settling the Kashmir dispute once and for all.

The latest agitation in Jammu and Kashmir was sparked over the allotment of some forest land for Amarnath pilgrims. The separatists immediately denounced this as an attempt to change the demography of the state. They should know, having successfully cleansed the Valley of Pandits earlier.

The government’s knee jerk decision to revoke the allotment of land sparked off protests in Jammu, and there were reports of a blockade of the Kashmir Valley by the Hindus of Jammu. “It’s now Jammu vs Kashmir!” screamed our headlines.

Mehbooba Mufti, the president of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), then declared her support for a march --sponsored by the fruit-growers association of Kashmir and the Hurriyat Conference -- towards Muzaffarabad, in Pakistan occupied Kashmir -- to sell their produce.

Read other columns: Why Kashmir is not the problem | Trade must come before Kashmir for India, Pak

Instead of letting them go there and then permanently blocking their return, Indian security forces broke up the march. Sheikh Abdul Aziz, a separatist leader, and three others were shot dead by unknown assailants, though our men in uniform were immediately blamed. On the other side of the border, a similar march by Pakistanis reportedly carrying food and other essential items for their brethren in the Valley was halted by Pakistani security forces using tear gas at Chakothi.

But hold on. A week before that, the Indian home ministry said there was “credible and mounting evidence that Hurriyat was using the contrived complaint of an 'economic blockade' to nudge the people to look towards Pakistan-controlled Muzaffarabad.”

Briefing journalists, a senior Intelligence official vehemently rejected reports about the blockade, and said as of the morning of Wednesday, August 13, “over 236 trucks and tankers carrying oil, gas, sheep, medicines and poultry products crossed the Jawahar Tunnel from the Jammu side early in the morning, and at least 82 of these vehicles had reached Srinagar by afternoon.”

As for the trucks reportedly stranded in the Valley, he said a particular transport operator, known to be a Hurriyat man, was stubbornly refusing to let his fleet move towards Jammu despite being repeatedly assured of full security. This, the official argued, indicated that the “so called blockade” had been staged by Pakistan’s ISI and the Hurriyat, to help the latter regain some of its fast eroding credibility in the Valley.

Read other columns: Why Kashmir has failed Pakistan | North East of what?

Give away the Kashmir Valley. Forget its economic and strategic importance, it’s immense potential for power generation, and the fact that it gives access to the river heads of the mighty Indus, the Jhelum and Chenab, which flow into Pakistan. Forget land access to Ladakh.

And forget the fact that we will be creating a Waziristan on our borders. Let the Kashmir Valley become the new headquarters of the Taliban, the Al-Qaeda, the LeT, the Jaish-e-Mohammed.

All this, because we do not have the leadership or the statesmanship to tackle the root cause of all the unrest in Kashmir: Pakistan.

If we were to divert or dam the three rivers that feed Pakistan, we could turn that nation into a desert. Have we ever considered leveraging this, the Indus Water Treaty be damned? Surely even the thick-skinned ISI, and the Mad Mullahs who lead the militants, would come to heel when faced with the prospect of indulging in urine therapy to quench their thirst?

We boast of being a superpower in waiting. If India and Indians think that Article 370 in law or "in effect" needs to be abrogated or "ignored" - then let us do it - openly or through subterfuge. Big countries do this all the time. Threaten something bigger, and then revoke the offensive Article, legally or illegally.

“I don't think we yet understand power. I don't think we understand power at all,” Arundhati Ghose, one of India’s finest diplomats, once told me.

“Economically, today we have more power, relatively, compared to what we had 10 or 20 years ago. But we do not understand it. We do not how to use it, we don't know how to project it, we are uncomfortable with it. We are more comfortable with the powerless. If you have power, you have to be able to use it, to leverage it. Be very clear about what it is you want,” said the lady who torpedoed American attempts to force us to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in August 1996.

And for those who tout our democratic traditions, they need to know that:

Democracy must work for the 500 million people of the Gangetic plains too. Democracy means that we must punish, not reward, ethnic cleansing. Democracy means that we must not allow a Waziristan next to Himachal Pradesh. Democracy means that we must not allow appeasement of the worst human rights abuses. Democracy means that we must treat all religious groups "equally." Democracy means the state has the right to do whatever it takes, including the use of brute force, to check elements that threaten it.

Whether it is the Kashmir Valley militants or the Naxals, anyone who believes that force, violence and attacks against specific groups helps their cause must be taught, forcefully if needed, that it does not. Because otherwise we could say that the extreme Hindu groups also are a people's movement against Muslims, so, should we now allow them to target and kill Muslims?

Read other columns: Why Pakistan won’t leave Kashmir alone | As Kashmir burns, Sonia hits the Games

As for morality, let us be very clear that when we're talking about the well being of more than a billion people - moral principles which guide our individual daily lives are not adequate. National priorities cannot be evaluated based on our individual moralities.

Anyone who promotes secessionism or separatism -–violently or peacefully -- should be tried and punished under stringent sedition laws. The boundaries of our nation are not negotiable.

Anyone who uses religion to justify terror or other anti-national acts is the diseased north end of a south-bound swine. And should be treated as such.

And anyone who feels that this is not their country is welcome to try their luck elsewhere.

If we cannot do all this, then why Kashmir, we might as well give away India.

The author is the Chief Editor of Sify.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raulmisir (talk • contribs) 08:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sify.com is a right-wing, nationalist rag, a waste of electrons. Why should anyone care for its editor's opinion? And if they're so great, why don't you stick with them and leave Wikipedia alone? Drmies (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

re:sockpuppetry
Ha ha ha sockpuppetry? there are unlimited Indians who have the same views as mine !Ok try to block me and all my alleged sockpuppets!Again same thing will be repeated by some other Indian from some other IP and you again accuse me .You can accuse me of anything you want its your imagination nothing else.So please think of numerous Indians having the same opinion as mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raulmisir (talk • contribs) 17:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am thinking of those numerous Indians, but are you a sock? How many accounts you have altogether? Suigeneris (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

sock?
Wikipedia is not your personal property.I am not answerable to you.You do your work and I will do mine.you can try to block me and my friends but none can stop us from writing truth in your didi's page,other guys will come and do your work.Jai Hind ````

me sock!
Just Shut up and do your work. You don't know the majority of the true indians on the web, they are not waste product of west or islamic countries like your Arundhati behan or you. Just let your beahn ji come to some social event near delhi true Indian ladies will personally paint her face with black color. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianbhoot (talk • contribs) 08:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, Indianbhoot, what is wrong with you? You need therapy, far away from a computer.Drmies (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

roy
Thanks for your continued watch on the Arundhati Roy article. I can't figure out what is wrong with those 'editors,' but I appreciate your keeping an eye out. These folks should perhaps write a novel and win a Booker prize of their own--and look up the definition of 'encyclopedia.'Drmies (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. It looks like most of these disruptive edits are from socks of User:Raulmisir and many of them have been blocked or are under the the benefit of doubt. Their reluctance to engage in talk page make their intentions quite clear Zencv (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Zencv. I'll tell you why I think it's relevant: it's an issue on which there is much more consensus than many of the Roy-detractors suggest. In fact, the plethora of critiques leveled at her by some contributors (you know, condemned by both Congress and BJP, boy, in no fewer than three different references--that really all say the same) suggests, at least to a non-specialist like me, that this is something really extreme. And it is big, but apparently not that extreme, not as extreme as some people say--those people that call you "waste product of west or islamic countries" on your talk page. And that's the thing: non-Indians, I guess, don't rightly know or understand all the issues there. Implying that she is the ONLY one who wants Kashmiri independence, reiterating that ALL mainstream parties say that she's destroying India, that simply creates a wrong impression. That the editor of the Hindustan Times (NOT some Islamic fundamentalist rag!) would agree with her places her comments in a proper context--a context that the Roy detractors want removed (see the bungalow dispute, for instance). So, if you feel it's not so relevant, go ahead and remove it--but then the burden is on you (or someone else, of course), and you have to explain why one should mention that Congress and BJP criticized her! I mean, why is it relevant in an article on Roy that her remarks were criticized? Do you see where I'm coming from? But thanks for asking, and keep up the good work. Take care. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

check this out
pl check this out will answer some of your questions.User talk:Yousaf465

Deedat
Hello, you reverted my edits on Ahmed Deedat with the text: "Reverted 1 edit by Jeff5102; Rv lots of removal of sourced content - see talk page". I checked the talk-page and I saw you didn't discuss my objections against the article- only those of User:Filll. Would you please read my objections, and see if I made some mistakes in editing?Jeff5102 (talk) 07:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Al right. Good luck with the article! I will see what you will do with it.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

SockPuppet Claim
Hi, I noticed that you tagged User:IslamForEver2 as a sockpuppet, but have offered no proof of such either on his talk page or on the links attached to the sock template. If you have such proof, I would encourage you to fill in the links and discuss your accusation so, if merited, an administrator can take proper action. Otherwise, you run the risk of appearing to slap a sock template on another editor's page simply because you are involved in what appears to be a highly emotional edit-war. I encourage you to try other tools at your disposal, such as entering the dispute resolution process. Hope that helps. -  Ro   Bo   Tam   ice 14:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Sorry, I don't have any proof other than the argument that the nature of the edits and the edit summaries by User:IslamForEver2 bore surprising resemblance to those ones from that of the IP editor. My intention was to alert an admin who could then check the IP of User:IslamForEver2 to see whether my suspicion is correct or to bring in a semi-protection for the article, banning newly registered users. The user was not willing to discuss anything and so the usual channels of dispute resolution was not going to work. The user also repeatedly ignored any pleas to read basic guidelines(like NPOV, No weasel words etc.) Thank you  ZencvLets discuss 21:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * no problem, it seems our friend was indeed a sock, and has been blocked indefinitely. -  Ro   Bo   Tam   ice 15:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Roy and 'forest law'
I'm glad you made the (bold) choice to remove that 'violation of forest law' section in the article on Arundhati Roy. I haven't had the guts yet to do so, but I agree with you wholeheartedly--it's entirely trivial. Keep up the good work! Drmies (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Job,
You found the actual website of Mohanlal‎. For the past months, and etc, I have mostly been reverting fan site additions(read: they have a disclaimer that states it is not official). As far as I can tell, the site you posted has no disclaimer, and is therefore official. I hope this qualms the random fans and ip fans from adding in their sites, but it likely won't. Either way, nice job!—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 10:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrongly claiming vandalism, wrongly using "minor" and reverting on Islamic_Golden_Age
In Islamic_Golden_Age please use the relevant section when someone raises this. Don't mark your edits as minor if they remove text (especially disputed text). Certainly don't revert and say something as vandalism when it looks like it is quite good stuff. Vandalism is swear words, page blanking and other nonsense; it is usually fairly obvious. The edit you reverted as vandalism had good quality cites, was grammatically correct, spelt right, sectioned right and so on. You were wrong. YOu are now in an edit war. Unless you can can argue a bit more convincingly on the talk page then we need to look at WP:DR. Please post to the relevant section. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I had explained the rationale to raise vandalism alert on the talk page. If I were wrong in this, then please give an explanation why someone would repeatedly add such a section without giving any serious rationale. Having correct grammar and sources doesn't warrant anything to be included in an article. Well, I did not start an edit war. If the separate section that you had added deserve to be there, it has to be discussed as it is quite disputable ZencvLets discuss 18:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

BLP vio
Hi Zencv. I see you have not been at WP very long, perhaps you are unaware of WP:BLP. Your edits are entirely unacceptable, and a gross violation of policy. If you continue to make them you are likely to get blocked (and I can and will revert them without regard to 3rr, as per policy). Please slow down, start a thread on talk with your concerns (or here if you like). Thanks. IronDuke 23:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see you slowed down on the blp vios, thank you for that. Can you say if this is your only account, or have you edited with others? Thanks again. IronDuke  23:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice provocation. See WP:Stalking when you have time left ZencvLets discuss 23:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you found it provocative; I did actually mean to thank you for slowing down -- and was assuming GF. I'm quite familiar with WP:Stalk, that wouldn't be applicable here (nor was your odd invocation of vandalism).  IronDuke  23:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought your username looked familiar. Zenc, if you make another edit restoring BLP violating material to Daniel Pipes again, I can't promise you'll be blocked, I can only suggest that it would be very, very likely. I think it would be best if you didn't edit there, but if you must, you must respect WP core policy. Last warning. IronDuke  00:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh please please..Please let me continue in WP. Especially your quality of arguments scares the hell out of me, that I am sure that Wiki admins would be competing to fulfill your personal wishes born out of your uncompromising love for WP:BLP. Why dont you take some time to describe what WP core policy was violated? Btw, how many of your accounts are active now? ZencvLets discuss 09:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, you want a block. NP. IronDuke  22:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am waiting. Stalking will not get you much further with me I am afraid   ZencvLets discuss 12:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Allegations of state terrorism by Israel
I have nominated Allegations of state terrorism by Israel, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by Israel. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Oren0 (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added my input ZencvLets discuss 10:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

your comment
Comments such as this one referring to Wikipedia as "Judeopedia" and mischaracterising another editor's comment are really unproductive for the encyclopedia, nor does it do anything positive for the editing environment. I urge you to reread the wiki policy here: WP:CIVIL and take it to heart. Thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see any violation of WP:CIVIL here as it was not a personal attack against anyone and I was not rude. Yes, I was sarcastic about an editor who used wiki as a SOAPBOX to promote his political propaganda. He was rebuked by another user for that here. The fact that he was using his wiki userpage as a propaganda tool did not help to bring any sympathy either. As for Wiki being called Judeopedia, I have a right to hold my opinion - I am a proud editor of WP, but I do believe that WP can only be as good as the quality of editors. If a set of editors with a particular agenda(which is evident by their edits and shameless use of their userpages as political propaganda tool) uses the project as a WP:SOAPBOX, then there is nothing wrong in pointing it out in the best interest of WP. In any case, your assumption that I mischarecterised the comments of User:Chesdovi is just a biased assumption unless you know his intentions more than I do  ZencvLets discuss 21:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your conspiracy theory
This edit is worrying, to say the least. Your insistence, to relate the religion of editors to their editing pattern and to accuse them of conspiring to control Wikipedia is exactly what I said in my edit summary that removed the section in question. Personally I have no problem if you want to criticize me or want to accuse me of double standards (I assume you are not really familiar with my edits here). But attacks on religion, ethnicity, race or gender and claims that certain religious or ethnic groups want to control Wikipedia are absolutely not tolerable. If you have a problem with the fact that some of the editors here are Jewish I recommend you to leave the project. If you are willing to refrain from such comments in the future, you are more than welcome to continue editing here. Afroghost (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your comments don't deserve a serious reply. Anyone who went through my comments and your caustic comments in the talk pages would see through this ZencvLets discuss 19:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for stopping. As I said you are more than welcome to edit here, as long as you refrain from antisemitic conspiracies theories a la "Judeopedia". Hope you have learned that, and happy editing. Afroghost (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess in case of any kind of conflict involving Jews, charecterising any kind of disagreements as antiSemitism is still fashionable. ZencvLets discuss 20:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Afro, I had also posted a reply in your talkpage. Hope this cools down everything ZencvLets discuss 20:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Afroghost (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The username looks familair. Oh wait, I am not warring, but you are warring with me and then warning against 3RR? Splendid. Anyway thanks for reminding ZencvLets discuss 19:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have filed a 3RR report at . Afroghost (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good riddance. The fact that you lost faith in the whole project and went on a vandalim orgy because your repeated POV pushes were not entertained makes everything clear. Please do not create any sockpuppets and repeat the behaviour. Best wishes for the future. ZencvLets discuss 23:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Re the 3RR report at. Please note that rewording content removed from the article may also be construed as a revert. While the matter is fuzzy in this particular instance, the next time you find yourself in a close to edit warring situation, you may want to consider testing your rewording on the talk page rather than on the article itself. Also, per edit warring, you could find yourself in a edit warring situation (and subject to a block) if you repeatedly reverts are coupled with generally confrontational remarks. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 03:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Warring was not my intention, and the moment did I realize that I am in one, I tried to pull back. I will try to be more careful anyways. Thanks ZencvLets discuss 14:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I knew I'd seen a better example somewhere
User:Nableezy. Chesdovi (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see him disseminating any false information. He expresses the tragedy of his people. You are entitled to present your own stories(even POV) in your userpage, but presenting it in a way as if it is a fact(by citing it to selected sources that supports your argument) is misleading and sort of a propaganda. ZencvLets discuss 14:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply
Actually, it is offensive, when placed in the lead like that. His ethnicity is hardly the most salient fact about him. I just saw this referred to as Yellow badging and, while that may not have been your intention, it has that effect. I would also say that your obvious and relentless hostility towards Pipes makes me think you should find another subject to edit. IronDuke 21:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is mentioning the ethnicity of a Jew as Jewish insulting? So in a way, you are admitting that combination of Jew and Pipes is not a particularly humane and fair character. I guess I don't have to be hostile to someone to mention their ethnicity in the lead, particularly when their primary motivating factor is their own ethnocentric feeling ZencvLets discuss 21:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You make my point more eloquently than I did. IronDuke  22:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, then you are mistaken. If you didnt want it in the lead, why would you object to it being in the infobox(like in Albert Einstein). There is no WP:BLP policy that says if it is an offensive Jew, don't brag about his ethnicity ZencvLets discuss 22:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you're being deliberately provocative, or just having difficulties with writing. I really think you should think about what you're doing. IronDuke  22:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I wish you had an answer to my question, rather than benting well defined BLP rules to suit ones own purpose. I have no problem with my writing, I just raised a legitimate question. I have seen ethnicity mentioned for subjects belonging to other races and also occasionally for Jews(if they are non controversial of course) ZencvLets discuss 22:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please review MOSBIO, point 3. Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You may have no problem with your writing, but I assure you it is problematic. The advice I'm giving you is good, and I hope you'll take it. IronDuke  03:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. The point 3 never says that ethnicity should not be mentioned, it rather says that it can be mentioned if it makes sense. We dont need to mention "Caucasian" in George Bush's bio as his primary job had nothing to do with race relations, but in case of Pipes, it is something different. It is ridiculous that it is alright to mention the ethnicity in case of Albert Einstein(who despite being Jewish did not have an ethnocentric view), but not in case of someone like Pipes. In any case, Ironduke's reverting of edit citing WP:BLP is illegal at best. ZencvLets discuss 12:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Love Jihad
Hi, Zencv. has contested the prod tag you placed on Love Jihad. Feel free to take the article to WP:AFD if you wish to pursue deletion. Best, Cunard (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
NW ( Talk ) 05:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 06:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replied here as I found a conversation there between you and the admin who blocked   Z e n c v  Whisper  13:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

ani notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 01:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)