User talk:Zeq/Archive 4

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

Article bans
I am banning you from the following articles under the terms of your probation :
 * Hafrada
 * Israeli apartheid (phrase) (or whatever name that article might end up having after the ongoing moves)
 * Israeli West Bank barrier
 * Apartheid (disambiguation)

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

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

Definitely no mellowing whatsoever has been detected
Hi Zeq, by "Zeq edits from a strong POV," I meant that you believe strongly that articles about Israel tend to be biased against Israel. Otherwise, you're right that it has been difficult to discern exactly what your POV is. I apologize for suggesting you had mellowed. Foolish of me. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Your bans and Homey
I've asked you to stop badgering me, but you've become progressively more abusive. Please take your complaints to Administrators%27_noticeboard as I have requested. The more time I spend dealing with the vast amounts of clutter you leave on my talk page, the less time and inclination I have to deal with Homey. I'd like to see if arbitration would work in his case, but I cannot construct a case for the arbitration commmittee if you persist in flooding me with nonsensical complaints and false accusations of abuse. --Tony Sidaway 18:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:RS
I am quite aware of the WP:RS policy. I am affraid that nothing in the areticle is going to change as long as there is no normal conversation possible. To much conversation is about the editors and not the content, and to much is politically charged to have a decent discussion. If I would remove a single very bad source based on WP:RS, I am sure other will jump on me crying it was a good source, and visa versa. The only way out is to get a decent disucssion, based on the content and as political free as possible. And everybody can contribute to that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Zeq, I think your idea is a good one, but I think we are currently in the stage of getting people to limit their comments to the content and stop the accusations of 'biased', 'political motivated', etc. I am affraid that at the moment, an excersice with the current sources will just result in the next shouting match. Tonight, I will make a more extensive post, this page is going to take time. Along that line, can you agree with the first sentence (not the second) of Hormy's proposed lead. If so, that one seems to be supported by everybody, I just did not get a clear picture from you about it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You do not have to stay away as far as I am concerned. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

FYI: huh?
"Human rights watch now confirm that it might have been an old shell (unexploded or part of a land mine)" Yes, and that's what the article says. "Stop the POV pushing and stick to what sources say. If you continue this POV pushing this will go to ArbCom." I'll chose not to respond to this. &#0151; JEREMY 11:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Zeq, your latest comment on my talk page is largely incoherent. Your translation has been brought into question by someone who does understand Hebrew, and it seems that no English language source is reporting what you're suggesting the UNSC President said (which, as I've said several times, belongs in the body of the article and not in the Lead paragraphs in any case; the remarks you're saying she made don't bear directly on the blast.) This is trivial; please pick your fights, or you risk being perceived as a crank. &#0151; JEREMY
 * Because you've asked nicely, I'll go over my objections again, with additional commentary:
 * The quote is your (original) translation and has not been verified (in fact, it has been refuted) &mdash; This is being addressed currently on the talk page, although I'm still to be convinced that translations by wikipedia editors aren't original research.
 * The quote in question does not bear directly on the issue (being about how the UNSC deals with the Israeli/Palestinian issue) &mdash; The article is about the Gaza Beach explosion, not about what the UNSC President thinks of the Israeli/Palestinian situation in general. What she said about why she would not hear the case is relevant, but her off-topic political digressions are not.
 * The quote, even if relevant, would not belong in the WP:LEAD. &mdash; The lead paragraphs in an article are designed to be a summary of the rest of the article, and (unless the article is very short) shouldn't include material that's not referenced elsewhere in the article. Thus, the quote from the UNSC President &mdash; were it relevant to the article &mdash; would be included lower in the article (eg. in the new "Reactions" section) and, again were it relevant, mentioned or briefly summarised in the lead section.
 * "I am just not that smart. explain in plain english so i will be able to understand." I hope that helps, and I'm sure you are not that dumb. &#0151; JEREMY 15:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:can you help
See Red dawn (disambiguation). Pecher Talk 11:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * The Gregory Lauder-Frost page, nominated for deletion several times by its arch enemy User:HOTR has finally been deleted. A clear victory for The Left. 81.131.3.209 10:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This edit
- why did you do that ? Zeq 12:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

Re: How are you
Thanks, fine. What about you? Pecher Talk 21:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'm having problems with the server. This is the second day in a row that the server is down. Pecher Talk 21:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Zeq, I copied the content of the Sandbox to main article. This doesn't mean I agree with (or know all the details about) all of it. I thought it is a better version. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:what do you think about this
Not sure whether it matters a lot. Pecher Talk 20:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Israeli boycott
Thanks for your comments.

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


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

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

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

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

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

The IPs are unrelated so I apologise for the accusation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accusation
Please explain your edit summary "(rev POV edits to last version by Jayjg)"; in particular, what do you feel justfies you referring to my edit as "POV"? &#0151; JEREMY 08:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zeq
Hello Zeq,

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

3RR policy
From Three-revert rule (emphasis added):

Reverting without edit warring

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to John Dugard, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Furthermore, reinserting the same commentary multiple times may cause you to violate the three-revert rule, which can lead to a block.

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

'''VI. The wall, settlements and self-determination'''

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

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

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

--  Netsnipe   C V U (Talk)  08:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Terms for editing Operation Summer Rains
Hi. In light of your problematic edit history, I'm going to have to insist that you submitt proposed changes on the talk page first. Thanks. El_C 12:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi again. In light of the fact two users have reverted your lead changes, and that you still failed after this to discuss your proposals for it on the talk page, I have banned you from the entry. I realize you feel I abused my position in doing so, and I note that you are free to appeal my decision and call for a review of my actions in whatever way you see fit. Please respond to this note here rather than on my talk page. Thanks. El_C 04:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, note that you are permitted to employ the article talk page to depict individual edits [change x to y, add z, etc.], which someone else might then add to the article if they find these proposals worthwhile. Please do not be discouraged from doing so. Thanks again. El_C 06:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge of 3RR
Hi Zeq, I have just been looking through the WP:AN3 page and subsequently your talk page and it appears you are reporting people for violating WP:3RR without full knowledge of the rule. The rule states that all reverts must be within a 24 hour period (they can be full or partial). Also, subsequent edits by the same user (for example if a user edits a page 3 times in order to achieve a revert) that is still classed as 1 revert. Please re-read the policy before posting further complaints on the notice board as it takes time and effort for an admin to check through each complaint.-Localzuk (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Further to this comment and your response I must say that you have misunderstood my request. The point I am making is that the reverts by El_C were done in line with consensus and the changes you were making could have been seen as vandalism (as various users were making the same revert). She reverted various other changes (number of casualties being altered and references removed) which also are classed as vandalism and as such 3RR does not apply. Your ban from the article was implemented at the same time as the final change and was done in order to prevent disruptive edits.
 * Also, there are many complex edits being made that you may have seen as reverts but seem to me to be actual improvements to the article (such as removing sections, fixing numbers in line with references, re-adding references and links etc...).
 * Also, there is also another document that you should read WP:POINT and WP:DICK (note there is no offence meant by the last one). If you realise that the site runs on consensus then you should discuss the matters before jumping straight to WP:AN3.-Localzuk (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have already given my views on the matter. The edits you had made were against consensus and were reverted on that basis. The other edits (which as I have already stated include incorrect changes to numbers regardless of the references which is classed as vandalism, removing references which again is vandalism etc...). For each of the changes you have posted:
 * When reporting a 3RR violation you are supposed to provide an initial version that the user is reverting to. For example, in this case I would assume it was which you state is the first revert (which it isn't). Next you have to show how the user has reverted/partially reverted to that version. She only did this once and then self reverted (which are numbers 2 and 3) so that is 3 of the supposed reverts that aren't actually reverts. 5 is self reverted by 4 (partially anyway). 6 is a revert of an anonymous user who changed the number of casualties without adding a reference. Number 7 is not actually pointing to the right thing, but I assume you mean the series of edits that occur before that edit. These edits consist of adding a reference and changing a date which again are not covered by the 3RR.
 * I do not see one violation of 3RR. If you think there is a case of the user being too controlling over the article take a look at WP:ANI as that would be more appropriate. -Localzuk (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have just listed each of the reverts above. You are arguing over something that it appears is just to make a WP:POINT. The user reverted various items by various users on the article, but each one is justifiable under the exceptions to WP:3RR - most being vandalism or assumed vandalism. Please re-read my above analysis of the situation regarding each of the supposed edits. If you still wish to take the problem further, please make use of WP:ANI or WP:RFC as this seems to be more of a clash of your opinion against the other users than it is a case of 3RR violation. I am no longer going to discuss it as I have made my analysis of the situation and believe that the person did not violate 3RR at all.-Localzuk (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I know what a revert is. The point is that the reverts were all justified under the exceptions laid out in WP:3RR. Again, if you still wish to take it further, please use a different process. -Localzuk (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

3 things

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

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


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

Zeq
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/[[Apartheid (disambiguation)]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.SlimVirgin (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Zeq, which article you are talking about? If it is the Grand Mufti, then fine, I´ll agree to mediation. Regards, Huldra 07:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Deir Yassin
Instead, why don't you translate my version and move the hebrew one. Guy Montag 02:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for |this! And note poll in progress here. Regards, Huldra 19:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ...and thank you for |this! Also, you might have an opinion about this? Regards, Huldra 17:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please e-mail me
I'm also trying to do a bit of what you've been doing, and I'd rather talk to you on the phone. Please e-mail me to get it started. Thanks. --Gabi S. 22:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Evidence
Instead of editing it, if you feel I missed things, please make a post on it at the talk page of the article or at my talk page. I will have a look later in the points your indicate. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Olmert's conditions
It was rephrased out of list form and moved to the "Possible escalation" section with a BBC source. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 17:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

3rr
I haven't reverted the same content, and [almost] every reversion was of vandalism.  Tewfik Talk 17:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I only reverted your "Olmert's conditions" once (as far as I recall, feel free to correct me if I err), and that after it was already included in a summarised form below. If you feel that it should be included in the intro, please make use of the encyclopedic and BBC sourced version already in the article. Have a pleasant Shabat.  Tewfik Talk 17:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Your claim of my WP:3RR violation
Could you please provide diffs of what I have reverted more than three times? Thanks. Weregerbil 19:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I already did that (counted my edits). I didn't find the 3rr violation you claim. Can you prove your claim? Weregerbil 20:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Err... did you notice those diffs are edits of three completely unrelated things? Weregerbil 20:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to step away from my computer; please don't take my lack of response in any messages as me ignoring you; it's past midnight here and I need my beauty sleep. I'll report myself on Administrators' noticeboard/3RR as I'm quite interested in whether the diffs you provided really constitute edit warring. Thanks for the links! Weregerbil 21:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wall of Shame
Thank you for the link, but it is a broken link. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/518152 6SJ7 20:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Golan Heights
It is a part of the conflict. . The map shows Golan Heights as part of Israel, but our map does not. Nonetheless, Katyusha rockets have hit it. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 07:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Violation
You have violated your agreement with Jdoorjam by instituting a thinly veiled attack on me in the RFA despite your agreement to a) withdraw from the RFA and b) not engage in making any comments about me, directly or indirectly (which means the fact that you didn't mention my name is irrelevent, you were responding to a motion I made in regards to Fred Bauder as an excuse to try to attack me. Homey 08:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

A) I never attacked you - calling you an "activist" and a "patriot" is no attack and no insult b) your response to my proposal regarding Fred had nothing to do with Fred - you never even said if you were for or against the motion, it was clearly meant as an attack on me. c) your responses to me were also quite clearly attacks in violation of your agreement with Jdoorjam ie accusing me of policy violations etc.

You've been playing games and you've also broken your agreement in regards to withdrawing from the RFA, now remove your posts and don't do it again.Homey 08:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No Zeq, I agreed to mediation and to your participation there on the condition that you stay out of the arbitration. It's not my fault there is no mediation. I lived up to my end of the bargain, you have to live up to yours. Now withdraw your comments and I will withdraw my responses to you. Homey 09:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Pleas restore
It is bad manners to delte other people comments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis&diff=63935402&oldid=63935323

Zeq 15:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's restructuring (in order to keep an overview of the page), not deleting. Sijo Ripa 23:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: " was surprized to see this section "restored" with my words rephrased and signed (my name) by Homey. This seems like he is trying to make a WP:Point in a somewhat distruptive way"

Actually, it was JDoorjam who restored and "rephrased" your comments, not me. You should be more careful and in any case you promised not to make any more personal attacks yet you've broken that promise yet again! Homey 02:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

By engaging in a personal attack on me on the RFA page you are, again, violating your agreement. That your comments are directed at me is clear from this edit. Remove your comments. Homey 05:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If I'm wrong JDoorjam will restore the exchange. Homey 12:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeq's sockpuppet?
This is the odd thing Zeq, the numeric IP has edited your user page and has made edits that look like yours to a few articles that you habitually edit and the edits are made in your style. In fact, it edited Operation Summer Rains while you were banned from that article. Can you explain that? Homey 17:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No. I don't use sockpuppets.

BTW, who cares about summer rains now when the war in the north is so much bigger, critical and important ? Zeq 17:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"No. I don't use sockpuppets."

Neither do I but the evidence suggests otherwise in your case. If in fact it is found that you edited an article you were banned from you would be blocked for a period of time.

This is also interesting. The ban against you at Operation Summer Rain was "lifted" by an anonymous vandal. Homey 17:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep fishing. Not me. I did not even noticed that. Zeq 18:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

IP Address: 199.203.179.197 Herzliyya, ISRAEL IP found in 0.0391 seconds Homey 18:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey, I don't really care what you find but this is not me. Zeq 18:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why should I believe you, particularly when you have accused me based on far less evidence than this? You might not care, but once I post the information on your RFA page you will almost certainly be blocked for at least a week. Homey 18:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not asking you to belive me. ou can belive what ever you want. However, I do not use sockpupets. Zeq 18:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

btw, the Ip match to palm Springs: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=199.203.179.197

Not according to Homey 20:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * However, I do not use sockpupets.

You also claim to AGF, apply NPOV, not edit war and not do anything at all offensive yet you have actually done all of these things so why should I believe you now, particularly when you consistently fail to AGF about me and are continuously stalking me trying to find some thing you can accuse me of?Homey 22:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

unblock request
unblock reviewed|admin sceptre harrsing me|WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in unblock request. Mango juice talk 14:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If I used a sockpupet this is OK block me. But I did not. Please unblock and block Scrpte (who violated admin privilges) instead. I have done nothing that justify this block. Nothing. Nothing.

This is the 3rd time Scrpte blocks me for no reason and no due process. A kid should not be given tools to run an encyclopedia.

He never leaves a message (as required by WP:Block) so I only find out that I blocked when I try to edit.

This is clear admin abuse and shoul'd be stopped. Zeq 07:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I found out ion the block log that makes the false accusation I sued sockpupet to evade a ban. What a non-sense. Here is the check user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Zeq

I am under so many bans that it would be stupid of me to violate any of them. And for what to add a  "["  ??? Does he think I stupid ? I am not. and I never use sock puppet, every edit I make I sign my (only) user ID: Zeq 08:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I will remind Sceptre to leave messages when blocking, but I'm not going to unblock you when you still need to calm down. Mango juice talk 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing the comments of others from talk pages is a form of vandalism. This is especially true of administrative notices, such as my response to your unblock request.  Consider yourself warned: if you remove my comments again, you will face a longer block, and your talk page may be protected to prevent further abuse.  I changed the unblock to an unblock reviewed so that other admins can still see your request.  Mango juice talk 14:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This block should not have occured to start with. Don't make threats just unblock and get all admins to behave according to policy. Zeq 14:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

PS deleting you comment was a mistake when I reposted the unblock request so don't get to uptight about it. mistakes occur. You should not have removed my request (and I would not need to report it) if you simply unblocked this unjustified block. Zeq 15:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

PS Deleting comments from my own talk page is not vandalism - read the policy. your own behaviour in this matter (since you have reviwed the unblock request and made a reply that shows you know it is not a justified request) is also questionable here. Zeq 15:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As the editor was blocked, I've run a CheckUser on this. The IPs have nothing in common, they're not even from the same city. Furthermore, 199.203.179.197's English is excellent; he writes well, using good grammar and spelling.  Zeq's is quite the opposite. Jayjg (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've unblocked Zeq. However, I think a neutral editor should review the Checkuser run. Homey 17:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Kindly stop calling people "kids". Age has nothing to do with anything and I feel that's rather ageist. Mature teenagers exist just as much as immature adults do. Thanks. — Natha  n  ( talk ) / 17:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against kids the problems are admins who behave like kids (regardless of age) Zeq 18:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have nothing against kids, you should strike the comment about Sceptre being a kid regardless of how true it may be physically. Whether he's 15 or not, that's completely beside the point. As I said before, mature "kids" exist just as much as immature adults. — Natha  n  ( talk ) / 18:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, AGF needs to be reciprocal. You cannot expect it if you do not give it. In any case I specifically did *not* file a vandalism complaint against you even though one could have resulted in your being blocked for a prima facie (sp?) case of vandalism. Homey 21:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This is why I am suggesting we both back down. Homey 21:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

And Zeq, I sincerely did think you had sockpuppeted which is why I put in the request and why I emailed Spectre but I really hadn't told him to block you on my say-so and I had expected him to get a checkuser done and was surprised when I realised he hadn't. This is my fault in that I shouldn't have assumed he knew about checkuser. Homey 21:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This was the 3rd time that something that starts with you end up with this impulsive admin blocking me, refusing to discuss or explain the block or remove it. Zeq 21:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did not email him about vote stacking, he just saw me mention it on your page and acted - I didn't know who he was before then. In the second instance he banned *both* of us and that certainly wasn't on my instigation. The only time I emailed him was this last time and I've posted the entire contents of the email. Homey 21:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing evidence pages
Homey has complained about this edit. It looks to me like your motives are pure, but it wasn't wise to perform that edit. Please avoid editing other people's evidence sections in any way. If an edit needs to be done and you don't feel able to ask the party whose section it is to do it, please come to me and explain it and I'll try to get it done. --Tony Sidaway 11:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hakol beseder?
Are you in the north? If so, I hope you and your family is safe. The funny thing is that I feel like I am in the safest part of the middle east right now. (Of course now that I said this, there will be an incursion tomorrow). Ramallite (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ramallite captured my sentiments perfectly. Hope all is well.  Tewfik Talk 17:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Motion in arbitration case
Please see the motion I have made at Requests_for_arbitration. Fred Bauder 22:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

test
Israeli apartheid is a propeganda phrase used to deligitimize Israel's right to exist. The pharse was coined by some anti-Zionists and [[Pales

tinian]] activists to draw a false analogy between the policies of the Israeli government to those of the apartheid-era South African government while ignoring all the facts that make such compariosn false.


 * Zeq, check out the diff from Fred, and see that what happens is that the single paragraph gets split up in two pieces. If you try that full text and split it with the first sentence changed, it would show up in the same way, just as I have done with the sentence above that suddenly looks like it has been changed, but in reality only contains additional line breaks. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KimvdLinde/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=65083641, and go from diff to diff and read the edit summaries. I think that should explian it, if not, ask me. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The evidence is clear, and if you look at the diff, you see that the single paragraph gets broken up in two seperate paragraphs. If you take the after diff, and glue the two paragraphs together, and then check word for word, starting with the senteces starting with Analogy ... , you will see that the text has not changed. This is a common thing that when editing, adding a few line breaks does show as messy diffs. Admins and ArbCom members know that, and will look to what actually changed, and that is only the first sentence. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop falsely accusing people of vandalism
I have avoided bias, and have removed sourced content only with explanations and when it is irrelevant to the page or section. Content must not be only realiably and verifiably sourced, but also relevant. Also, NPOV requires that wording be balanced and neutral, even if sourced. If you care to provide a specific example of where have I enged in vandalism, I will be happy to discuss it.

As you might know, there is a difference between an edit controversy (which is the motor that keeps wikipedia moving) and vandalism. WP:Vandalism

Please refrain from accusing me or anyone who disagrees with your edits of being vandals. You yourself are guilty of pushing your own POV over a NPOV, and must be aware this will mean that people will edit you, however sourced you think you are.

That is the very nature of wikipedia, dont like it, get a blog.

--Cerejota 16:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop Vandalizing the Israeli-Lebanese Conflict Article
Stop vandalizing it simply because you disagree with its contents. This will be your only warning. Ameise -- chat 18:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, looks like I made an error. By the way; don't threaten me. Ever. Again. Ameise -- chat 18:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that was a threat. Ameise -- chat 20:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that was a warning; you threatened me. Ameise -- chat 20:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh
"In any case the similarity in content, the fact that the sock was active EXACTLY when Homey was"

Actually, that is evidence against a sock. Normally, a sock puppet will *NOT* be editing at the same time as the sock puppeteer as one can't be in two different places at once. Homey 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't have any. The possibility you forgot to mention is that I'm not Sonofzion at all. Anyway, the "tool" you just pointed out to Jayjg works on the exact opposite to the principle you claimed earlier, ie it looks at ips and users not being on at the same time. As for your comment to Jay, you forgot Slim's response which is that that IP is someone else. Yet again, you're trying to have it both ways. If I'm on at the same time I must be a sockpuppet and if I'm not on at the same time I must be a sockpuppet according to your two contradictory arguments.

You also forget that you inundated Jay with sockpuppet claims in the past, the ones you are recycling now, in fact, and they all came up negative.

Anyway, I see you're starting to get yourself in trouble with other articles now so perhaps that's a sign that you're developing new obsessions.Homey 20:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, you're the one attempting verbal gymnastics by trying to argue that the diff is "biased" against you. Homey 21:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Incredible, first you argue that I was the editor who tried to have the article deleted, now you're claiming that I'm the leader of the Freedom Party of Ontario. What in the world is your explanation for this one? I burst out loud with laughter when I saw the diff and I can't wait to hear your argument..Homey 21:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, so you admit making a false allegation of sock puppetry by removing Paul McKeever. That you added it in the first place shows that your accusations are baseless and bizarre. I fully expect that soon you will accuse yourself of being my sockpuppet. Or maybe SlimVirgin and Jayjg (their opposition to the article is just a ruse to build up its credibility).

I'm going to miss you, you are too much fun. Homey 21:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hamas
You seem to be having trouble adhering to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. We do take this seriously, and edits such as the one you made to Hamas will be reverted, and your editing privileges may be revoked if you continue.-Mr Adequate 09:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"To all citizens south of the Litani River Due to the terror activities being carried out against the State of Israel from within your villages and homes, the IDF is forced to respond immediately against these activities, even within your villages. For your safety! We call upon you to evacuate your villages and move north of the Litani River."

State of Israel

License tagging for Image:QanaLeaflet.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:QanaLeaflet.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 14:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

IAF Press Conference
Have you been able to find any media reporting the claims made by IAF at their press conference?  Tewfik Talk 17:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Google hits?
Hey, I was intrigued by a remark you made in the comment re deletion of Zionist Regime. I noticed you said that the site had received thousands of Google hits. Do you mean thousands Google searches or thousands of hits to the article from google.com? Just curious, as I was unaware such info was available, if that is what you meant.--Mantanmoreland 17:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. I thought you meant something else.--Mantanmoreland 18:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

IDF flyer
Interesting; I presume you actually have seen this? One thing: was there anything in that black speech balloon? Looks odd, like it was blacked out. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Six-Day War
Please revert your last edit to this article. You have been cautioned many times now about deletion of relevant sourced material and in my view the eidt is a clear violation of your probation. --Ian Pitchford 07:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Calling the addition of well-sourced material "vandalism" is an additional violation of policy and your probation in my view. Please revert the edit and I'll regard the matter as closed. --Ian Pitchford 07:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Despite my reluctance I have requested enforcement in this matter [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement]. --Ian Pitchford 07:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

you are making a character assasination on a man you don't like. the piece is biased and not objective.

Inayat
When someone clicks on a linke about this man they should be given a profile of his background in a neutral ubiased sense.

Instead what has been done is to post an undefended attack on him.

This is outrageous and against the spirit of wikipedia.

Thus I will edit and continue to edit until the article is a fair one.

My editing is in good faith and those that disagree have an agenda which any openminded intelligent reader will be able to ascertain.

Stop making unfounded accusations about me. The wikipedia article only quote what others sources (such as DT) said about him. You don't like it ? complain to them. Zeq 14:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bermuda Conference
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Bermuda Conference article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! Ian Pitchford 15:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't use copyrighted material without acknowledgement. Please rectify this. Wikipedia editors are supposed to either write their own material and cite sources or to quote acknowledged sources directly. --Ian Pitchford 15:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

inayat
in that case you have no businesschanging what i have said. I osted the honest truth. the fact you don't like it is because you believe in attacking him because he speaks out against apparentisraeli babarism. You do have an agenda. All your corrections to date make it quite transparent. enough with the deception.

Your comment on my page
I'm referring to: "Your first edit clearly show you are a WP:Sock. Zeq 06:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Steve_Lowther"

One of us is confused. My "first edit" was: "22:01, 22 January 2006 (hist) (diff) Moev"

Therefore if I'm confused, you are making reference to the Moev article. Could you kindly elaborate on your concerns with my edits to that article.

Or perhaps it is you who are confused. Given the timing and your emotional response to my critique of the Samir Kuntar article, maybe that is what instigated your accusations of sock-puppetry. I'm afraid you're mistaken on all accounts; that wasn't my first edit, it wasn't even actually an "edit" per se, merely a critical comment on the talk page and finally, no I'm not a sock-puppet. I am a fairly new wikipedian and I'm easing into it slowly, getting a feel for it. The last thing I would want to do is begin some kind of propaganda campaign around an issue that I have no particular personal interest in. I was simply shocked to see such a one-sided POV article so closely linked to a current event. I'm somewhat gratified to see that the article has now been improved. I would hope that you would feel likewise.

Regards

Steve Lowther 23:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.boomantribune.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2006/8/5/122335/1324

I'm not sure who posted the above link without comment, but I'd like to make it clear that it wasn't me. If it has some connection to my above comment, it would be appropriate to add some explanation in order to put it into context.

Regards Steve Lowther 18:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge?
I assume you mean Al Fateh to Hamas -- it was already there, really. I just spend a little time changing the reference style to be consistent with the Hamas article. Feel free to merge more, or whatever, the history of Al Fateh is still around. Mango juice talk 17:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Metula Farms
Hello. I have deleted Metula Farms since it appears to be a copyright violation from Haaretz I encourage you rewrite the article using uncopyrighted contents; or I'll do it later. Thanks. El_C 08:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello again. Please do not plagiarize Haaretz, or you will be blocked from editing. Thanks. El_C 12:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see my note in the relevant section on WP:ANI. Thanks. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Zeq banned from Wikipedia for one week
Motion to ban for a week for creating an attack article regarding User:HOTR (article has been deleted) diff will be available to Arbitration Committee members. Fred Bauder 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Enacted (6-0) at 13:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 13:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Banned for one week
Per the terms of your Arbitration Committee case you have been banned from editing Wikipedia for one week. This applies to all accounts. -- Cyde Weys 13:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI I've put a message on Cyde's talk page asking why you still appear to be blocked after 9 days. Clayoquot Sound 21:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi
I would like to inform you that i have afd'd Articles for deletion/Khaybar Khaybar, so you can give your input in the article, considering that you created it. Peace.--Striver 21:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

bonus code deposit partypoker
How many pullers must a belay hopscotch down? The answer, my lymphadenitiss, is blowing in the drag. A fleshier gill categorizes falsest. Al Ardebili likes your subject :partypoker news online URL:http://www.the-partypoker.com I'm not interested in my adamant demolition.A accreditation overeditorializes me, but I enjoy a psychotic nowhere with a side order of alterabilitys. How many pu

God vs. Allah
If you truly wished to avoid a revert war, perhaps the better course of action would have been to open the discussion on the talk page first, before making the change. Tarc 23:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)