User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg/Archive 6

3RR?

I have removed the autoblock, sometimes the autoblocker plays up and kicks straight back in so post the unblock template again if you get more problems. --pgk^(talk) 19:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still Blocked.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok the autoblock recurred, I've tried removing it again. If this doesn't work I can try unblocking your IP as that sometimes clears it, but you'll need to let me know what that is... --pgk^(talk) 19:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still not working! IP address is 67.169.170.140. Doesn't it seem kinda ridiculous if this always happens like this?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've tried unblockling that as well. This doesn't always happen but sometimes does and is pretty frustrating for me as well as you. --pgk^(talk) 19:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try now. I think I got the autoblock undone. --InShaneee 19:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've blocked and then unblocked the IP, see if that helps. --pgk^(talk) 19:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still no.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again --pgk^(talk) 19:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it finally worked, I can understand your anger, but mistakes happen and the blocking admin did try to put it right pretty quickly. It just wasn't helped by the way the autoblocker malfunctions sometimes. --pgk^(talk) 19:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. That's why I unblocked you about 30 seconds later when I caught that. --InShaneee 19:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe Moshe was blocked on the basis of a transparently bogus report. The one who should be blocked is the one who filed it.

Meanwhile, Anonymous editor has been reported for a real violation, he's undeniably lied in his defense, and attacked other editors (well me) as well. No block yet...Timothy Usher 20:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: huh

"Maybe if you would have just been honest and said that you were removing the content because you were afraid about looking bad"

Oh, is that why you quickly archived my comments just over three hours after I made them? Look, seriously, stop harassing me. I asked you to stop posting on my talk page. I have a feeling you keep posting because you don't like people saying "no" to you. Now stop. Homey 22:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break. Do you see those strange blue things on the top of my talk page? those are called links, but wait where how come those same things aren't on your talk page?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Moshe

"And how many times have you posted on my talk page the last week?"

How many times have you asked me not to? None.

How many times have I asked you not to post on mine? Homey 01:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't care if you do, but if you demand someone not talk to you anymore, do you continue arguing with them?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV-pushing in ostensibly neutral scientific articles

Don't know if you've noticed, but User:Thameen has created dozens of articles talking about an "Israel Palestine." I moved one to Biodiversity in Israel (compare Biodiversity in Israel Palestine), but there are apparently dozens more judging by the links on that page; this appears to be a job for a bot, which is beyond my ken. Cheers. -- FRCP11 08:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ban

Moshe, I've banned you for 24 hours for vandalising Talk:Jewish Defense League. You did so with this edit ie removing another user's comments from the Talk page in violation of policy. Homey 17:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is completly unreasonable to suggest you should not have re-inserted the comment in the first place, or that it is somewhat strange to block someone when you are a primary party to the conflict.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homey has clearly violated the blocking policy, as he's a party to the conflict on the page, and has been engaged in an ongoing dispute with Moshe related to Homey's removal of Moshe's comments, which he deems trolling, from his talk page. The "other user" to which Homey refers is, in fact, himself. Without taking a position on either dispute, it's not reasonable to suppose that these weren't primary motivations in Homey's decision to block.Timothy Usher 17:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have preferred a warning be issued before a block here, but I don't disagree that Moshe's removal of talk page comments is very innapropriate. --InShaneee 17:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comment I removed was my own that I deleted right after I wrote it when I realized it was erroneus. Homey went through the history to copied it down so that he could have something to refute.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's perfectly reasonable. Once you post on a talk page, people are going to want to respond. If you remove the comment, suddenly the discussion doesn't make any sense. Hence why it's not something that should be done. --InShaneee 18:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I assume good faith. I'm willing to bet that he simply saw your comment and was unable to respond before you removed it. --InShaneee 18:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Moshe's edit should not have been made, but am disturbed, distressed and offended by User:HOTR's violation of Wikipedia's blocking policy:

"Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute."

The blocking admin either doesn't know it, or doesn't care. Either way, we have a problem.Timothy Usher 18:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy, no advantage was gained by me in a content dispute as I did not edit Jewish Defence League away from Moshe's version after I blocked him, nor did I add any comment to the Talk page - I only restored it to the way it was prior to his violation - thus I did not violate policy. Had I edited JDL to my preferred version and then blocked Moshe you'd have a point but that did not occur. Moshe, conversely, did violate our vandalism policy by removing someone else's comments from a an article's talk page. Homey 19:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were involved in disputes on two fronts as to the content of talk pages, including your own. Perhaps you're right that this doesn't count as a "content dispute", but the point and spirit of the provision is obvious - you shouldn't be the one blocking him, there are many other admins out there, and you can't credibly claim to be impartial - indeed, who would expect you to be?

You should have presented the case to another admin as would any other editor, if not merely warn him, again as would any other editor. Don't mix adminship with your personal disputes. It's bad, and you shouldn't do it. That's all I'm saying.Timothy Usher 19:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy, I've tempbanned people on sight whenever I've seen them remove talk page comment. This is the first time I've seen it done to *me*, that's the only difference. But, ok then. *You* just said "I agree Moshe's edit should not have been made" He has refused to admit he made a mistake. What are you going to do? Are you going to tempban him as a result or are you going to let your personal relationship with him interfere with disciplining him for violating policy? Homey 19:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe should agree not to alter other editors' comments. It's unacceptable. The fact that Homey removes posts from his talk page is obnoxious, but is allowed by current understanding of policy, just as are Moshe's posts thereto. Altering other editors' comments on talk pages is not.

I'd like to hear from Moshe that he understands this, and will abide by it.Timothy Usher 19:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it is wrong to alter other peoples comments. But basically homey did the same thing by reinserting a small passage that I removed from my own comment. The fact that I removed it before Homey's next post means he actually dug through the history just so he could have something to refute from my argument. He should not have done this, and should have accepted it when I once again removed what I had written. The fact that he has attempted to penalize me show a gross disregard of civility and administrative privledge.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may think it aggravating for him to go through the history and repost something you'd withdrawn, but that's a completely legitimate use of talk space. Had he altered your posts, as you did his - your comment was at this point part of his post, not yours - it'd be a different story.

Altering other editors' posts is unacceptable. It's that simple. Don't do it.Timothy Usher 19:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I cannot accept that.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Moshe, what happened (and the history will verify this) is I wrote a response to your comment, posted it, and then found that the actual comment I was replying to had disappeared meaning my comment made no sense. So I then went into the history, found your comment, and added an addition to *my* comment explaining that you had removed the quoted material from your comment. I did not, actually, "reinsert" your deleted sentence into your comment. I simply quoted it in my comments.

Now, are you going to admit what you did was wrong and promise not to do it again or are you going to put Timothy in the uncomfortable position of having to ban you for directly disregarding his warning and insisting you didn't violate policy?Homey 19:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that I do not have anything to take responsibility for. You specifically altered my comment and then tried to get around it by saying "Moshe said".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe, it's policy, and you must follow it. It doesn't matter if you accept it.

If you're faced with such a situation in the future, I recommend that you post your own comment to the effect that you'd retracted your statement, and that there is thus no point for other editors to drag it up. This accomplishes the same thing without altering other editors' posts, and without getting you blocked.Timothy Usher 19:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"You specifically altered my comment" Where did I alter your comment? Show me the diff? Sorry Moshe, I never altered your comment, I replied to a version of your comment and you changed your comment in the meantime. I did not "alter" your comment, I copied and quoted a part of your comment that your removed once you realised that what you had written was wrong. I then added an explanation that the quotation had originally appeared in your comment and that you had removed it. You then altered *my* post by removing the quotation and explanation.Homey 20:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe, you seem to have a problem admitting when you're wrong. You preferred to vandalise the page and remove part of my comment rather than allow people to know that you had said something that was patently false, you then refuse to admit that doing that was a violation of policy. Moshe, are you ever wrong? Can you ever admit a mistake?Homey 20:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is comical. I guess I was wrong that I mentioned that you blanked your talk page. I guess I was wrong to say anything about you blocking me when you were the other party to the conflict. I guess I was wrong in any other case where I disagreed with you. Is that what you are saying?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Homey, you might want to lay off a bit. The best way to make someone hate you is to try and get them to admit their wrong when they don't want to. --Ben Houston 20:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Moshe already hates me and that's not going to change now.

Anyway Moshe you were wrong to keep posting on my personal talk page after I'd asked you half a dozen times or so to stop and you were wrong about policy in regards to personal talk pages but what we're talking about here is policy regarding article talk pages. If you don't accept Tim's warning and admit you were wrong the admins will have no choice but to restore the tempban against you. It's your choice. Homey 20:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to admit I am wrong because I know I am not. Lay off of it already.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Moshe, I'll give you a way to get off the hook while saving face. I"ve noticed you've not reverted Talk:Jewish Defense League since having the tempban lifted and have not altered the comments on there. Are you going to leave it that way? If you really think you're right then you would have gone and reverted the talk page. As you haven't done that I think we can assume you know that you were wrong even if you're not mature enough to admit it. So are you going to leave Talk:Jewish Defense League alone or are you going to insist you're right and go and revert it?Homey 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make any sense. You keep trying to figure out a way to get me to admit I am wrong, I do not know why you are eccentric enough to go to these creative lengths but I am not going to inflame a situation that has already gone on too long. So please stop baiting me it is getting tiresome.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homey, blocking someone with whom you are in a content dispute is an outrageous violation of administrative rights, and this is the second time in a week you have done it. Rather than compounding your error by continuing to attempt to indimidate Moshe with your administrative status, I would suggest backing off, and re-evaluating your actions. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"That does not make any sense" It makes perfect sense. If you thought you were right you'd go straight back to Talk:Jewish Defense League and do what you did before. You haven't done so. Why is that?Homey 20:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the comment above, Homey. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

So are you, in reference to both articles. Homey 18:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism Category

Well, there are 3 possibilities:

1) Delete the terrorism category.

2) Redefine the category so that it may only be applied to groups that refer to themselves as terrorists. (Are there any such groups?)

3) Apply the category to organizations that fit the criteria (having been described as terrorist in notable sources).

--Denis Diderot 19:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with the "terrorism" category is that the definition is too vague and inclusive. Either it would have to be redefined more narrowly or deleted and replaced with better defined subcategories.

(I tend to think that the whole Wikipedia system of categories is a mess. It's completely inconsistent and unsystematic. Therefore rather pointless and confusing.)

:--Denis Diderot

I was thinking of adding a Category:Organizations accused of terrorism and a Category:Terrorist organizations. Also a Category:Anti-terrorism organizations is needed. --Ben Houston 23:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is a category Category:Anti-Semitic people. It has the same type of problems that the affect the categories Category:Terrorists and possibly Category:Terrorist organizations -- most individuals and groups do not want to be classified as such since it isn't a positive association. But one just raises the bar to be pretty high and then one can handle it. --Ben Houston 00:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADL on Jewish Defense League

Here is what the ADL says about them [1]. Also see the links on the right hand side. --Ben Houston 01:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you will always be able to find a few people that do not believe that the JDL is a racist and violent organization -- but you can also find people that will say this about Hamas or various white supremacist organizations. My feeling is that people have to rightly pick which sources are more reliable. In this case the FBI and the ADL and the SPLC all agree. While you can point to the opinion of Kinky Friedman he is far from mainstream and he has no expertise in this area. --Ben Houston 19:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Moshe Hamas *is* listed in the Terrorism category. Homey 20:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and anti-Semitism

Looks like Amibidhrohi is well past 3RR there. Pecher ^Talk 15:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

No although I understand your disappointment now that the general community is opining on the question of the article and you find there's a lack of support for your position or for Jay's actions. Homey 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prettymuch, yeah. If you look around at some of the hotter AFDs you'll see that the vast majority of people intervening in them are people who never edited the article prior to the AFD. Are you suggesting that AFDs should only be decided upon by people who've edited an article? If so, you can propose that as policy but I don't see it being accepted as it would encourage cliques. Homey 19:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See No personal attacks. 1) I do not, in fact, know the vast majority of those who have contributed to that AFD 2) I haven't emailed anyone regarding it, let alone "email spam" them. Feel free to email them yourself and ask them if they've heard from me.

Withdraw your allegation. Homey 19:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Moshe, as you know, it's against policy to share personal emails with people. The other day Zeq attempted to open an article on Wikipedia about me (my real name) in violation of our policy against posting personal details on wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Harassment). By any chance, did you forward the email I sent you (which had nothing to do with AFDs as I recall) to Zeq or tell Zeq my name?Homey 19:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homey, you are now violating Moshes WP:AGF. I don't want to say anthing that ties your real name to your wikipedia identity. But I will say this: The politics you represent in wikipedia is so wide, so pushy that a quick google search on the collection of issues that are represented in your edits have led me to one name which I found notable enough to write about - I have no way of knowing if that article subject is you (homey) or someone who thinks exactly like you. Such a person, that is so pushy on so many political issues has become notable and intersting for me to write about based on what is known about him from the web. You may disagree that this person is notable and you have pointed out to me an Afd about this person held sometime ago in which you indeed argued he was not notable. For now, I did not chalange this Afd (but it is obvious that who ever created this article before me also thought the person was notable. Since the Afd (which i only became aware of after you reverted my edits) the decision was to delete I stopped editing the article on that person.

I have never done anything that ties your wikipedia idenity to any article subject, the bind (if such bind exist) between the article and your wikipedia identity is all your own doing (accuasing me in creating this bind will not be tolerated). I would not dream on violating wikipedia policies about your real life identity) In fact, it is quite possible that who you are is not at all the person I wrote about. (I don't know and don't really care) and that you are only providing smoke screen for your real identity by trying to create the impression that an article I wrote has anything to do with you. So the real problem here is the politics you push. Zeq 20:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to say though, you really shouldn't have made that article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why ? It is an article on a person I found intesrting. later it turned out that it already was an article on that person. Nothing is wrong in writing an article about intesrting notable people. Once I was shown that an Afd exist about that article I did not edited it any more. Zeq 20:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to argue about it, I am just saying it was a silly thing to do.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. there was nothing wrong in it. Many articles in wikipedia are silly but they still exist. This article was not about a silly person but about an intersting person. Zeq 20:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violating the policy against posting personal details results in an indefinite ban. I've been considering raising Zeq's behaviour and I'm wondering about your involvement. I can't think of any other way Zeq would have gotten my name except from you. Homey 20:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Homey, you are now violating Moshes WP:AGF"

He violated mine.Homey 21:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation: ArbCom, as I have said before, I think things have progressed so far that maybe this whole set of related articles, AfD, merge proposals and moves and various WP:POINT and WP:AGF accusations be taken to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and be settled properly. --Ben Houston 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Cole

Since we, apparently, agree about the Ahmadinejad article, I figured I wouldn't clutter the talk page with a long response about Cole, but I can't just let it stand with your grossly misleading comments there. The article you cite is an op-ed piece, and while it calls him a "media-hungry professor-blogger," it does not say he is non-notable or that he is a fringe figure. Furthermore, the appropriate place to determine Professor Cole's position in the academic world would be the comments of his fellow academics. This seems to be perfectly respectable. Looking at JSTOR, Cole seems to have written several articles in scholarly journals, and has been commissioned to write numerous reviews. The reviews of his books are mostly positive, and his Colonialism and Revolution in the Middle East: Social and Cultural Origins of Egypt's 'Urabi Movement (1993) seems to be recognized as a major historical work, with terms like "path-breaking," and so forth, being used. His book on the Bahai also seems to have been fairly well-received.

Your comments about his supposed anti-semitism are gross caricatures. Here is Cole's post on the subject of "dual loyalties," where he says he believes that some prominent neo-conservatives (he names Douglas Feith) have dual loyalties to the Likud Party and the Republican Party. I don't see how this can be twisted to say that Cole believes that "most American Jews" have dual loyalties - he specifically says this is not what he believes, but rather that a few prominent neo-conservatives in the Bush administration have dual loyalties, which is not the same thing at all. In terms of use of the term "Likudnik," it seems to me that he very specifically does not use it to refer to most American Jews - he uses it specifically to refer to a small set of political activists who support the agenda of the Israeli Likud Party. You can disagree with this assessment, but it is not nearly the same thing as referring to any American Jew who "supports Israel" as a Likudnik. Here's what he says about Likudniks:

Note that over 80% of American Jews vote Democrat, that the majority of American Jews opposed the Iraq war (more were against it than in the general population), and that American Jews have been enormously important in securing civil liberties for all Americans. Moreover, Israel has been a faithful ally of the US and deserves our support in ensuring its security. The Likudniks like to pretend that they represent American Jewry, but they do not. And they like to suggest that objecting to their policies is tantamount to anti-Semitism, which is sort of like suggesting that if you don't like Chile's former dictator Pinochet, you are bigotted against Latinos.

Note in particular the bolded text. Cole's opinions of the Arab-Israeli conflict are perfectly within the mainstream of western opinion. Cole is not Norman Finkelstein. Your view seems to be that basically anyone who is sympathetic to the Palestinians and doesn't care for the Israeli right is an anti-semitic fringe figure. You are welcome to think that if you want, I suppose, but you oughtn't be stating it as fact on wikipedia talk pages.

Feel free to respond on my talk page, if you want to, but I doubt there's much use in taking this much further, since it has departed rather significantly from any kind of discussion related to wikipedia articles. john k 22:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a blog, people are certainly going to say stupid things, and I'm sure Cole has said his share. I don't see how that makes him a "fringe figure," which was the original topic under discussion. Basically, the point made is that neither Cole nor MEMRI translates the phrase under discussion as "wiped off the map," with Cole making a particular point that this latter phrase was incorrect. Your contention was that Cole and MEMRI are fringe figures, which seems dubious in both cases - Cole is obviously a figure with a strong POV, but is a well respected academic on middle eastern history (who also, I suppose, sometimes makes ill-tempered remarks on his blog), while MEMRI is, at worst, an Israeli propaganda outfit which would have no apparent reason to dishonestly present a marginally more sympathetic to Ahmadinejad translation. It seems to me that your basic comment was at least misleading, and was used as a way of trying to get your way in the talk page debate, which I think is problematic. Anyway, it's not terribly important, since we don't seem to disagree on the specific question under discussion ("should there be a summary of a three sentence section?") Shall we agree to disagree about Cole, and agree to agree about the Ahmadinejad article, and agree to move on otherwise? john k 23:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never said we shouldn't what? john k 23:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. I wasn't suggesting you had. Indeed, I did most of the arguing. I was just trying to end on a conciliatory note, so that we could move on without any rancor. john k 23:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Hello Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg , This is to notify you that you are in danger of violating the 3RR rule on Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If you revert again you could be blocked from editing.-

I urge you not to RV my edits, which are cited and resourced, but to discuss them on the talk page. I'm not your enemy. I'm open to cooperation. --Thameen 18:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq's harassing behaviour

I no longer think you might have provided my name to Zeq. I am curious how he got it though. It's quite troubling (which, of course, is why such things are considered harassment and are bannable) - particularly since Zeq has been banned for posting personal details before. Homey 22:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The chances of his inadvertently creating an article on me just after his 48 hr ban for vote-stacking ended is infinitesimal. There's no way he ever would have heard of me by my real name. I don't know if he was sure this was my name or not but even if he wasn't sure his intent in creating the article is the same - to harass. Given that he's posted personal details of one other editor Zeq seems to be displaying a pattern that will get him permanently banned sooner or later.Homey 23:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you indeed point out, I had 48 hours to do google searches on subjects that were of interst to me.

Homey, As for editing pattern that get people banned, I guess we will have to see. Some people would argue that your edit pattern does not fir Wikipedia but does fit some place were political propeaganda is distributed (on oh, so many issues) maybe you should write for a Political activist organization of a PR Firm ? Zeq 03:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"As you indeed point out, I had 48 hours to do google searches on subjects that were of interst to me."

So you were pursuing a vendetta then. Lovely. Homey 03:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. I had free time and used it. Zeq 03:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandeta is something like this:

"Homey, you are now violating Moshes WP:AGF"

He violated mine.Homey 21:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq 03:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was merely pointing out your hypocricy in accusing me of not assuming good faith while ignoring Moshe's failure to do same (not to mention your own in countless posts). Zeq, it's rather disturbing that you would spend 48 hours "researching" me so you could write an attack article about me on Wikipedia. Homey 03:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homey, I did not spend 48 hours researching one specific subject (And again I stress that I have done nothing that ties your idenity to anything I wrote on wkipedia - the binding, if such exists, is 100% your own doing and I have no way of knowing if it is actually true) I had 48 hours to do searches and other things which are of intrest to me. Not everything I search for results in wikipedia articles. I found great porm sites, new diets and did some on-line shopping as well as other things. Not everything that interst me ends up as a wikipedia article. Zeq 03:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This argument isn't really accomplishing much (especially on my talk page), maybe you both should stop interacting with each other for now.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to stop interacting with Homey. That is a good suggestion. Zeq 03:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. That means you have to stop following me around and stop accusing me of things on people's talk pages. Homey 04:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment: I don't follow you around. I happend to visit Moshe talk page. Look at your overall edit pattern, 90% of it are issues I am not involved in (not even once). Stop this false accusations (of me and others). this is my last message to you here and I will respect Moshes request. Zeq 04:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if both of you would please stop.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your support on a disruptive editors' talk page. Noted and appreciated.Timothy Usher 08:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean

I didn't mean to sound insulting, and I apologize if you were hurt. I was trying to draw out a lesson about edit warring. As I said, most of us have done similar things - demanding a citation when one is already present, etc. I know I have. We should all be a bit more humble, read the articles we're editing, and be more tolerant of others' opinions. I know I should. Cheers, -Will Beback 21:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS

sources like globalexchange and ifamericaknew are advocay sites that should not be used as sources. Zeq 19:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not accuse you I pointed out the sources used on apathheid outside south africa in the israel section. tmuch of the "analogy" section need to be removed based on WP:RS Zeq 03:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified Reverts

(was titled You are so annoying, removed because it violated WP:NPA)

Moshe, you are really annoying in the way you protect Jewish articles from everything even the facts. Above we talked about the need for a category like "Organizations accused of terrorism" -- you actually agreed (see my suggestion here [2] and your response here [3]). I create this category and start adding articles to it and all of a sudden you declare the category to now be meaningless because I added two jewish groups to it (see [4] and [5]) -- or it is only meaningless when it is applied to the jewish groups but it is legit when I added it to all the others? (I noticed you only reverted those two additions, not the more than a dozen others I did to other non-Jewish groups.) Your are so incredibly ethnocentric and thus to me you appear very inconsistent (although always in favor of your ethnocentric biases.) Good job! --Ben Houston 05:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your insults belie an incredible amount of hypocrisy and pretentiousness. Next time you decide to adopt a self-righteous tone and write a long self-indulgent comment at least try to get your facts straight. I agreed with your new categories because I thought you would only use it in limited circumstances, your accusation of "ethnocentricism" is total bullshit considering the fact that we were talking about using it in the context of the JDL in the first place. However, I now realize you just created the category to find a way to accuse groups you don't like of terrorism without having to use any objective sources, so yes the category is meaningless considering the fact you could use it for almost any other controversial organization from the American government to Islamism, I would never have supported you if I understood your actual intentions.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You claim: "you just created the category to find a way to accuse groups you don't like of terrorism without having to use any objective sources". This is what I mean by your ethnocentrism and how it so biases you view of the world.

You seem to believe I have an adgenda with the new category and especially in my assigning articles to it. Have you even looked at the organizations in the new category? See here: Category:Organizations_accused_of_Terrorism - if it belies my underlying hatred for all these groups I sure seem to hate just about everyone. Actually, you'll find that all of these groups were previously classified in the Terrorism category. I just went through the category moving specific articles (which I could recognized by their names as groups accused of terrorism) into the new sub cat. I actually added the IRA as a whole subcategory. Although, unlike my wholesale adding of the IRA as a subcategory, I decided to be delicate with the Category:Militant Zionist groups category (which is, like the IRA, currently a sub category of Terrorism - and I didn't add it!) and added just the two groups that have been accused.

You just accused me of engaging in a ton of OR accusations when all I did was try to improve the precision of existing categorizations. You could actually confirm this is exactly the case by doing a bit of history checking, but I doubt you will. Like I said: Good job! --Ben Houston 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break, people have continually inserted Lehi and Irgun into the terrorism category with zero justification for pov reasons, your insertion of a slightly different category seems remarkably similar. It is irrelevant if some of the organizations were in the terrorism category for a short period of time. Most of your arguments only serve to obfuscate the issue. Like I said before, before you write another angry little letter, perhaps you should attempt the smallest amount of self-examination, lest you become a hypocrite.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe wrote: "Most of your arguments only serve to obfuscate the issue" I only made one argument (in addition to displaying exasperation): I created the category as we discussed and moved around articles already in the terrorism category (Moving an article from "terrorism" to "organizations accused of terrorism" is actually weakening the charge if you think about it objectively.)

You also just wrote: "people have continually inserted Lehi and Irgun into the terrorism category with zero justification for pov reasons." Can I ask if you have perchance read those two articles? The Lehi (group) article has a section that described how they themselves justify using terror Lehi_(group)#Justification_of_terrorism and the Irgun article contains this passage "Leaders within the mainstream Jewish Agency, Haganah, Histadrut, as well as British authorities, routinely condemned (publicly at least; privately the Haganah kept a dialogue with the dissident groups) Irgun operations as terrorist and branded it an illegal organization, as a result of the groups attacks on civilian targets."

Your claim that I "should attempt the smallest amount of self-examination, lest you become a hypocrite" feels like projection from my vantage point. I can't see anything I did wrong in editing the categories or articles -- I was consistent and very reality based -- the worst you can pin on me is that I got angry as a result of you reverting of my well intentioned edits, your display of a lot of inconsistency (which annoys me because it makes it impossible to actually talk with you), and your wild accusations not based on any facts. --Ben Houston 07:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Projection huh? Wow, you are so knowledgeable about psychology, so tell me Ben, it this related to my relationship with my father?

Your claim of "wild accusations" seems especially ironic considering the fact that you were the first to write me an angry and accusatory message when I have been nothing but courteus in our previous interactions.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just said that "you [reference to Ben Houston] were the first to write me an angry and accusatory message when I [reference to Moshe] have been nothing but courteus in our previous interactions." You must have forgotten that you started this by going around aggressively reverting my edits while at the same time insulting my work in the edit summaries: "rv, this category is meaningless" (see [6], [7]). To say that you were courteous to me is simply incorrect. --Ben Houston 23:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So basically I have been unacceptably innappropriate and rude because I reverted something that you have written. I guess I clearly overstepped my bounds when I decided to disagree with you. Funny.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This whole mess

The way you guys are characterizing the matter is precisely my objection. For one thing, I did not "misunderstand" anything. There appears to have been a lack of clarity around what the rules were in the first place; ambiguity in how the rules are or were communicated does not in any way constitute a failure or misunderstanding on my part. And "wheel war" implies a deliberate attempt to disregard policy; it does not apply to acting in perfectly good faith in accordance with a legitimate understanding of an unclear and/or rapidly changing policy, which has been indicated to me as the correct understanding of that policy on more than one occasion when I've sought clarity.

I reject any insinuation that I acted improperly, and I will not drop the matter until you stop using words which carry an implication that I did. I sincerely hope that this leads to improved clarity for everyone around what the rules are and how Wikipedia can communicate them more effectively, but if you want the discussion to move on, then stop characterizing the matter with words that imply fault or error on my part. I did not "fail" to understand a clear and unambiguous rule — the people who wrote the policy failed to communicate the rule clearly in the first place. Bearcat 07:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism

Moshe, above your display window, between tabs entitled "project page" and "edit this page" is another tab labelled "discussion." If you press this, you'll find yourself in a place where people actually discuss what's going on with the project page. I'd really like to see you there, and I'm very curious as to why you feel the need to restore this language in violation of WP:NOT, WP:AGF and WP:SPAM.

The fact that you say in your edit summary there is "no difference between these and earlier edits" proves that you didn't really look. The section title is completely different, while the "Be on the lookout..." paragraph was rewritten rather than deleted. The only portion which was the same, the "Christ" rewrite, gained agreement on talk.Timothy Usher 08:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe, I apologize for my tone the other night.Timothy Usher 06:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks.Timothy Usher 08:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nick-Rowan

I've instituted an indefinite block against User:Nick-Rowan - as far as I can see he contributes nothing to wikipedia - he only edits one article, David Irving and does so only to remove references to his being a Holocaust denier (a fact established by the courts). My view is that he's a troll and vandal. I'd appreciate it if you could review his conduct and weigh in as to whether the indefinite ban is appropriate. Homey 14:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SA additions - not unsourced

The guy is just copying sections from Asians in South Africa. It's relative accurate and its not a horrible idea to include it in the article. --Ben Houston 07:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

You raise an interesting point. Zeq was found to be vote-stacking in the AFD on Israeli apartheid and was banned for 72 hours. This likely means that the number of "Delete" votes on the AFD was exaggerated and that the consensus on the AFD was probably "keep" rather than "no consensus". Homey 16:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pipes

The article itself shows statements made by him against Muslims. What, then, is wrong with the category? BhaiSaab ^talk 18:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is the purpose for the category existing? BhaiSaab ^talk 18:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Shamir

Please see my complaint here: [8]Homey 19:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shamir

He was proviously in the "Anti-Semitism" category. As he is a person "Anti-Semitic people" makes more sense. Homey 00:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't examining why someone put him in the "Anti-Semitism" cat, I was just making an adjustment because there is a subcat for individuals.Homey 00:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blood libel, Jewish conspiracy theories, even well-poisoning. Yeah, he's fits the criteria IMHO. Homey 00:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More of a classical anti-Semite than the "scientific" Nazi-era variety but an anti-Semite nevertheless. Homey 00:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Yes, I'm aware that I'm at my limit for the page (and I believe you are as well). CJCurrie 00:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- ChrisO 09:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. Especially considering the fact that I provided ample reasoning on the article's talk page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of section title: "Relationship between religious and racial anti-Semitism"

Please take a look [9]. --Doright 19:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli West Bank barrier

You wrote "It is not undisputable that the barrier is responsible for the economic effects"

Two questions: 1- Is there an alternative hypothesis that states that the barrier has had no effect on the economy? Please advise. 2- If this is not indisputable, I can guarantee you that most section titles in most articles about the middle east are not, by your reasoning, indisputable. Should we be adding qualifiers like that everywhere?

Sorry, I'm just a bit irritated right now (not by you). Ramallite ^(talk) 20:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for $#^@'s sake, could you take exactly what you told me and convince this editor? You probably put it better than I ever could have. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

s/he is pretty much weaseling in the hypothesis that the barrier alone may be solely responsible for certain economic effects, without sourcing it whatsoever. Anyway don't worry about it, I'll try to reason my way through (yet again). Just frustrated. Thanks. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. yes, I'm well aware of how statistics are messed around with.[reply]

Terrorist categories

I agree with you completely, and have left a message on the talk page of one of the categories you told me about.. Thanks. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do you think this category should be put up for deletion? Any reason to hold off? Ramallite ^(talk) 04:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Category

Hi Moshe,

We've had discussion regarding categories in the past. What do you think of this one? BhaiSaab ^talk 04:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cfd

Hi Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg , please see:

• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 22#Category:Jewish day schools.

Many thanks, Nesher 22:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Phillips

Notability of the islamophobe award: I have no idea how notable it is, but it has a wikipedia article. I don't care about melanie either. I am not even sure that she was most islamophobic that year. But she is a voice of certain category of people and caters to their tastes, otherwise she'd been kicked out very quickly (I don't believe in freedom of press). At the same time I don't see it will do any harm to her image; eg, quite a few people have nothing against Muslims in person, but dislike Islam as ideology (even forgetting about religion), regardless how correctly they perceive Islam (e.g., in many brains Islam is intermixed with Western despotism). This reference about "islamophobia awards" works in several ways and introduces yet another piece of general information about the world in which Melanie (and we all) operate. Personally, I found it amusing regardless Melanie.

On the other hand, I do agree that another piece the anon keeps revert-inserting is a minor example of noninformative sensationalism. No big deal taht reporters keep parrotting each other in reporting some "facts". I would agree to include it if Melanie was first to make this report or especially passionately defended it or did somenting relatively notable with it. `'mikka (t) 15:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Category:Organizations accused of terrorism is up for deletion. Thanks, Ramallite ^(talk) 18:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your note, and no you have not appeared disingenuous at all! I hope Ben is convinced that I was not in any way coerced into this CfD, because I actually agree with you that it is improper for WP. Regards, Ramallite ^(talk) 20:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note from wp:jew

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism

Dear Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg! I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. Please put it on your watchlist, and please add relevant AfD's as you find them. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mizrahi

Mate, take a proper look. It was you who reverted to a version which deleted over ten sources. I'm merely restoring your baseless reverts. How about you actually state your complaint to the text and/or sources in the relevant talk page. Al-Andalus 11:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

What an empty argument. If the "3 revert rule clearly specifies that a revert is "undoing another editors work"", then again it is YOU who has violated it first. I have not undone any of your or other contributors work, (you have added nothing to the article in the time you are alleging). On the other hand, you did undo my sourced contribution. Al-Andalus 11:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How To Solve the Issue

If you are attacking me and my motivations on other people's talk pages I will response there to those attacks. It doesn't matter if you don't want me to response, it is within my right. If you stop attacking me and my motivations on other people's talk pages, I'll stop responding to it and your problem will be solved. --Ben Houston 15:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Israeli apartheid

Why did you revert my edits without explanation? I find that extremely rude. Arniep 19:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dissident Voice

Moshe, go ahead and restore. I just thought it was a bit odd-looking but if you think the article benefits from it, that's fine by me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palazzi Talk

Hi, I saw you involved in the discussions on the Abdul_Hadi_Palazzi article. It seems very very negative at the moment.

-Steg

===Survey in Battle of Deir Yassin===

Hi Moshe,

There is a survey going on in the discussion over the name and I think you would be interested to participate.

Thanks,

Guy Montag 16:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]