Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:33, 10 August 2006

Welcome!

3RR

FYI, you broke WP:3RR and may be reported. While I am here, I must say that I find your behavior childish. ←Humus sapiens 22:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

See comments below. You must have a hard time warping logic to justify your actions if you have to come here and call me childish to make yourself feel better for censoring an article and having me banned by your Israeli buddies. Sarastro777 04:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This 3rr violation was reported at --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I restored (a limited number of times) valid material that was being deleted repeatedly and systematically by an Administrator Hummus Sapiens and another user Pecha. I consider this vandalism, have said so in the discussion, registered a warning tag on Pechas page, which he removed. Blank-spacing or removing legitimate content which diminishes the quality of the article is clearly within this definition. It was obvious this was deliberate as no attempt was made to discuss with me how to improve the pieces in question, nor did they attempt to improve them. Only "reverted" which is completely against policy... and called me ignorant, suggested I needed an education, and accussed me of personal attack.

Please remove this block or tell me (without calling me ignorant or childish) how it is in anyway justified in light of this behavior. Sarastro777 23:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't just claim anything you disagree with is vandalism and use it as reason to edit war, this was clearly a content dispute. Unblock denied. --pgk 18:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I can see why it is okay for Administrators listing 50 different things in their profiles having to do with Israel/Judaism to actively censor and ban information (out of an anti-Semite section) about the media fabricating a story making the President of Iran out to be an anti-Semite. It's also not suspicious the Admin that banned me shares the same interests, with his ban timestamped before the complaint was even filed. I'm sure none of these people have any animus against the mortal enemy of their self-proclaimed country/topics of interest whatsoever. Very reasonable take indeed :-) Sarastro777 22:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Archeology

The stele is an archiological artifact. The date of the Bible is irrelevant to using th eterm archeological. However, it brings fewer connotations of the Bible being older or younger, and it stands in starker contrast to tradition than historical. What, praytell, do you not like about that word? -- Avi 21:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The section is called "history." The first item in historical record is the stele. It also happens to be archaeological evidence BUT your term presupposes that the historical record is wrong and the term "Israel" was in usage earlier, but no evidence (archaeological) has been produced. We need to go with the verifiable historical fact, while properly noting the unsubstantiated (historically) beliefs of "tradition."

Why praytell do you not like the word "historical" in the "history" section? Sarastro777 21:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the evidence is archeological. I agree it comes from my belief, shared among others, that the Bible predates the stele, but we don't have any hard archeological evidence. The Bible itself is an example of historical evidence that is not substantiated by archeological evidence. I concur that hard archeological facts to back up other evidence is prefereable. But using the term historical, to me, implies that the Bible is NOT historical, and that is not a cut-and-dried issue.

Using the term archeological gets around the entire issue--we have a piece of stone we can date back to 1211 BCE; hard, conclusive evidence, no ifs-ands-or-buts, which does not imply that there is no "evidence" prior -- just no irrefutable evidence. It's not simple either way, I grant. -- Avi 21:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If the earliest mention of the word dates to 1211 BCE then that is the earliest historical record. I don't see what you are adding with archaeological? Archaeology is one method through which history dates.. by mentioning that alone there is an ambiguous implication for other dating techniques. The fact remains that this stele is the earliest record through any verifiable approach/discipline/technique. Sarastro777 21:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the point of contention is whether or not the stelle is the earliest mention or not. As can be seen from Dating the Bible, there are scholars who believe that the Bible predates the stelle, and if so, it is an earlier mention of the word. By masoretic calculations, the Bible was revealed at Sinai in the year 1312 BCE, about a 100 years before the stelle. Of course, the events are a few hundred years older than that, but we'd have to be phenominally lucky to find anything dating back that far. So, disregarding any masoretic dating, the earliest mention of the word, according to, and I quote from said article, “Textual criticism places all of them within the 1st millennium BC, while traditionalist schools assign the Pentateuch a 15th century BC date,” could predate the stele. The stele is the earliest archeological mention of the term. That is the gist of my argument. And I apologize for the horrific run-on sentence. -- Avi 22:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The point of contention is that you are citing unverifiable evidence as showing earlier existence. Historical implies that through all verifiable means the stele is the earliest mention. Your suggestion 'archaeological' implies that only through archaeology is that the earliest mention, leaving possibility for other techniques such as literary which does not in fact exist. This is not appropriate since no other verifiable evidence exists. The date of the bible is not verifiable. There are theories, and that is an entirely unrelated discussion I don't want to be involved in :-) Sarastro777 22:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I would add earlier unproven dates, such as that of the "bible" or pentateuch or whatever would be covered under the "traditionally..3000 years" statement. Sarastro777 22:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a side point, 1211 BCE was over 3000 years ago. So the "However" may not be the best word choice. If by tradition we are going from when G-d Promised Abraham that the land of Israel will be his, that's around 3800–4000 years ago 8-) . -- Avi 05:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

We're not going by God though, we're going by historically verifiable. Please see Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. These other ideas are/should be covered in articles on the religion. The "however" is just a rhetorical device to indicate the part that follows contradicts the part before. It's not a swipe at the number that follows.  :-) Sarastro777 05:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that, and you know I know that 8-) However, it's not a contradiction if the stele indicates that the people of Israel were in the land of Israel 3000 years ago. The issue is the tradition, or the unverifiable G-dly promise :). I'd suggest you reword your sentence to make that clearer, or perhaps I'll be bold and do it myself :). -- Avi 06:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Human rights in Israel

I have created a stub article here and would appreciate your contributions. ] As I'm a pretty new Wiki editor I need some assistance in puting together a good article that we can eventually link to the country page.--Oiboy77 18:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Time to review WP policies

Please review WP:NPA and WP:TALK. ←Humus sapiens 23:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please review, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2289232,00.html ] Let me know what you think.

Sarastro777 21:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not leave misleading edit summaries

I specifically stated that the reversion of the Azmi Bishara case was on purpose because it was just as skewed as everything else you add to that article, and yet you labeled your reversion as minor with the edit summary: "fixed inadvertent rv by Silverburg of unrelated Knesset member arrested for speech crimes. Discussion for Vanunu". Please review WP policy once again as you obviously understood the actual nature of your reversion, please revert yourself and add a less misleading edit summary. I do not want to have to launch a complaint over something so small, but what you did was clearly improper.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a discussion for the Discussion Board of the Article. You complained about Vanunu but reverted an entirely different edit as well. I was under the impression this was accidental. Sarastro777 23:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I didn't break the 3RR anymore than you did yesterday. Your buddy Oiboy77 already tried reporting me but it was thrown out because there was a system upgrade going on at the time that caused a back up which in turn resulted in a bunch oh the same edits registering at the same time. I find it strange that you would even try to claim that was a violation since you experienced the same effect that I did. Nevertheless I did not realize that was only a day ago and if I did I would not be editing the article again so soon and will not again for another 24 hours. Also, your emotional claim that I "ruined hours worth of sourced editing" doesn't really effect me since you used sources to prove a novel thesis that was inappropriately pov. I really cannot believe that you had assumed that I mistakenly deleted the Bishara passage since I had actually referred to it in the previous edit summary (which you seemed to have read).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know Oiboy, not everybody that you have a disagreement with is colluding with each other. To my knowledge there is not a foreign government coordinating "hundreds of thousands of non-jewish activists" to add sympathetic statements like the Israeli gov't is currently doing with Jewish activists. ]

There wasn't a thesis, just some relevant points lifted and sourced from human rights articles. You deleted that. Do you know what a thesis is? Sarastro777 17:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually you were using it to prove the implied thesis that Israel does not care about civil rights of its citizens. Do you what a point of view is? How about a conspiracy theory? Do you know what that is? The supposed to "coordinating hundreds of thousands of non-jewish activists to add sympathetic statements" is so far from the truth it is funny. The software was created by a Jewish group with no ties to the Israeli government, the only thing that even hardcore anti-Israeli folks have tried to note was that a few trainee diplomats have downloaded the software.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You have to say "implied" because I have never written that. It's all in your mind and I can't be held accountable for whatever is in there. A theory is something without facts. On the contrary, what you call a conspiracy theory is documented in major media outlets.

Amir Gissin, Director Public Affairs (Hasbara) Department at the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is urging people everywhere to contribute to the war effort in this way. "We need 100,000 Megaphone users to make a difference" he said. "So, please spread the word to all Israel's supporters." ]

Does that sound like a "few trainee diplomats"? Is Amir Gissin part of my grand anti-semitic delusion because I hate Israel and have an "implied thesis" to show it hates all human beings? Did you ever consider that an extremist Pro-Israel POV might make someone see even an objective piece as vehemently biased? Sarastro777 21:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Its all in my head, of course, its not as if you are using a number of inappropriate accusations to paint a picture of Israel that isn't directly supported by any single source you are using.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel and the UN

Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg up to his usual behaviour at Israel and the UN - inserting POV. Check it out. 86.27.62.142 17:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Rogue Admins

Funny, you once said this: -- Avi 04:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention, your constant personal attacks by claiming every non-anti-Israel editor is a harbinger of some vast internet conspiracy is both insulting and reminicent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or do you believe in that as well? -- Avi 04:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm you need to read the edit history. I've never made any such claim, I am sure there are many that wish I had so they could easily discard what is a credible story. If any of us had direct evidence of specific people working on the command of the Foreign Ministry on here, we would be talking to the media not blabbing on discussion pages. At this point it is something to be aware of, and a possible explanation for very unusual behavior by other editors on Middle East pages. i.e. deleting objective information, warning people on rules they haven't violated, seemingly coordinated activity, pushing uncited information to 'justify' Israel at all costs and despite all guidelines. Another explanation could be there are just simply many Zionists pushing their ideology at all costs. However, pretending like Operation Megaphone is just a "conspiracy theory", or some purely anti-jew fantasy, or ignoring the fact the propaganda operation is real just plays into the hands of those who DO engage in conspiracy theories. e.g. "See they aren't even supposed to acknowledge it!" type of stuff. Sarastro777 04:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Protocols, I have only a superficial knowledge of them. I have no idea who made them or where they come from :-) Not sure that I care... that was a long time ago. Sarastro777 04:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage is not a place to keep material that is blatantly divisive and contains personal attacks. I have removed the offending material. Metamagician3000 13:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't decide what goes on my userpage. Don't vandalize it again. Sarastro777 16:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, see below. Thanks -- Avi 17:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Userpage ownership or lack thereof

FYI, Sarastro, may I direct you to WP:OWN and specifically Misplaced Pages:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space. While I agree with you that silly edits to a userpage are uncalled for and are bad form, userpages are subject to many of the same rules as articles, and attack material may be deleted. Thanks. -- Avi 17:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The same article says the pages are given wide lattitude and should not be edited by others. Likewise I will not tolerate people censoring data relevant to Misplaced Pages because they have extremist points of view. It is especially inappropriate on my own userpage. There is no attack material. Leave it alone. Thanks Sarastro777 17:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears that in the eyes of a couple of other admins, your text is attacking. You may also wish to see Misplaced Pages:User page#Removal as well. Seriously, Sarastro, if a number of people start complaining, especially those whith whom you have had little interaction, you may wish to reconsider your text. Misplaced Pages is not a blog, even the userpages. Just a word to the wise. -- Avi 17:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the material will be seen as a generalized attack on Jewish and Israeli editors. I can't see how it contributes to our goal of writing an encyclopedia. I'd appreciate it if you would remove it. Tom Harrison 17:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I know you are cognizant of WP:3RR, but it would be fair to warn you that between your userid and your IP (when you forget to log in) you are really close to it on your user page. A self-revert would help you out here. -- Avi 17:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Tom, "generalized" means it's not a "personal attack" which is what is forbidden. Any attack is merely your perception. Misplaced Pages is supposed to have a NPOV and this page clearly documents a very large government-orchestrated project to thwart that goal. It is important that editors are informed of this operation so we can be vigilant and insure Misplaced Pages's standards are followed. This merely repeats what is documented in the sources given citation. It's merely coincedental that it happens to be the Israeli Gov't using "Jewish activists" THIS time. You should be thanking me for pointing out possible sources of malintentioned bias that could be introduced to the Misplaced Pages Project. Sarastro777 17:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, your credibility drops when you write like that. Anyone who edits not to your liking is a pawn in this vast conspiracy. We should thank you for you vigilance. Sarastro, most people here are somewhat more sophisticated than an eight-year old, and your pose of righteous indignation is getting somewhat tired. JMO, of course. -- Avi 17:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You just lost the argument by calling me an 8yo, that's a personal insult that was made because you have no policy or procedural grounds to stand on. Anyone who vandalizes my userpage against my wishes is violating several major guidelines. You have all been asked to stop. Leave it at that and stop the insults and inventing yet more conspiracy theories I am allegedly engaged in. Thank you. Sarastro777 17:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarastro, I presume you are a native English speaker, your posts indicate such. Please, carefully read my post. I nnever said you were an eight year old. You are being a wee bit defensive. I said that WE, your audience, are more sophisticated than eight-year olds, and your screaming "massive world-wide conspiracy" does not give you any more or less credibility than anyone else. We've "collaborated" on Human Rights, etc., and I think that you are intelligent enough to understand what I posted, so I'll assume good faith and put down your above post to an instinctive defensive reaction without fully reading what I wrote. Regardless, you have quite a bit to offer Misplaced Pages, if you can edit within the framework of rules, policies, and guidelines, that ALL wikipedians must adhere to. Step back from your emotional defensiveness for a moment, and realize you will do yourself, wikipedia, and all of us much more good if we can all edit within a reasonable framework. Think about it a while. Also, editing your userpage to remove inflammatory remarks is completely allowed by wikipedia policy; please refer to the links I posted above -- Avi 20:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As per discussion on the Administrator's Noticeboard, your userpage has been blanked of uncivil statements and should remain that way. Please do not re-add any more attacks. --InShaneee 20:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)