Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:18, 23 April 2008

Template:User blocked

For information on the block, please review here.

Archives

Archive 1 (30 Sep. '05 − 14 Dec. '05) Archive 2 (15 Dec. '05 − 17 Feb. '06) Archive 3 (18 Feb. '06 − 5 Jun. '06) Archive 4 (5 Jun. '06 − 11 Dec. '06) Archive 5 (18 Dec. '06 − 20 Apr. '07)

Arbitration

I am not familiar with arbitration. I dont understand what to bring up. --Shamir1 06:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

AWARD

All those who support this award, sign below:

• Support IZAK 11:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Lack of knowledge

Zeq. You found an article stating that Husseiny was an antisemite. 1 year ago, I brought 14 sources talking about that. Do you remember ?
When you come and ask for evidences that Pappé uses Plan Daleth in his analysis it shows you never took care to try to read a minimum about the events of 1948 and what historians and scholars wrote about that. It is as if you would ask a prove that the blue star on the flag is a Magen David !!!
I keep my mind. Read books from historains defending Zionists' point of view and come with real material you will have synthetised honnestly
Eg. : Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948, 2006
Yes ! He defends strongly Zionism but how could you know that. Eg. : Yoav Gelber, Israeli-Jordanian dialogue, 1948-1953 : cooperation, conspiray or collusion, Sussex Academic Press, 2004
Eg. : Karsh, Fabricating Israeli History: The "New Historians", 1997
But you have also Anita Shapira, Avraham Sela, Michael Oren, Yehoshua Porat, Shabtai Teveth, Aryeh Yitzhaki, ...
Alithien 11:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Yes, he's editing again, and actually has a userid as well. Jayjg 20:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg

Hello, Zeq. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Zeq/Archive 3. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 23:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

re:Thank you

What were you thanking me for?--Sefringle 06:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000

This arbitration case has closed and the decision published at the link above. Zer0000 is advised not to take any further administrator actions against or in relation to Zeq, including but not limited to enforcement actions under their prior arbitration case, and admonished that so long as an editor, including one on probation, is not restricted in their editing of a page or area they are entitled to be accorded good faith and be treated with respect and courtesy when they edit in those areas. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel 20:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Apes and Pigs

A tag has been placed on Apes and Pigs, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Misplaced Pages criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DearPrudence 05:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have tentatively removed the speedy deletion notice, although the information in the article should still be expanded on - at the moment, it is too short (with most of the information being provided by external links) to be a proper article on its own, but I am sure you will add to it. --DearPrudence 06:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Back?

ehm, thanks :) -- Heptor _talk 13:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Google

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&rls=RNWE%2CRNWE%3A2005-06%2CRNWE%3Aen&q=%22apes+and+pigs%22+jews&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&rls=RNWE%2CRNWE%3A2005-06%2CRNWE%3Aen&q=%22monkeys+and+pigs%22+jews&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&rls=RNWE%2CRNWE%3A2005-06%2CRNWE%3Aen&q=%22monkeys+and+pigs%22+&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&rls=RNWE%2CRNWE%3A2005-06%2CRNWE%3Aen&q=%22apes+and+pigs%22+&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&rls=RNWE%2CRNWE%3A2005-06%2CRNWE%3Aen&q=%22pigs+and+apes%22

Violations of WP:AGF

Please appologize for violating WP:AGF. The fact that for you the article may mean nothing is only your own POV. I created what, in my view, is a serious article. You may disagree and this is fine and we can discuss that with other editors. But don't make an assumptions about my good faith - You have no way to know. I don't doubt your edits are good faith (although I disagree with some content of your edits) . Zeq 08:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zeq,

I don't understand what you are talking about.

Could you explain what you mean ???

Alithien 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:ICA, etc

In the course of editing Battle for Gaza (2007), you addressed several comments to me that I would ask you to review carefully. Twice you accused me of "borderline vandalism" on my talk page and on the article's talk page.

You may want to review WP:Vandalism. Vandalism, as the term is used on Misplaced Pages, implies intent. Making an accusation of vandalism where there is no evidence of intent, it would seem, is a violation of WP:AGF. Ill-considered accusations are a form of incivility.

That second edit also implies that I've written a misleading edit summary to hide my intentions. Please review WP:Assume good faith.

Also on my talk page you wrote "should you just wait for the right moment to revert it again I will ask for you to be prevented from editing the article" . Writing that you anticipate that I will edit in bad faith is simply unacceptable. Threatening to call for administrative action against a good faith editor is also unacceptable. Please review WP:Civility as well.

By carefully reviewing and following these policies, it should become possible to collaborate effectively on articles with other editors. Jd2718 20:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:Vandalism

You seem to have ignored my request to review WP:Vandalism (among other pages.) Instead you've chosen to once again accuse me of actions which 'border on vandalism' I am repeating my request that you review the vandalism page. In particular, please note:

1. This page documents an official policy on the English Misplaced Pages. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow.
2. Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. (emph in original)
3. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.
4. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Misplaced Pages.

But my excerpts are not enough. Please read the page, as well as WP:AGF, WP:Civility and the particular section on Ill considered accusations.

Good collaboration with other editors is dependent on all of us following Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Whether you've never read the relevant pages or just forgotten what they say, it would be a good idea to take the time now to review them. Jd2718 23:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Your response falls far short of what is required. Creating your own definition of what "bordering on vandalism" vs "vandalism" means does nothing to address the Ill considered accustions, violations of Misplaced Pages policy on civility which you've pasted on two pages. Silence I might have construed as contrition, but there is no way to interpret your most recent comment except as an assertion that you have not understood that WP:AGF and WP:Civility might apply to you. Once more I implore you to read the policy and guideline pages I've linked for you. Jd2718 04:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer to apologize on the talk page, but if you would simply strike out the accusation of vandalism, I would be happy to leave the rest behind us. Jd2718 16:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for welcoming me back to wikipedia

Screen stalker 13:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"Dying to kill" coverscan / fairuse / copyvio

Re: Image:Dying to Kill by Mia Bloom cover.jpg WP:Non-free content says that book cover art can be used only for articles or large sections discussing the book in question. It gives the example that "An image of a rose, cropped from an image of a record album jacket, used to illustrate an article on roses." "would almost certainly not be fair use". Could you go back and remove the image you re-inserted, please? Eleland 15:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What text did you want me to see?

Did you read the section of WP:NONFREE which I mentioned, which specifically states that fair use on cover art applies only to articles discussing the item? Eleland 17:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Alt-a

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Alt-a, by Addd wiki (talk · contribs), another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Alt-a is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Alt-a, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 19:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Problems at Allegations of Israeli Apartheid

I noticed that the article was just fully protected, reviewed the recent history, and was concerned about your recent editing there. I have started this discussion which you may like to watch or respond to. Jd2718 01:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

threat

Zeq, I don't appreciate your threat on my talk page. Please refrain from modyfing the article that is on a consensual version BEFORE you discuss this on the talk page. Alithien 10:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Tarc

It may be best to report him to WP:AN/I if he continues making personal attacks or continues to engage in other disruptive behavior. Yahel Guhan 00:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

see WP:AN/I#Incivilry by User:Tarc. Yahel Guhan 01:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

There is a discussion over whether to allow the work of Norman G. Finkelstein into the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus article. You're welcome to add your comments at the relevent talk page. I stress to you and to anybody else who may read this message that although I have a strong opinion on this matter, I make no plea for you to adopt my stance. --GHcool 22:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, as I wrote on Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, I prefer that you stick to the subject of the improvement of the article rather than question the motivations of particular editors. We are trying to build a consensus, not rivalries. Thank you for your cooperation. --GHcool 18:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually Zeq

It's you that has to explain your edit which deleted the information I restored in my edit and added a section on terrorism that is already discussed in the intercommunal relations section below. Your message on my talk page mischaracterizes the situation by claiming I added the material in question when I merely restored sourced material you deleted without explanation and deleted material I cautioned you against adding in other sections already. Tiamut 08:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my right to revert POV edits that WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. Tiamut 08:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You shoud explain why you think they are OR or undue on talk page. Zeq 08:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I already have when you tried to insert similar material previously. Please read my comments before making false accusations.

About your other comment regarding "stereotyping" on my user page which you claim to find offensive. Please explain what you are referring to. Tiamut 08:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Nazareth is my town Zeq and the Jews from Tel Aviv are tourists when they come to visit it. Sorry that you find that kind of statement offensive, but that's how I see things. Thanks for your comments. Good day sir. Tiamut 09:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What do You think ?

I would have reverted this, but what do you think is better way: PS I wonder if every edit I would make to the article would be reverted... I hope not Zeq 04:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC) (PR says - I've lifted this from User:HG's page).

User:Zeq - it might appear you were holding up progress being made on that article by Tiamut, Blessed Sins and RolandR. And your involvement must be quite questionable, I cannot imagine that editors attempting to add a "mirror equivalent" of this (badly worded) statement would be welcome in articles Jewish Israelis or Jews in Cairo in 1954: "Since 2000 participation some Israeli-Arabs, using their israeli ID, have been helping Palestinians caring terror against Israeli citizens - this has tainted the relations between Jews and Arabs as can be seen from the verdict in one such case". PR 11:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

what does "israeli jew" article has to do with what you wrote ? Zeq 11:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that going to an article on Jewish Israelis and providing examples of first-class Israeli citizens screaming obscenities or blasphemies as proof that Arabs or Christians were somehow justified in not wanting them as neighbours would not be welcome. (I trust you know what I'm refering to, both examples are so outrageous and unpleasant that I hesitate to link to them). In fact, describing the incidents or putting those links into the article might very well earn me an indefinite block. If the articles of first-class Israeli citizens are protected so jealously, it's only right and proper that those of second-class Israelis get at least equal protection. We could hold this discussion on User:HG's page if you prefer, since that's where you were asking whether your additions should prevail over those of three other editors. PR 11:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

For once...

you are deserving of an apology. I clicked too quickly through some links and thought that this section was being argued on an article talk page. Quickly reverted once it was realized where it was, but I did leave a comment on the poem controversy afterwards. Tarc 14:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 12:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been blocked from editing Misplaced Pages for 24 hours because of your violation of ArbCom probation in relation to Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. See your block log for more details. Kaldari 16:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Kaldari 16:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • Priot to the block, I have made this request for clarification from ArbCom: but before an answer was received I got blocked. Zeq 16:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • • In his comment to ArbCom the blocking Admin make the accuastion here that "Zeq made 5 edits to Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus after his suggestions on the Talk page were ignored" - This is incorrect. I have made only two edits, (one is a group of 4 edits(3 are spelling corrections) but all done at the same time and considered one edit) and the 2nd is a smaller edit. One of my edit was accepted (at least in part) the other was reverted. None of thoese edits were the subject of the discussion on talk page that was the issue here and that discussion was actually after the 2 edits (on a totaly different issue).

• • • • The blocking admin made a claim that actually has no connection to how the issue has transpired. The simple solution was first to ask me or to let me a chance to respond. Since I am blocked I can not respond to the accusation made by the blocking admin but anyone who would bother to check the history pages and times of edits will see that his accusation is false. I therefor asked that since he completly misunderstood the situation I will be unblocked.

• • • • I have already mention in my request for ArbCom to clarify the issue, that I will not edit the article until they rule if that article is or is not included in my ban. Therefor since locks are preventive not punative there is no reason for this block. Thank You.

Zeq (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

see comments above Zeq 17:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It is not unreasonable to construe your block to extend to forks of the article you are banned from. — Sandstein 18:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As I stated above: I did not know at the time of the edit that it is a fork. It is a new article and that is the way I understood it. Zeq

(e.c.) I agree with your point, however, that since you had already declared that you do not intend to edit that article any more, the block is needless. I will ask the blocking admin to unblock you. Sandstein 18:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Please in any case keep visiting this page as this is the only place I can comunicate. I will in any case avoid any article editing in the next 24 hours as I have learned before that even if I get blocked by error it is a indication for myself that I got into too much trouble and should scale back. I will continue to comunicate on this (and maybe other) talk pages for the next 24 hours. Tnx. Zeq 18:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I will remove the block provided you agree to abide by both the letter and the spirit of the ArbCom probation. Kaldari 20:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I had this ban for two years. Never violated it and you know it since you had an exchange on this issue, . If I would have known the ban apply I would not edit the article - I am not stupid and not looking for trouble. I am mearly trying to keep this project NPOV as it should. Zeq 20:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Your plea of ignorance is unconvincing. Might I suggest reading The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Regardless, I will remove the block for now, pending discussion at the administrator's noticeboard. Kaldari 21:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Kaldari, what you have done, while you knew the issue is pending, was not right. In your edit here you presented me as only editing wikipedia to Push a POV - this is far from the truth as I am here to improve the project.

Further more, since you had an exchange few month ago in which the argument was about the fact that I never got blocked for a violation of my probation article ban the speed in which you jumped to block me, your description of my edit as 5 (although you know very well there were only 2) and the story you presented (that I edited after my comments on talk were rejected) - where did you got that ? If these are facts - Please check the history log, look at time stemps and issue a correction to facts where appropriate and too my good faith as editor wehre appropriate. Thank You. Zeq 21:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am deeply insolted by being described as POV pusher - what POV exactly am I "pushing" here ? The POV that sais that both sides need to be represnted ? In most of my dealing in wikipedia I accept one POV and just try to present the 2nd one when others are pushing it out. This is not pushing POV this is working toward NPOV. please apply WP:AGF. And I have a better Idea - come edit tough and controversial articles and make sure they are NPOV. This is much harder task than issuing blocks in 5 minutes. Zeq 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Smile:)

SJP has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Official ban against editing Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

Hey Zeq, I have been informed that it would be best for me to officially declare the ban against editing Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, rather than relying on it being an obvious extension of the ban against editing Palestinian exodus. As such, I have recorded the ban here. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Kaldari 19:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Copy/paste move

Hi, I've reverted your copy/paste move of Jewish state. I don't have a preference about what name to use, but if you move it, please don't copy/paste since that destroys the history of the article. If you still want to move it, discuss it and establish consensus first. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum 21:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Joe Carr (activist)

that article was deleted via WP:PROD, so the links were removed as well. The guy isn't notable really aside from the one incident so no need to encourage a re-creation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please add your comments to the new thread on the Mufti

If we can whittle the disputes down to specific textual issues, we might make some progress toward removing the POV tag.

--Ravpapa (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You pointed out on my talk page that the tag is not critical. Of course it isn't, but it would be nice if we could reach some agreement on the points of contention. Despite the frequent baring of teeth on the talk page, we don't seem too far apart on the substance of the issues.

(How sad and appropriate that there should be so much rancor on the Mufti's talk page - I'm sure the Mufti himself would be pleased. Reaching an agreement on the Mufti's biography would be a real blow to his whole ideology.) --Ravpapa (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Please post your responses on your talk page instead of mine. That way we will have it all in one place.

You wrote to me:

his role as a leader. his innovations in religion. his participation in Nazi plans - all these are missing now. Just look at the sources I have listed on the now archived talk page.

His role as a leader: do you mean it is missing from the lead, or from the article? What, specifically, do you think is missing or underemphasized?

Innovations in religion: I am guessing that you are referring to the thread about his overall lack of religion, the fact that he supported the bombing of Jerusalem, etc.

Participation in Nazi plans: There is quite a bit of stuff on this, though it is not included in the lead - is that what you are referring to? Also, there is no citation of the testimony from the Eichmann trial - is that also an issue?

I would add to your list: there is no mention of the Mufti's brutal suppression of Palestinian opposition to his leadership during the 1930's, the assassinations and so forth.

I think that if there is a clear statement of the differences, we will at least know where we stand, and maybe we can make some progress. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Dear Zeq, at this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven, no hell. There is only the natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that harden hearts and enslaves minds.

Kirbytime sen't me this a year ago, and I liked it, so Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, Happy Hanukkah, or whatever else you celebrate, and see you next year. Yahel Guhan 00:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Input with Saudi Arabian Jewish history

Hi Zeq, hope all goes well. Maybe you can help improve the History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia article. It links to smaller articles about Jewish tribes in the areas of present-day Saudi Arabia, such as Banu Awf, Banu Harith, Banu Jusham, Banu Najjar, Banu Sa'ida, Banu Shutayba and they all cited sources. Now User:Bless sins is requesting "sources" for the same information about the tribes in the History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia article, as well as making other requests for sources and whatnot. (If you like, and have a minute or two, see the discussions that have been taking place at Category talk:Jewish Saudi Arabian history.) Please help out in the History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia article. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for your note, I'll take a look. Jayjg 03:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please use the talk page

At Palestinian right of return, I took the trouble to explain the changes I made. I'd appreciate it if you would take the trouble to respond, before you make edits to the mainspace. Thanks. Tiamut 17:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I share her mind. Ceedjee (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect 'Haifa Declaration'

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on 'Haifa Declaration', by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because 'Haifa Declaration' is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting 'Haifa Declaration', please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

right of return

Hi,
I have reverted you. If you don't agree with the content, discuss first and suggest, like Tiamut does.
Ceedjee (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, I have asked that administrators examine your conduct on that page, in accordance with your arbitration ruling on article probation. <eleland/talkedits> 16:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

replying

Greetings, Zeq. You wrote, "Can you e-mail me?" I prefer to make contact here. How may I help you? Hertz1888 (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Rafael Medoff

A tag has been placed on Rafael Medoff requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. —BoL 05:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please focus on content, not editor's motivations

Dear Zeq,

For some time now at the Palestinian right of return article, your responses to my edits and comments there have tended to focus not on content itself, but on my alleged POV editing or failure to understand NPOV. I addressed you regarding this on the talk page, in this comment. Subsequently, you made this comment where you accuse me of having an "emotional reaction". I would appreciate it deeply if in the future, you could refrain from speculating as to motivations and focus on the content itself. It would greatly facilitate the reaching of a compromise formulation there, if that indeed were the case. Thanks for your patience and understanding in advance. Tiamut 15:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Zeq,

"but I can't take this point seriously at all" does not mean "I can't take you seriously at all". I'm sorry if you interpreted the comment that way and I'll try to be more sensitive in the future. All I was trying to convey was that I didn't find the objection you raised to that information's inclusion to be based in any relevant policy. I was not emotional at the time, that's your bad faith assumption regarding my comment. Can you please concede that, pledge to change your commentary to respect the concerns I've raised, and then, can we move on? Thanks. Tiamut 17:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Zeq. Yes, I hurt my elbow quite badly after falling on the stairs in my house. It's a bit better now. Thanks for the good wishes. Tiamut 17:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

1948 Palestine war

Yes, it's a POVFORK that will have to be cleaned up at some point, but I don't have the time right now. Jayjg 16:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for warning me, Zeq.

This is not a pov-fork for the many reasons given.

If the issue is discussed quietly, it will not create any problem.

Ceedjee (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Palestinian people

Please don't put editors' names in sub-headings on the page. According to WP:Talk, you should, "Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed." Thanks. Tiamut 10:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

note

May I suggest...?

Look into using the <ref></ref> style of tags when adding and citing sources, if you could. It is a little more complex then a simple external link, but it looks better and makes it easier for the reader to follow the sources. Easiest thing to do is just copy the syntax of another source already in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs) 18:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian POV pushing

Recently, a new User Coda Stage (talk · contribs) created a number of controversial articles and categories that are profoundly POV. Some attention and input, as well as some discussion, would be welcome regarding: Zionist hunter (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zionist hunter); Category:The Nakba (deletion discussion); Category:Israeli war crimes (deletion discussion); and his creation of Daniel Machover and contributions to Doron Almog; Sabra and Shatila massacre‎ and Qibya massacre‎. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OR

You claim that Karsh says that the factual part of Morris work is false. Could you tell me where ? (book, page).
If so, there is no problem to remove that sentence and even some part of the contents should be changed. But else, that has to stay that way.
Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Zeq,

Karsh attacked Morris and the new historians on many things. Concerning the weight given (but not by Morris !) to the transfer idea, to the role they give to Ben Gurion and the Haganah high commanders, to the responsibility of Arab leaders in the flight but not the events (at least, as far as I know).

Do you mean that the sentence I wrote could make believe that nobody denies Morris's work ? That is not what was written.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well... Give a page number. Ceedjee (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Look at the last 2 words of the first line :

These are : book and page.

Kisses,

Ceedjee (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Since you have been editing Allegations of Israeli apartheid in violation of your ArbCom decision, I've reported you to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Zeq. <eleland/talkedits> 14:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a word to say that I regret any longstanding effect my long ago ban may have had on your freedom to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. Please do quote this apology if you are ever confronted with that ban or any of its immediate consequences. You should not be judged by your behavior in the environment that pertained on Misplaced Pages two years ago, nor by the judgement of its administrators at that time. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The (Tony Sidaway) 20:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

As a result of the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to Israel, Palestine, and related conflicts. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.

GRBerry 15:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did to Allegations of Israeli apartheid, you will be blocked from editing. Come on, you know that edit was disruptive and out of place RolandR (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your note

I wouldn't call it vandalism, but you would need to write it differently and use in-text attribution. Otherwise, it's unlikely to stick. SlimVirgin 08:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No thanks

I decline your kind offer of "the opportunity to rewrite" a piece of text which in my opinion has no place in the lead, if at all. RolandR (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

3rd time's a charm? ref tags and in-line citations

They really aren't that hard to do. Instead of doing this;

do this;

<ref></ref>

There's a lot of field and such that can go in ref tags, but that is the bare minimum, and it looks a lot better than using just the regular link field. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Herzl

It's the usual violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Khalidi claims this about Herzl, so, of course, Khalidi's claim is presented as fact. WP:NPOV demands that it should all be prefaced by "According to Whalid Khalidi...". More importantly, the relevance of some alleged musing of Herzl's 50 years before the creation of Israel is, at best, a footnote on this topic, but WP:UNDUE has been entirely ignored. Jayjg 00:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

4 waves

• The division to "waves" is only a POV. it is bias to present the facts based on these "waves" Zeq

Indeed. I am quite sure Efraim Karsh doesn't agree with this categorisation in 4 waves in "fabricating Israeli history". I think you have the book (I don't have this) : just quote him in the talk page and therefore WP:NPOV will require something is done. Ceedjee (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI

• a documentary
• a website
• There is also a book from this guy : Moise Rahmani but in French. Sorry for that. Ceedjee (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your thanks.

I will make an article on wp:fr concerning this very important topic !

Here, it is not possible ;-)

Ceedjee (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: your edit at Ouze Merham

I reverted your change to the top paragraph. I don't think there's consensus for that, and I don't think we have strong enough sourcing to make a bald statement like that, but we could talk about it at that article's talk page. It seems to me the AfD is so contentious that it will likely get reviewed at DRV, no matter what the closing admin decides. Your change to the top paragraph would make the whole thing more complicated, and it's entirely possible there won't be an article much longer. Why not wait until we know we have an article before making a change like that that's going to need more discussion? Cheers, Noroton (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Susan Sowerby (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Susan Sowerby

Christians in Gaza

Zeq: As you correctly surmised, I am fairly new to as an editor and indeed am trying to get used to the various conventions, biases, etc. Specific suggestions re: wording are welcome. As far as my source material, I was careful not to use Israeli media as I assumed those would be trashed; any suggestions otherwise? ( I have looked around the internet and other media sources; obviously, in a situation where an oppressed population isn't free to speak, nobody can do a comprehensive survey of their status so one has to rely on reports of incidents as an indirect gauge....).Drmikeh49 (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please use talk page

Instead of leaving comments on my talk page. I explained why that edit was inappropriate here. If you want to make the case for its inclusion, either in the intro of the body, the place to do that is at the talk page for that article, and not on my talk page. Thanks. Tiamut 12:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Zeq is caught trying to game the system

This comes from Electronic Intifada. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9474.shtml

"A veteran Misplaced Pages editor, known as "Zeq," who according to the emails is colluding with CAMERA, also provided advice to CAMERA volunteers on how they could disguise their agenda. In a 20 March email often in misspelled English, Zeq writes, "You don't want to be precived as a 'CAMERA' defender' on wikipedia that is for sure." One strategy to avoid that is to "edit articles at random, make friends not enemies -- we will need them later on. This is a marathon not a sprint."

"Zeq also identifies, in a 25 March email, another Misplaced Pages editor, "Jayjg," whom he views as an effective and independent pro-Israel advocate. Zeq instructs CAMERA operatives to work with and learn from Jayjg, but not to reveal the existence of their group even to him fearing "it would place him in a bind" since "e is very loyal to the wikipedia system" and might object to CAMERA's underhanded tactics." --Bangpound (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any proof that this group exists in wikipedia ? If there is I would like to know about it as I have not seen any action that fit any of EI claims here in wikipedia. zero zilch nada. bring me diffs and bring me realiable sources. Zeq (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

so it's not you named in those documents? those documents are false/fake - it's someone with a similar name? --87.112.70.168 (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Some simple yes/no answer questions;

1)Are you a member of the Isra-pedia google group?

2)Have you ever used the email address zeqzeq2@yahoo.com?

The only answers i'll except are yes or no. 17:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a disgusting behavior by a senior editor of Misplaced Pages like Zeq stooping so low. All the emails sent between CAMERA and Zeq are available for anyone to read. http://electronicintifada.net/downloads/pdf/080421-camera-wikipedia.pdf

This is nothing byt moral bankrupcy on part of Zeq and his accomplices in trying to destroy the truth and credibility of Misplaced Pages by manipulating the system against fairness and truth. Very disgusting indeed. --Gauharjk (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know you've been asked this question at AN/I, here's the link

Zeq, you've been asked at the Administrator's noticeboard/ Incidents page whether you have anything to do with the CAMERA group's canvassing campaign. Plese respond there. Link: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WikiLobbying campaign organized offsite by ethnic pressure group. You can scroll down to the "Question for Zeq" subsection. User:Lawrence Cohen's question is at timestamp 17:35, 21 April 2008. If you answer the question, you would help the discussion move along. If you are not involved with that group's Misplaced Pages efforts, it would help your fellow Wikipedians to know that. Thanks. Noroton (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice of block and topic ban

In the light of the evidence that has been presented at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign, the ban proposal by Future Perfect at Sunrise, the views of a number of uninvolved administrators, your previous record (cf. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zeq and the Log of blocks and bans on that page) and your persistent refusal to answer the question of whether you wrote the e-mails cited by ElectronicIntifada.net, you are banned with immediate effect from all articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict (broadly interpreted as per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles). This ban shall take effect for a period of one year. You are also blocked for one week for serious breaches of Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppetry, exacerbated by your uncooperative attitude in refusing to confirm or deny whether you wrote the cited e-mails.

If you breach this ban by making edits in that area, you will be blocked for longer periods of time. You may still freely edit in other topic areas, but you are strongly advised to cease any off-wiki efforts to recruit other editors to act in your place or to support your point of view. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the block was extended to one year, and the topic ban to indefinite. Shouldn't the topic ban be mentioned in the box at the top of the user page and the talk page, as well as the block? -Pete (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, I am sorry to hear that this has happened to you. I can certainly understand the arguments of those who have fought for this, but I think you are a hardworking, honest editor who doesn't deserve this. I am sorry that wikipedia has let you down. Screen stalker (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI - arbitration on Israeli Wiki Lobbying

I have filed an arbitration request in regards to the Israeli Wiki Lobbying and attacks uncovered: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Israeli Wiki Lobbying. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)