User talk:Humus sapiens/archive10

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Humus sapiens. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Re: Amiep. I am well aware of the dialogue. I just mentioned that the caller of names is at fault, not the callee. That applies to anyone, and the point won't be lost on Amiep either. The problem is that everyone on the receiving end of name calling gets hurt, which ever side of the discussion they are on. It was not taking anyone's side, just trying to give her some advice. Hope that helps. Thank you. Wallie 21:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Humus, thank you for editing my talk page. You are always welcome, and you are very modest to be sure! Shalom and "good Sabbath" for tomorrow. --Drboisclair 21:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —ERcheck @ 23:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

(copied from the Juan Cole talk page because it is busy there. -ben)

A little historical context. The idea that "the Jews must mend their evil ways, otherwise they encourage antisemitism" is nothing new. In 1950s, they had to stop being "cosmopolitans"; in 1918, according to Volodymyr Vynnychenko, "The pogroms will cease when Jews will cease to be Communists"; earlier they should have accepted or shouldn't have crucified the Savior; or be more patriotic; or not engage in usury, etc. Cole's opinion: today, it is the Likudniks who "are encouraging a new kind of antisemitism". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

While you point to demonstrative examples of very destructive anti-Semitic campaigns in the past, and it is an appropriate reaction to that to be vigilant, I do not believe that they are applicable to Cole's specific criticisms. I believe that you are reading into Cole something that he is not saying -- that is why we disagree on what his terms mean, I believe he is purposely being specific while you believe he is engaging in crypto-anti-Semitism. It is unlikely that you'll be able to prove he is a crypto-anti-Semitic just as it relatively impossible for me to conclusively deny it. Also, Cole is not alone in arguing that some are incorrectly labeled anti-Semitic for engaging in criticism of Israel's policies without any underlying anti-Semitic motivation -- see New_Anti-Semitism#Criticism. It is difficult to tell from the receiving end (i.e. Cole's position) whether the accusers are motivated by malice (are they actually trying to stifle legitimate criticism via cynical claims of anti-Semitism) or are they simply being hypervigilant. You come across as hypervigilant to me, although you can counter-claim that I am not paranoid enough. I do not think in principle hypervigilance is a bad thing, it is actually not a bad strategy to erroneously label some non-anti-Semitic individuals as anti-Semitic from your point of view, the mistakes are just collateral damage and its better to be safe than sorry, especially when the historial cost of mistakes have been so high. --Ben Houston 23:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I just found this essay of Coles on the "Misuse of Anti-Semitism" [1] -- I'll add bits of its to the Criticism section of the New Anti-Semitism article. In that article, Cole shows he is well aware of real anti-Semitism and places his criticism of specific Israeli policies in proper context. --Ben Houston 00:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Humus: Your hunch about the Solomon article/s is correct. Biblical account of King Solomon should be moved and redirected to Solomon which should be about the MAIN character in history, who happens to be the Biblical Solomon. There are other precedents for this, how about Abraham, David, Joseph -- are we going to mess those up as well? Obvioulsy not, and this sets a bad precedent. If people want to have a page that leads to other "Solomons" or to show other uses of the name, then use should be made of a Solomon (disambiguation) page. It is ridiculous that Solomon's fame is presented as stemming from an Islamic POV, when that subject deals with the Koran (how about Solomon in the Qu'ran for that?) So it needs some sorting, and the original Slomon, alone should remain as the only name for the king by that name. This is just another example of how a few people who seem to know nothing about a subject can get together, make a little vote, and create entirely false moves. I don't have enough time to deal with that right now. Best wishes. IZAK 12:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Biblical account of King Solomon#Move me back to Solomon. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Humus: Please see and vote at

1. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 23#Category:Haredi rabbis
2. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 23#Category:Religious Zionist Orthodox rabbis
3. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 23#Category:Contemporary Orthodox rabbis
4. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 24#Category:Modern Orthodox rabbis

Thank you and Shabbat Shalom! IZAK 12:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's my poor command of the English language, but I have no idea what this fellow is on about: [2]. Any thoughts? --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Now I am beginning to feel you're just reverting my edits for the sake of doing so. Your last reversion of my edits don't really make sense. I changed the sentance which had exactly the same meaning but I removed the insinuated POV. If someone "claims" to be something then they also "considers themself" to be that something. My phrase was correct but yet you are attempting to make it seem that those phrases have two different denotations. Rather, the connotations of "considers themself" is simply less hostile. --Strothra 00:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The rest of this talk: [3]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

In swedish the war can be refered to as "Jom Kippur-kriget" or "Oktoberkriget", of which the later means "The October War". So, yes, the it's the swedish article about the same war. Best regards! Ahlabonde 11:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Shalom,

Your message was : Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism . It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox.

The definition of Wikipedia vandalism contains : Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.

There are many Jews who believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. Why state that "Jews do not share this belief"? It's like saying that "Jews do not believe that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is the King Messiah". Some do, some do not.

Your change, by reverting edits, to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism can however be considered as vandalism.

Simple logic: you state : "Jews do not share...", I state : "Many jews do have..." Your statement is a very strong statement that includes *all* Jews. My statement includes only *many* jews.

Please look up the word Honesty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.102.33.63 (talk • contribs)

Those who believe in what you are saying are Christians. This is the nature of the schism between the two great religions. To imply that one can "believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah" and still be considered a follower of Judaism is dishonest. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Look up the definition of Jew. Following Judaism is not/has never been/will never be the only definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.102.33.188 (talk • contribs)

What part of "nature of the schism" you don't understand? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What part of "religion != ethnicity" you don't understand? ;-) (To answer your out-of-subject question : Who cares that *you* or *some* people have considered that this "schism" is indeed a schism ? Aren't people allowed to have their own opinion and not rely on others' opinion, even if it is the majority ? But even if we consider this easy "schism" answer : if a group A suffers a schism and ends up with two groups B and C where the only thing differentiating B and C is the question of the schism; Who decides which group (B or C) is the right heir of group A? Noone. And certainly not people centuries (or even a century) later. Perhaps the right heirs of pre-schism Jews are Jews-believing-that-Jesus-is-the-Jewish-Messiah (neither the Christians, nor the Jews-who-believe-that-Jesus-is-not-the-Jewish-Messiah) ?)

See WP:NOR and WP:RS. Oh, and WP:SOAPBOX. Goodbye. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you recently blocked Ahwaz (talk · contribs) for his edits at Anti-Persianism by Arabs. While I agree he broke 3RR (User:Khoikhoi's 3RR report seems accurate), you also accused him of "vandalism", apparently because he removed "sourced material". I'd ask you to reconsider this. The passages he removed did contain sourced statements, but Ahwaz' point in removing them was that they were nevertheless strongly POV and WP:OR - and I do think he had a point there, although I haven't looked too closely into the article. This wasn't vandalims but a legitimate content dispute. I'd appreciate it if you could leave a note to him explaining your stance. Also, please be aware of the history. Ahwaz is (again) opposing a group of editors who have a long history of POV-pushing and edit-warring in concert, and several of them were recently placed under Arbcom probation for just that (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman). I haven't counted their reverts, but I guess Ahwaz' allegations that ManiF and Zereshk have also been edit-warring may deserve to be taken seriously. Thanks - Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the 3RR report wasn't accurate. The reported 4th RR is a revision. Please look at the 3RR page and see the proof. Zora 00:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

My reply is at WP:ANI/3RR#User:Ahwaz reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 24hr). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Я удаляю спам и рекламу, а также ссылки на сайты с порнографическим контентом. Предупреждения не правмомерны. Выучите правила наизусть. Спасибо. gooverup 12:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

A user reverted the article back to the way it was during the AfD and I reverted his revert because I felt that the edits which had been made since then were entirely appropriate and improved the article substantially. I think his reason for reverting may have been to remove most of my edits. The user added nothing to the article. Could you take a look at the article and see if my reversion was justified? I felt it was but I'd like a second opinion. I removed the bombing of Aushwitz article because I feel it needs a complete rewrite. I don't feel like getting into an edit war. --Strothra 17:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Your last edit to Jerusalem states that "...all countries except Greece, the United Kingdom and the United States maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv..." As far as I know, there are two embassies in Jerusalem, and another two in Mevasseret Tzion, but not of the aforementioned countries. While they maintain consulates, I believe that their actual embassies are in Tel Aviv (despite the US law which highlights American practical acceptance of Jerusalem). Could you explain your statement? Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 02:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Tewfik^Talk 02:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, you added your pov label while I was writing a criticism section. Homey 03:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the Israeli apartheid and Apartheid wall articles do exist. How can you justify not including them in Apartheid (disambiguation). If you don't stop vandalizing the article I will be forced to take action against you. Homey 06:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, who loves ya?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you help me here [4]. Please review the recent edit history of the article. I did not think that using BCE and CE would be offensive to Christians, and the fact is the article has used these twerms for years. Moreove, I didn't think identifying the article as relevant to Jewish articles would be offensive to Christians. I appreciate your help, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Humus: Please encourage new User:Jewish to change his user name, see User talk:Jewish#Problem with your user name. Thank you. IZAK 16:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Humus, Thanks so much for welcoming me to wikipedia! I have noticed some controversy appearing over at the descriptive article for The Hunger Project There are currently a group of wikipedia users who wish to provide a bit more of the negatively biased information in the article, and one sole user keeps deleting said NPOV information ( Jcoonrod). If you have a chance, take a look at this controversy, it's starting to get heated over there, though I've kept trying to edit the article to show both sides. I don't mind all the positive glowing stuff at the top, but there should be links in the "See Also" section, and in the "External Links" section, and the "Origins and Controversy" section, to The Hunger Project's problems with publicity and links to Erhard Seminars Training, Werner Erhard, Rick Ross, Carol Giambalvo, Oxfam International and the like. Yours,

Smeelgova 18:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Humus: Vigorous editing and debate is taking place at Israeli apartheid (phrase). Please take a look at it and add your comments. Thanks a lot. IZAK 20:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Humus, as we can see on the talk page of "Cultural and Historical Background of Jesus that you were before me in suggesting that BCE/CE could be considered either "Common" or "Christian"! You beat me to this epiphany, but I must confess that I did not read your post. You get the credit, though. Shalom lecha--Drboisclair 20:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

umm, I have been a regular contributor to Wikipedia, why was I blocked without warning ? is my ban lifted and can I delete that from my talk page now ? Epf 00:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

also, why was not the user I was debating with also blocked ? I think this is truly unfair, especially considering I am also discussing the problem at the same time I was editing the article if you would take the time to notice. Epf 00:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• thank you for clarifying the matter, ciao. Epf 01:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand why a sockpuppet blocked me ? Zeq 85.65.56.28 09:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

finally some common sense. Zeq 11:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I still have not had an explanation regarding your block stating that I vandalised a page, when in fact the case was raised in relation to a 3RR violation - are you saying that 3RR and vandalism are the same thing? I do not believe that I vandalised anything. One of the reverts was on a different part of the article anyway. I have left a message on my talk page and on the admin page, but you haven't replied, so I am writing here.--الأهواز 21:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just adding something to the talk page before you nailed me. I clearly stated to check the talk page, and you reverted within 6 minutes. Maybe the Wikipedia watch dogs should get a vacation. I'm reverting your revert. 85.65.11.77 23:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#Hi_Tony Zeq 05:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not an "anti-semetic" iten as per IZAK. This term is used commonly.75.2.106.46 07:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Your vigilance is appreciated.

Am I allowed to restore my own unaltered comments now?Timothy Usher 08:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with his alternative depiction, but strongly prefer as a matter of practice and principle that it be his own, not an altered, partially-blanked version of my own comment. Is that okay?Timothy Usher 09:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There must be some misunderstanding. I don't mean to represent anyone besides myself. He's changed my posts in addition to his own. I am going to restore mine as they appeared before his alterations. That's all.

It's much simpler if people just attempt to rebut what someone else has said, rather than changing it.Timothy Usher 09:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks.Timothy Usher 09:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Er, how do you reconcile these two edit summaries of yours:

"RV anon vandal. Sure it's not neutral, that is why it's used in the first place"

(in other words, you admit the text you are supporting is not neutral)

"Either use NPOV language or have {{pov}} tag - you cannot have it both ways."

(in other words, you are complaining that the text should be neutral, or carry a warning)

The point of NPOV is to use neutral wording, without passing judgement.

And again, the point of disambiguation is to help readers find articles they may be looking for. Helping them find an article you don't approve of is simply not a valid reason to remove it. -- Ec5618 09:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest you read WP:D. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not mean to 'lecture' you, as you put it. I simply meant to ask you to clarify your position. To that end, I asked you a question. And for future reference, you may now assume I have, in fact, read Wikipedia:Disambiguation.

May I, in turn, again point you to Allah (disambiguation), which is as much a disambiguation page as any other page? You'll find the disambiguation guidelines are quite flexible. -- Ec5618 11:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If you maintain that our readers who look for Israel would start with Apartheid (disambiguation), we have nothing to talk about, and no need for you to pretend neutrality. Meanwhile, you broke 3RR. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry? Pretend neutrality? My point of view, in full, is that the disambiguation page should link to related articles. Please don't assume I have any other motives here. While I oppose your stance, I have not given you any reason to assume I oppose any person, any of the worlds religions, nor any of the worlds countries. Please apologise. -- Ec5618 15:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This page onlt creates disruption to wikipedia editor and confusion to readers. Zeq 04:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The same could be said of the article on God. Regardless, the article exists. We were dealing with the content of the page, not its existance. While it exists, it should be useful. And again, linking to a term does not constitute endorsement, as you seem to suggest. Linking to Israeli apartheid does not validate the term, nor endorse it, though it does aid in navigation. -- Ec5618 23:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, and putting Israeli Apaertheid (+ The Apartheid Wall) in one line with the real Apartheid is merely an encyclopedic necessity.--Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 04:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Why must you all see it as offensive? The term 'Israeli apartheid' exists, and there is an artice about it. As long as that is true, it deserves to be linked to. -- Ec5618 09:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not a stable term. It is two words slapped together and used by propagandists and antisemites, ,much like ""dirty Jew" (BTW, 57,700 google hits). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

An article exists. Your personal feeling that it shouldn't is irrelevant, since the article does exists, at this time. While it exists, it should be linked to. You cannot quarantine articles you find offensive. Note, also, that Dirty Jew redirects to Antisemitism, suggesting that term is at least as stable as Israeli apartheid.

And please read my post above. I think you owe me an apology. -- Ec5618 11:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sure a redirect or merge would be an acceptable compromise for many. So far you are a perpetrator of offense and yet you have a nerve to demand an apology. You'll need to earn it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Did I call you a liar, then? -- Ec5618 11:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion leads nowhere. Good bye. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hold on. You just stated that I am "a perpetrator of offense", presumably because I disagree with you, and then manage to snub me for asking for an apology. And now you feel you can choose to ignore what you said, by ending this dialogue? How rude.

I made several points, most of which you have chosen to ignore. Again, why must you see linking to an existing article as offensive? (You must know that you cannot quarantine articles you find offensive) Why must you assume I am biased, simply because I have an opposing point of view to yours? You have stated that I am biased. You said there was "no need for you to pretend neutrality". Please explain yourself, or apologise. -- Ec5618 23:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

it is 23 keep and 40 delete . not good. Zeq 12:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.75.2.106.46 18:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Do you think the informal motto, which is extremely well known, deserves any place in the infobox? I've also seen "If it is your will it won't be a dream" Adambiswanger1 03:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq 04:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please take a moment to consider this madness. What he's been doing is just a way for him to change the section title (which remains accurate as the history of the article makes plain) while not "technically" altering other people's comments.

It's also possible that one of his puppets (e.g. User:Kecik, User:MikaM, among others) will swing by to support it - he knows others play by the rules and treats it as an exploitable weakness.

This is one of the most consistently disruptive users I've come across, and he's evidently learned nothing from last night's block.Timothy Usher 03:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Humus. I got your message. Thanks. However, you have it completely wrong. I don't do what you are suggesting, infact I'm protesting exactly this issue being done to my comments, specifically by Timothy. I have only corrected my own words and comments, not those of others. If I sign my name to something I'd like to reserve the right to alter or fix grammar errors, etc. I now will use the strike feature when making changes to my comments, since I now know how to do that. My objection is that Timothy has have done exactly what you are warning me on my talk page not to do. That is, to remove or change what I wrote, often deleteing my new comments I added to my own comments and thus misrepresents what I said. This is very rude, and uncivil, inkeeping with his other personal attacks against me and other editors. I ask you to please review the facts in this case before accepting Timothy's false characterizations above. Specifcally on the God article you informed Timothy, when he asked, that he could restore to his version (the bad math), but that he should not delete my comments. [5] But that is not what he did. He deleted my comments and restored only his. [6] So, all I did was add a new line back with my correct math, but left his untouched. For this I am supposedly very distruptive? I think not. Giovanni33 09:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are just a couple of examples. There are others but I don't want to waste my time searching for them. As you can see below, he moves my comments around to areas where its not clear what I'm responding to. Timothy removes a response to his false argument on the Hitler talk page, where I corrected him. Then, under the guise of 'tabbing for chonological order" he moves my comments way down, totally out of place, that makes it unclear who I am responding to, lumping it together with another comment I made. In another instance, most recently, he changed additions I made to my own comments, not simply to restor what I removed (which he copied and responded to), but he deleted my own comments adding new information, including a link, proving a point. So, your warning to me should be directed at Timothy, not myself. See:[7] [8] [9] [10]Giovanni33 09:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Gio, you always seem to think that the "right place" for your comments is one which moves other editors' comments down the page, and detaches them from their own original contexts. Thus, you make it impossible for us to preserve the original contexts of both their and your edits. The solution is for you to edit talk pages without altering or moving other editors' comments, or changing the context in which they appeared. Append your comments to the discussion. Don't mess with what's there. Is that so hard?Timothy Usher 09:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Would it be correct to say that now everyone is ready to take the promised quiz on WP:TPG? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind if I jump in here, Humus. Since Giovanni asks you to review the facts and says that he has only corrected his own words and comments, "not those of others" (???!!!), I suggest you have a look at these diffs: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. I had to delete a whole section from my talk page to stop him continuing his irritating edit war.[16] There are other examples as well.

With regard to the diffs Giovanni gives for Timothy, he may be unaware of how indenting is supposed to work. If Editor A makes a post, and Editor B comments, Editor B should put one colon before his comment. If Editor C is commenting on Editor B, he should put two colons in front of his comment. However, if Editor C is commenting on Editor A, he should put one colon in front, and should write his comment underneath Editor B's comment. Giovanni has a habit of coming along later, and adding his comment directly underneath the comment he wants to comment on, even though several editors have already commented, thereby making it look as if he was the first to comment. Timothy did not doctor his posts in any way: he merely moved them to where Giovanni should have placed them. With regard to the diff Giovanni supplies to WP:AN/3RR, Giovanni made a false accusation, Timothy responded, asking for diffs, and then Giovanni simply deleted his accusation, making Timothy's response look slightly idiotic. Timothy simply reverted the whole edit, rather than going to the trouble of restoring the deleted comment and striking it through. Reverting someone's edit is not the same as doctoring it, which is what Giovanni does. AnnH ♫ 10:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33, those diffs look worse than I thought. It seems that you continue violating WP:TPG#Behavior that is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Moreover, I don't see any regret on your side, only combative comments. Let me propose the following in the spirit of WP:AGF: from now on, we should assume that everyone knows the guidelines and WP:RULES, so no more excuses. I think the next violator should be blocked. It is simply unacceptable to doctor comments of others. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I continue to violate WP: TPG? Where?! Sorry but that is simply not true. But, I agree with your other comments, so if Timothy does this one more time I hope that you do block see fit to issue a block.What AnnH says it not entirely true because I did not simply delete my own comment, I explained that I retracted my comment, and I added a new one. Given that Timothy already quoted me, in no sense did I make his comments look "idiotic" as AnnH claims. Again, from now on I will use the strike method to modify my comments, and I hope that Timothy stops delting and moving my comments around to totally different sections that take my respone out of context and makes it confusing to follow. Also, the change I made on Annh's page of Timothy's commen was to change and remove his personal attack "Gio's maddness continues." Calling someone crazy is a personal attack, which AnnH is perfectly happy to allow, and add her own insults and jerring remarks. Again, all this stems from content POV disputs I have with these two editors.Giovanni33 11:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

...about Fixing placement of userboxes on User Page -- but really, no rush! Meanwhile, gut yontif / gut shabbes!  :-D
Deborahjay 06:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And now a response there, to your fix... Deborahjay 09:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29

tally now is about 57/41 57 to delete (or rename) is this enough ? Zeq 08:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Great changes! Thanks! I hope to contribute more since I'm researching this topic currently. Zeevveez 17:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken is now spreading rumors that I have an "enemy list" and that you are included on it.[17] As silly as this sounds, I did not want to allow this lashon hara to damage our relationship. Regards,Doright 07:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you have been havinng various problems with others as you have been editing, moving, and banning others from writing articles with which you disagree - is this helpful to the purpose of Wikipedia, or to the advancement of knowledge being openly put forward and discussed? The banning of information from an open source site like Wikipedia is only OK when the information is offensive, misleading, or unfounded in fact. The act of changing other peoples articles or moving them at your own behest (or at the behest of your cliche) seems as though you have self-premoted yourself to Wikipedia's gate guard, is your real name Peter? I hope to see less conflict through a decrease in your activity of changing and moving others work, especial of those with whom you seem to have but little understanding of their life's work through which they have come up with new information unknown to your self. New work does not need references as such, it either works or it doesn't. If you wish for me to supply you with the full math on how to undo the SoD (hexagram) I'm pleased to be able to forward it to you in the near future - but as for now my publishers have an interest in it being kept underwraps, though I'm sure I can give you the simple stuff from which you can draw your own ramifications. My work will indeed give others problems as it undoes the maths of the 6 and 7 steps of creation, so the meanings contained in Genesis take on a new light - they are then comprehended not to be literal but they work through the correct ordering of SoD to give the Lunar, Solar, and the exact cycle of Precession. Karen Solvig 13:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct in your comments on WP.NPA as no work of a primary nature should be put forward, but research that consists of of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and or secondary source of course is strongly encouraged - especially work that is easily verifiable by an adult without specialist knowledge. I fall down on the fact that I put forward, not a new idea but may be one you hold dear to your heart - I pressed an obviuos button that arises from others comments upon the way you have gone about things, even if you are correct.

If you feel that my work does not fall into one these cats, then you may put it a vote, and the outcome will be accepted, even though I felt that any reasonable adult could verify it without specilist knowledge and its primary source was stated: But indeed you have a point on the research being new, and so Wikipedia is not the place for it. As for your second comment of a personal attack I feel you are without foundation, as this same WP.NOR could be levelled at yourself. Please try and conduct yourself with more kindness and I will do the same. Karen Solvig 16:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a concentrated effort to turn wikipedia into what it clearly wp:not. You have idenified it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apartheid_%28disambiguation%29&curid=5331265&diff=56978127&oldid=56977195

The magnitude in which this is occuring is alarming.

Zeq 10:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this edit - can you add the relavant citation to the article? I'm not really sure which paragraph that citation matches up to now. Raul654 02:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me and others to "65J7." I guess I should feel honoored to have an impersonator. I find it difficult to believe someone would do that, but it doesn't seem very likely that this is a coincidence, the name is too close. So far this person's only edit seems innocuous and reasonable enough, but I can't help feeling that the proverbial "other shoe" is about to drop. Thanks again. 6SJ7 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that, because I just looked at the tag on 65J7's talk page, and it says he/she may be a "sockpuppet or impersonator" of me, and the Category is "Suspected W. sockpuppets of 6SJ7." Since a sockpuppet is one that would have been created by me, it makes it sound like it is at least equally likely that I created this new name, which obviously I did not. Is there a different tag and category that can be used? 6SJ7 17:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I left "65SJ" a little note, I hope it is appropriate. I suppose it may not be considered assuming the best of faith, but it does not assume bad faith, either. Thanks for your help. 6SJ7 19:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not only non-verified but non-neutral too. Hence that tag should remain there at the least. --- Faisal 21:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't touch Dhimmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for a long time. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that. I was welcoming people indiscriminately without seeing if they were vandals first. Cheers. Jpeob 05:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm... that kinda shouldn't have been deleted. I don't remember anyone saying it was in the wrong place, so can you undelete it?--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 19:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

how do you put that little Hy? beside your name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avenged Evanfold (talk • contribs)

thanks. I think you should take a look at WP:SIG, it explans the details. Here's what I have for sig in the preferences: ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну?]]} Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How can we challenge this action? And/or cause someone to experience some consequences for it? Or, at least, try to get the rules changed so that part of the subject of a dispute cannot be wiped out with no discussion? I have read the talk page and the explanations by Homey and I find it difficult to believe that another administrator can hear a complaint, and then summarily wipe out an article that is obviously the subject of a dispute, and already has a merge tag pointing to it from another article. (I checked the deletion log [19] showing it was deleted at 03:01 June 7 and the edits for Apartheid outside South Africa, showing the tag was there at the time of deletion and several hours before that. I can't check the edit history for the deleted article to see if IT had a tag at that time. (Or can I?) But the point is, when there is a dispute going on, how can an administrator just delete an article involved in the dispute, on one person's say-so? 6SJ7 00:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am more concerned on a substantive basis, that we have a mediation going on on one page, and an AfD on another, and there is no coordination between the two. I do not expect the mediator to take on the Herculean task of resolving the whole thing all by herself, but what sense does it make to have so much effort go into resolving the content of "Israeli apartheid (epithet)" when the better course would be to merge it somewhere else? Does a merge even get voted on? I see no procedure for resolving a merge request. Thanks for your help. 6SJ7 01:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As you could see, I added some refernces. Adam Keller 18:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)