User talk:Heptor/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome, and good link

Hi Heptor!: Though we have been arguing, I see that no one has welcomed you to WIkipedia yet, so I will now. So, Welcome! Someone less lazy than me can put up a box of helpful links here. Good link you put up at the 48 war page, I'm reading it now; the 48 war page should use stuff from it. Hope you read my comments at the AI page. I agree that there should be something that should be in the place of "fought to destroy" similar to earlier versions, but I've just been trying to find something well-source that would fit both your and Brian's objections, have ironclad indisputable sourcing and merge well into the article - I think my latest try is good. Again, hope you have a good time here, and keep up the good work. John Z 16:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't want to loose it, so I added it to Wiki instead of favs :-) I think your last version is good one in the respect that it tells what happened: Arab coalition's intention was indeed to establish one state in Palestine. This plan would naturally involve removing Israel, and this should be written more clearly. I start to believe that we agree on the factual matter. How about 'The Arab states proclaimed their aim to remove the Israeli state and create a "United State of Palestine"'? BTW, what is the AI page?--Heptor 22:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Amusing about the link - me too, partly I write on Wikipedia for myself so I don't forget stuff later or have it lost in my bookmarks. Like I said, I am lazy, so I only wrote AI page instead of Arab-Israeli conflict. I wrote it that clumsy way because I wanted to stay close enough to the diplomatese in the cablegram, and not put words in their mouth. I am putting it up at Wikisource and will put in a link, look for it in a day or two. It's written in a very wordy way, and most of it is their view of the history of the conflict. They don't say "remove the Israeli state" or anything exactly similar, but very obviously imply it; the link I gave has much, but not all of the relevant parts. Maybe you, me and Brian should look at it once its done and we can agree on wording.John Z 14:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. BTW, sorry I reverted your edits in the beginning. The revert was targeted at Brian and his edits. The entire set of edits made article hostile to Israel, underplaying the fact that Israel was forced into this war out of self-defence. I actually agree with Brian that "invaded Palestine" sounds silly. First, because them entering the region was not the cause of war by itself, then because Jordan itself was located on what was the British mandate of Palestine (map). Should be "entered Palestine to destroy the [new-born, newly-created, nascent] Jewish state". --Heptor 17:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia

I see you are a fairly new editor, and seem knowledgeable about the situation in Israel; I thought you might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Territories under Israeli control. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Warning! Watch out for the 3 revert rule!

Re the Mufti quote. Kriegman 16:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt

Since you stated in your vote that user Radiant's opinons matters highly to you, and in case you are not monitoring the vote as closely as I am (being the nomiantor at all), I thought I'd let you know that Radiant has changed his vote to neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to review the new comments. Would you consider removing the # symbol from your vote, so it wouldn't affect the numbering (and thus counting)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Somebody already considered that for me :) --Heptor 21:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibu tt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

1948 War

What do you think of Ian's recent addition to the Great uprising section. As always Ian has adaquately sourced all the controversial passages he has included. However, I still feel that much of it is inappropriate, I understand that it is reflecting the arab point of view but still referring to the war as "The Catastrophe" is ridiculous? What do you think about all this?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually I consider the entire page a case of selective anti-Israeli propaganda. It is dominated by one-sided sourcing and wording. I believe an appropriate action will be to put up an extensive POV-because tag, with an adequate explanation on the talk page. Please see my draft. This is just a draft, feel free to expand and improve. I would like to know what other people feel about adding such tag before editing it further.

--Heptor 22:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

When I think over it, one could present the case to the arbitration comitee. It would be also possible to present Zero's abuse of his adminitration priviliges under WP:PPol#How, point 2, and repeated violations of Wikipedia:Civility. Anyway, I believe there should be a POV tag as well.

--Heptor 00:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

take a look at the Palestinian exodus page. I am amzed that a person that edits with such lack of civility (like Zero) is an admin. Zeq 16:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Unfortunatly I have to be away from Wikipedia for a while. I reviewed the discussion on Palestinian exodus. Just the same pattern repeating itself: Ian and Zero do extensive research materials unfavourable to Israel, add this information to Wikipedia and then prevent everyone else from adding more neutral sources or modifying the wording of the article.

As they clearly devote an enormous amount of effort to that end, it is will be hard to follow up on them. Still, at the least, those article should have an extensive POV-because tag. I hope you will review my draft intended for the 1948 Arab-Israeli war article. --Heptor 00:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I signed on your draft. Please look at this revert [1] best, Zeq 14:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Question: Why do you refer to Ian Pitchford as Ian Aidens? Do you know something I don't know? Who is Ian Aidens? Kriegman 20:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Did I do that? Where? If I did, it was by mistake of course. I usually write only "Ian" for brevity. And who is Ian Aidens? Do you mean Aiden Cathasaigh? He hasn't been on Wiki for a while... --Heptor 23:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Please review

Talk:Palestinian_exodus#Reply_to_Doron Zeq 10:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Aknowledged. But, I have to be away from Wikipedia for a while, so I may not be able to help with the editing. --Heptor 23:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Jewish Settlement Police

Hey Heptor, Ian Pitchford has pretty much edited to this article into a piece of propaganda, he has methodically taken the obviously wrong passages from the 1948 war article and placed it in this new article. It is a fact that Wingate couldn't really be classified as a "christian Zionist" the way that Ian insists, also he basically makes the group sound like evil men who terrify arabs for no reason. Anyways, I could really use your support edited the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

About article-related discussions

Ian, PLEASE stop placing article-related discussions on my talk page. Firstly, such discussions may become both lengthy and hot-tempered, and I want neither on may talk page. Secondly, any user who reads the article may be interested in the discusson, and he should not have to go to my talk page. --Heptor 21:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I now removed those discussions from my talk page. --Heptor 15:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletions

Heptor, please stop editing your talk page to make it seem that I am not answering the points you have raised, e.g. [2]. You have reverted this page again [3], although I have explained clearly that this could be regarded as simple vandalism. It certainly doesn't improve the article in any way. --Ian Pitchford 22:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Would you please consider reading the section above, as well as my responses to every of the deleted contributions (which were on the page for about a day until I removed them along with the contribution in question)? --Heptor 00:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputed Edits

Heptor, your edits to 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Jewish Settlement Police consist entirely of deleting good content supported by references and replacing it with your own views and/or content (in my view extemely controversial content) that is not supported by references. I am asking you one final time to abide by Wikipedia policies WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. If you revert these articles again I will refer the matter to the Arbitration Committee. --Ian Pitchford 09:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ian, none of my, Kriegman's or Zeq's recent edits violate any of the Wikipedia policies you mention. Feel free to submit the matter to the Arbitration Committee. --Heptor 10:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation

No, I didn't notice the violation at the time. Ian hasn't contributed in almost a day, was he blocked for this? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to my best knowledge, don't you have access to check what users are blocked? In any case, I don't think it is necessary to actually block him, but he needs to be told that this was indeed a violation, and that he should not do it again. Also, for the sake of fairness, the protected version should not be the one he put up by violating the 3RR. --Heptor 18:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I've looked at it, and yes, it seems he violated 3RR. I'll let him know, but a block doesn't seem necessary with the protection of the page. I'll let him know.--Sean|Bla ck 02:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm not allowed to do that. Wikipedia:Protected page says "Do not edit a protected page except to add a protected page notice." If you want an outsider to help mediate the dispute, I'm available, however.--Sean|Bla ck 03:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ianbrown's RfA

Thanks for voting in my recent RfA. I was overwhelmed at the turnout and comments received.

Ian ≡ talk 07:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Response

Hi - sorry, I hadn't seen the response on Zeq's page. I've responded on my talk page. Thanks. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

1948 Arab-Israeli War

Further to your comments on the talk page indicating that you do not accept responsibility to cite credible sources I have asked the Arbitration Committee to make a ruling. --Ian Pitchford 19:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Political test

Something wrong with this test: http://www.politicalcompass.org/

It gave me Economic Left/Right: -2.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.67

I should have been much much closer to Tony Blair. I think the test is clearly biased towards the left. I mean, that I agree that "A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system." and that "All authority should be questioned" doesn't mean I am a commie. Uff -- Heptor _talk 02:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Multi-colored text

I hope your hilarious textual illustration ends that long discussion. Maybe I'll learn to say so much in so few words. BTW, are you aware of Portal:Israel and WP:WNBI? Consider yourself invited. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 04:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It didn't :(

Thank you for the invitation, I'll put the board on my watch list -- Heptor _talk 19:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Have a great year ! Zeq 16:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

War of 1948

Hello Heptor. I went on working on the article but everydoby seems to have disappeared. Your comments are welcome :) Alithien 11:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Again. I tried to take your remarks into account for a 3rd version. I also add some information and changed the tense. What is your mind about it ?

About the other problem with ArbCom. They don't seem to be interested. What will happen then ?

I don't find any reference of Jews that would have thought they would fear a genocidar war. Do you have some ?

Thanks a lot :) Alithien 20:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

1948 Arab-Israeli War

Heptor I've taken out this statement you added under "First phase: November 29, 1947 - April 1, 1948": "Right after the UN partition plan was approved, joint Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese and Iraqi troops invaded Palestine, which Israel, the United States, the Soviet Union, and UN Secretary-General Trygve Lie called illegal aggression" as the whole of it is false. I'm sure you are aware of this. --Ian Pitchford 16:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well-mannered as usual? Obviously I was not aware of this, otherwise I would not have readded the sentence. -- Heptor _talk 10:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

My statement on the RFAr

Hi - I think I more or less understand. My main concern which I tried to express is that, as opposed to a fictional character, this specific situation is used to propagate a what may end up being a falsehood for rather unpleasant reasons: assigning blame to a conflict. If a statement assigned praise to a hero, then I wouldn't have as strong an opinion because the end result is that a statement of praise would at best promote goodness and at worst not do anything. But in this case, the statement at best promotes doubt and at worst justifies assigning blame in a conflict, which in my personal POV I'd want to see less of in Wikipedia. Therefore, I've shied away from commenting on this topic too much because I do see both sides; I think what I wrote in the second half comment #1 on the RFAr pretty much reflects what you wrote to me on my talk page, namely that the authenticity of this quote may be irrelevant because too many people believed it regardless. However, the other side maintains that keeping this statement would just make Wikipedia into yet another medium that propagates the same old myth. Therefore, the most neutral way to present this depends on verifying authenticity of the source much more than an average WP entry would, which is where the Arb committee ruling comes in. Once they rule, we would accept that ruling as binding, which would make choosing the best language to present this detail less controversial. Keep in mind that I also am skeptical of the relevance of this quotation to an article about a period where the utterer had for the most part diminished in significance, but that's a separate story. I haven't forgotten about the other discussion we had, I've been swamped with work lately and, when on WP, been occupied with some discussion over the barrier article. You had asked "What do you think about this solution? Green line, compensation to the rest of the refugees, Pal. government counters terrorism, naturally no checkpoints or other military intervention from Israelis, Palestinians allowed to work in Israel et al?". This is actually the solution that the Oslo accords where based on, but became interpreted differently by each side (and by different governments within Israel itself). First there were talks that resulted in these accords, then there were talks to negotiate the implementation of these accords, followed by talks to discuss methods to implement the 'implementation agreements' , and so on. It became comedic. So to answer your question, yes that is a suitable solution (and one that we aim for, this talk about 'right of return' is more of principle than of actual physical settlement; i.e. acknowledgment of responsibility by Israel more than anything else). But it won't work right now for 2 reasons: 1- Too many Israeli settlers interspersed among Palestinian communities to make any separation feasible (remember, even with this wall going up, there are still settlers and soldiers on both sides of it), and 2- economy, which is absolutely key. In order to reverse decades of humiliation and desperation (which breeds radicalism), the Palestinian economy must rise way above any of the neighboring Arab countries (which isn't that much anyway, plus we would need to 'disengage' from them as much as possible because until they turn democratic as well) and almost parallel that of Israel itself (ultimately) in order to erase any actual 'dependancy' which would still be seen as 'control' by Israel. Current Israeli policies make that impossible, since they control import, export, as well as travel of merchandise within Palestine, access to farmland, etc. So these conditions have to be ameliorated first. Just my thoughts... Back to my manuscript, big deadline coming up (sigh). Ramallite ^(talk) 20:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I was very occupied due to my work and had to abandon wiki some times. Could you explain me what's happening and what we are assumed to do ? Thanks Alithien 21:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Heptor. But why nobody intervenes ? Alithien 09:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I don't know if this is the right place but I think this is a good start toward the right solution [4]. I leave you inform appropriate people if useful. Alithien 10:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

scholar source

Hello Heptor.

Here is a scholar source [5] but I don't want to use this in the article but I think this could help you to defend you in front of the ArbCom. Good Luck Alithien 07:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Good sources

Regarding your comment on the proposed fining of fact in the workshop nr 6 (deletion of the quotation by Ian Pitchford).Could you please elaborate a little what you consider "good sources" on the israeli-arab conflict? How do you personally decide what sources are good?

Personally I think that primary sources, publications by acknowledged academics, articles in respected newspapers or books by known authors that can not be reasonably dismissed as dishonest can be trusted as sources. Possibly except primary sources not published in a credible publication. What do you think about such definition?

-- Heptor _talk 13:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What we are discussing is the use of a more or less credible primary source which has been published (numerous times) in less then credible secondary sources. So we can't be that sure he ever said the exact words everyone wants to quote. Fred Bauder 14:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This book includes following: "The Grand Mufti's connections with the Nazis during the war were not secret; he had hoped they would help him in the implementation of some final solution in the Near East". Zvi Elpeleg writes approximatly the same. But it does seem that they both avoid using any exact quotations.

They had the same problem we have verifying any particular exact words, but his role as a Nazi collaborator and anti-Semite is not at issue. Fred Bauder 16:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, you present the case in an entirely different manner from Zero an Ian Pitchford, who dismissed Pearlman as a liar, called Kriegman a vandal Talk:1948_Arab-Israeli_War/Archive_2 (page search for vandal) " et cetera. I actually do understand the problem the way you put it.

I believe the most honest at this point would be to add a footnote that certain claims has been made, that they seem to track back to Pearlman's book and at present time there are no sources on Wikipedia that confirm or deny that he said that (probably needs better wording). What do you think? -- Heptor _talk 15:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Article to be published

Hello, here is an article I will publish soon. [6].

Could you please check this, grammar, orthograph, relevances and add notes or references or other quotes if needed ?

Thank you Alithien 11:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Reviewed; checked; thank you. -- Heptor _talk 15:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Done and referred in the article about Haj Amin al-Hussein [[7]] Alithien 18:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

and a vote to keep it is welcome :-))) [8] Alithien 21:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq

This arbitration case has closed. Zeq is banned from articles he has disrupted and placed on Probation. Zeq and Heptor are cautioned regarding sources. Zeq is cautioned regarding removal of well sourced information. Others are cautioned to use the procedures in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Where applicable, these remedies are to be enforced by block. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:CI Hagen2271.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CI Hagen2271.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 08:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Machsom Watch, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

American Israel Public Affairs Committee

Hey Heptor, I thought you might like to know of this page. I feel in its current form it is almost entirely devoted to criticism of the organization. Much of the criticism is written in a very underhanded and shrewd method, for example, in its short "Supporters" section here is a quote by a congressman: "AIPAC plays valuable roles in expanding the pro-Israel communities in the United States, and in putting them in touch with those who influence the direction of American foreign policy". This excerpt fits in with what appears to be the writer's goal of showing that the group has undue influence and is basically a way for Israel to gain control of America's Mid East foreign Policy by proxy. Despite all of this the page's common editors are determined to bully any new editor who has the audacity to "censor" their work.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, don't have time :( -- Heptor _talk 00:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks anyways, do you think you might be able to spread the message along though?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

reverting practices

Thank you for the congratulations on this memorable day. Indeed, the choice of your version was deliberate. Palmiro | Talk 23:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Eli Cohen article

Hi Heptor, Yesterday you made three edits to Eli Cohen. I do not see any new information added. In fact, the only change in the article appears to be that it is now 'very' jumbled. Is there are solid reason that your edits should stand, or is okay if I fix the article? thanks, --Stoopideggs2 19:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys! Just lurking around. Have you tried comparing the "before" and "after" versions? Here is what you would get. Seems pretty informative and orderly to me. --Chodorkovskiy 21:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Good formula analogy

I just wanted to say that I found your analogous formulation of "theories and professors" in the discussion of the Israeli Settlement article to be innovative and relational. I think that together we tweaked it quite well, although perhaps we do not yet agree as to the inclusion of controversy. Still, if other editors respond to the RFC, I am optimistic that it will be instrumental in helping to resolve the dispute.--AladdinSE 10:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Just another RFA thank you note

Dear Heptor, I really appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Igor yurgens

I do not see how stating that "Igor Yurgens is vice-president of the Russian Union of Industrialists" (which totals the content of this article) can be understood as discrediting for Wikipedia. -- Heptor _talk 14:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's really pretty simple. If we have articles on sub-notable topics, assuming IY here is such, then we're perceived as having a very low standard of admission. Then the stuff that really is worthy gets discounted by that person through being viewed with that lens. It's not Igor alone, it's the sum of all of them. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I am moving this convo here, b/c it's becoming too silly to keep there. Like I said, no real notability, if you discount my CRYSTAL BALLS, only presumptive notability per MDude's criteria :) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Khodorkovsky and martyrdom

Hi Heptor,

A while back I was looking at the article on Mikhail Khodorkovsky and saw a section called "An attempt at martyr creation", which was clearly tendentious. I changed it to the more neutral "Martyr?", with the question mark indicating that no position was being taken. I see you changed it back, claiming that the original was "more neutral". I think it's far less neutral; it's quite clearly anti-Khodorkovsky, whereas my version just asks a question. Maybe you can think of something better, but please don't change it back to the original POV version. --Trovatore 15:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

True Torah Jews

Hi, I posted a defense of the article True Torah Jews, I would like to ask you to be so kind and read it, and than rethink your position on deletion.

Bloger 00:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit War?

Although there is no definition on what really constitutes an edit war, based on the proposed wheel warring examples, one edit / revision, especially if it beckons the involved parties to the talk page, does not constitute warring.

April 15: Pecher moves the Islam template to the top.[9] Pepsidrinka reverts. [10]
April 16: Pecher puts the template back at the top again. [11] Pepsidrinka reverts to original again. [12] Pecher reverts, putting the template back at the top. [13] I make the final revert, back to the original, simultaneously referring to the talk page.

That's not an edit war, or at least not one that I participated in, because I only reverted once (back to the original) and requested discussion on the talk page to stop temporarily halt any more changes.[14] The template was never moved again after the surprisingly brief discussion over its location. joturn e r 13:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I never considered this insident serious, this is of course nothing like the edit wars that pollute Wikipedia elsewhere. Perhaps I abused the term lame edit war? I meant "lame" as it doesn't have any serious meaning to anyone, like the edit war over the color of a table border (or was it something else?) on Jimbo's user page. -- Heptor _talk 17:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh okay; thanks for clarifying that. I guess I should have gotten that impression when you put worst in "quotes". joturn e r 21:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of NPOV

It seems like you are trying to gauge my ability to maintain a neutral point-of-view despite my religious beliefs. And so, I will state my side of the issue, presenting the same evidence I presented to User:MPerel upon request:

I'll presume you're looking for information about point-of-view as it relates to Islam-related topics. And so...

Here is what I put in my last RfA:

In my request for adminship, above, I said "I try my best to make sure that I judge all articles and edits not on the character of the author but on the content of the edit." It's unfortunate that others will not do that for me. Up until this point, I've received only positive comments on my user page, but now it looks like it is causing large issues. If they continue and appear to be significant enough, I will change it, although I feel the prohibition of point of view and bias, even on user pages, shouldn't extend to a ban on individuality. We are all Wikipedians, but we are all people too.

Although I am personally passionate about my religion, that zeal has never extended to my contributions to Wikipedia. I realize that as an encyclopedia and website that is supposed to appeal to all people around the world and all faiths and backgrounds that we are supposed to remain neutral.

Last month, during the early days of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, I voted to keep the cartoons on the article page, at the top, with no special notification despite my personal objection to them (see poll results). I talked to users who repeatedly removed the cartoons from the article, most notably in User talk: Erdemsenol ([15], [16], [17]). My rational speech on that page even caused me to earn a barnstar.

My sixth most edited article is Depictions of Muhammad, which again is something I personally oppose, but yet find useful for Wikipedia. For that article, I uploaded several pictures of the Prophet ((1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6)), including one that depicts him in hell (that would be number six). Again, my personal religious objections didn't extend to Wikipedia. In addition to uploading those images, I contributed to writing that article.

I have always done my best to correct shows of piety, especially in Muhammad where it is most prevalent ([18], [19]) as well as in other articles ([20]). I've attempted to improve the neutral point of view in Islamic articles, as recently as just a few hours ago when I brought up the potential bias created by presenting so many articles that shout hosannas toward Muhammad ([21]). I also around the same time talked to a user about his reasoning for repeatedly deleting the picture of the Prophet[22].

I will continue to show that neutrality if I were to become an admin and even if I were not to. Your concerns are certainly very valid, as religious bias (as well as all bias) would impede to delivery of information. I may be confident about my religion or a pious (or if you must, "fundamentalist") Muslim, but you will see that those beliefs do not extend into the article content of Wikipedia. My user page, which has not up until this moment been an issue, simply documents an ongoing event in my life. I don't intend to proselytize, as it simply documents facts and does not do anything to lambaste the views of other religions. Although I may have committed to one religion, I find all religions fascinating (hence the userbox saying "This user believes the world is a happier, safer and saner place because of religion."). The introduction of my religious views into articles will not be an issue as an admin or otherwise. joturner 11:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Fewer examples can come from more recently as I have not spent as much time on Islam-related articles. However:

Here is my my view on the Muhammad cartoons, as an editor requested.
Here is a section on the (often negative) role of mosques today that I added to the Mosque article, by request in the article's FAC.
And lastly, I feel my user page is a testament to not being biased towards Islam (although some disagree). I use religious symbols from several religions because I find religion in general fascinating.

If you're referring to edits on different topics, that's a bit harder for me to demonstrate. Not because I haven't been able to maintain a neutral point-of-view, but because it's different to pinpoint specific edits to demonstrate that. I hope that helps out with your decision. joturn e r 02:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, that was a good answer. I changed my vote. -- Heptor _talk 14:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Jeg er quisling og navnet ragnvald blix.GIF

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

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hi Joturner,

I would like say that I am sorry about your RfA, and, if you decide to go for another one, I will support you again. -- Heptor _talk 13:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. joturn e r 13:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No the article is not "NPOV"

The article describe something that does not exist. To be NPOV this has to be the first line:

despite the use of the term by antisemitis who try to deligitimize israel right to exist israel is not an aprthied" ....

Zeq 15:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That may be a notch too far to claim just that, but I was considering to describe the term as a political epithet, just as Islamofascism is described. What do you think? -- Heptor _talk 15:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Intl Response to the Holocaust

An excellent paragraph was in the makings in that section when you reverted. I have reverted that due to that reason. Obviously there is no need to cite that no bombing of Aushwitz was undertaken and no claim to that effect has ever been made. Citations are still needed for the paragraph, however. Sentances which read "Most believe that if Auschwitz were bombed the Nazis would have reverted to other ways of mass killing their victims like open air shootings, although it would have taken precious time such as the dismatling of the Sobibor death camp" and "many accusers state that bombing Auschwitz, even if they would have killed all the Jewish prisoners, would all together save many more Jews, since the Nazis kept gassing Jews for a long time" need citations. If these people are saying these things, who are they? and where are they saying them? and how do we know that they are saying them? The paragraph needs further proof to back up its claims and there are editors working on finding it. Please do not make deconstructive edits. --Strothra 15:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? There is already a {{citation needed]}} tag on the citation you mention. I just don't understand the point adding further tags, that paragraph is fairly uncontroversial. -- Heptor _talk 16:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you reverted it back to the way it was prior to the citation that had been added and prior to when some of the POV had been removed. Further, the unreferenced tag does no harm until the citations are made. In fact, it helps to bring the attention of other editors to that paragraph so that it may be updated accordingly and improved upon. There is no POV tag on that paragraph and I am not stating that it is controversial. Comments such as "most believe" and "many accusers state" need ciations, however. Also, lets please discuss this either here or on my talk page. I prefer to talk on your talk page if that's where I initially post. --Strothra 16:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice there were other changes until now, the difference comparator shows just two red blobs of text [23]. -- Heptor _talk 16:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

why too far ?

I can not understand you. user:Zeq forgot to sign this on 29 May 2006, (God bless you)

Well, it seems Wikipedia limits itself to describing politically perjorative terms (and describing them as politically perjorative), without trying to suggest that the term is correct or incorrect (again, see Islamofascism for a comparison). Labeling the term as "something that do not exist" is, IMHO, expressing a POV. -- Heptor _talk 16:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people

You don't seem to be new to Wikipedia, but in case you haven't been told this befor. When editing you have to maintain neutral (see WP:NPOV) and you have to provide sources. In the article Mahmoud Ahmadinejad you have repetedly inserted Category:Anti-Semitic people without giving any sources for why it should be inclued. There is a subject about it on the talk page of the article (Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Category:Anti-Semitic people). Please make give your reasons there. Thanks. // Liftarn

When placing articles in a category, we apply definitions. According to Anti-Semitism article, anti-semitism is "is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group" Denial of Holocaust, especially in combination with threats to "wipe Israel off the map" is generally considered an act of hostility towards Jews. We seldom, if ever, use sources when placing an article in a category.

When speaking of sources, please remember that radical press such as Stockholms Fria Tidning is considered a bad source on Wikipedia. Please stop using it. On the same edit, please use more representative edit summaries. You summarized your edit with "Revert blanking", while you also added text referenced to the mentioned radical magazine. Please don't do that again.

I also have to note that I added this category to the article exactly once[24], while you claim that I "repetedly inserted" it.

Heptor _talk 15:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not deny the Holocaust, merely dubted it and he never made any statements about wiping Israel of the map so is does not apply. No sources necessary fo placing a person in a category? If I would ignore WP:POINT I could have a lot of fun... Like adding Category:American fascists to Dick Cheney ;-) No, as you understand sources are necessary. Calling SFT a "radical magazine" shows that you are either biased or uninformed. Following WP:AGF I assume the latter. "Revert blanking" was a correct description since what I did was to revert a blanking. Sorry that I incorrectly claimed you added the category more than once. // Liftarn

Here is BBC on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denying Holocaust: [25].
Fascism mainly refers to a particular political movement in Italy. According to OED, "fascism" is simply a depreciative. While not claiming being an expert on fascism, I see no way you can apply this definition on Dick Cheney.
I note that you call me "either biased or uninformed" (and then asking me to read WP:AGF), but since you ask, I think the opposite is the case. Stockholms Fria Tidning is a paper published as a reaction to what they obviously consider misrepresentative reporting by the mainstream media. Sounds pretty radical to me; the fact that they print about 5-10000 copies suggest that they are a marginal organization. The fact that it is only available in Swedish further contributes to its uselessness a source for Wikipedia.
In that edit [26] you made a revert of my edit, while claiming it was merely a "Revert blanking".

Heptor _talk 16:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I checked the BBC page and the translation of the quotes are in question and even if they weren't the article does not say he is an anti-Semite. Drawing that conclusion would be original research. If no source is necessary on the other hand I could add whatever category I want to Dick Cheney. SFT was founed as a response to "similarity of reporting and concentration of ownership". OK, that may be a radical idea (No, not really), but that doesn't make the newspaper itself "radical". The number of copies is on the low side, but it's a local newspaper so that's not remarkable. That it's only available in Swedish is a drawback, but in lack of other sources it's OK (note: such has later been found). // Liftarn

What are you talking about? You just wrote above that "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not deny the Holocaust". You were presented with a more than credible source ([27]). In any case, this debate should be on the article's talk page, where the other editors you reverted may participate. On Stockholms Fria Tidning, just read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. In short, mainstream media with resources for fact-checking is always a prefered source for Wikipedia. Present the other sources you have found, but please do it on the article's talk page. -- Heptor _talk 18:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

About "killing civilians"

Heptor,

You need to look at this from a "criminal" aspect. On the surface, the Palestinians who explode in buses, restaurants and shot on civilian areas of Israel are committing war crimes since they "target" civilians. On the other hand Israel targets militants not civilians.

But the number of incidents (not the number of dead) must make us think that the Israeli army is not doing enough and thus may be negligence in it's practices.

I know statistics are not a good yard stick but on avg IDF has been killing fewer civilians (per month or per number of targeted killing) since the current intifada started.

Not an easy moral stance any which way you look at it.

I always think that if the world would focus attention on the number of rockets Palestinian shot toward civilian areas in Israel and demand that those will stop this will also help save Palestinian children. Unfortunately, the only one who care about Palestinian children is their immediate family and the IDF who knows it is a PR nightmare every time they kill a child. For the Pro-Palestinians a dead Palestinian child is just another weapon against Israel.

in my mind Israel is indeed criminaly neglegent and should do more to avoid hitting civilians - no matter how criminal is the other side. Zeq 13:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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

No personal attacks.

I think you know better than to make a personal insult and then say "no insult intended". Given the rather extreme nature of your insult I suggest you remove it before I bring it to the attention of other admins. Homey 21:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote, no insult was intended. Since you do not seem convinced, I am removing it. -- Heptor _talk 21:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to restore it putting in your name instead of mine. If it's just meant as a joke and not an insult that shouldn't be a problem? :?Homey 22:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't be funny, but I have a compromise in mind. -- Heptor _talk 18:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

what about delibertly tragting ?

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

What you are saying is not even controvercial - it is indeed a war crime. As a precaution against the pedants out there, I am not really sure if it is a war crime or just a simple crimial act, because Hamas is not an army. -- Heptor _talk 18:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you live in Israel?

I have some ideas for collaboration that I'd rather discuss by phone. In any case, please e-mail me. Thanks. --Gabi S. 17:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, a secret collaboration you say? Sounds a touch shady, but what do you have in mind? I live in Norway. -- Heptor _talk 18:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Coroebus

I've responded on my talk page. --Coroebus 18:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thank you

Thank you!

Thank you, Heptor, for your support in my RfA. I appreciate your trust and support, and I will do my best to further help this great encyclopædia and community of ours. If there is anything that you feel I can do to help, please let me know. -- Avi 01:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid article renaming

Hi Heptor, I've indicated in the poll that I'm OK with the other options that have been suggested too. Probably there will be a consensus to change the name to "Allegations of apartheid outside South Africa." After that move takes place, if someone changes the name to "Allegations of apartheid" I doubt it will be contentious. But then again, you never know with this community ;) Kla'quot 05:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Army of Volunteer Editors putting forward the point of view of Israel

You may be aware that there was a campaign by supporters of Israel mostly Jewish e mail lobby associations to distort the content of wikipedia to a Jewish point of view.

This campaign usually follows Israel and USA foreign policy. The Jewish Wikipedia lobby demonize Iran Syria and Hezbollah while justifying the actions of Israel foreign policy. Removal of any adverse editorial on the founders of Israel demonizing the leadership of Arab countries etc.

There is also subtle distortion of history particularity in regards to the Palestinian conflict. In order to counter this organized and as such formidable onslaught on the neutrality of wikipedia Volunteers are keeping a record of hundreds of such pages and a report will be published later.

I hpe you are not part of this campaign This previously unsigned comment was added by 81.1.114.12 on 31 juli 2006

Replied on Talk:Jan_Egeland, sort of. -- Heptor _talk 18:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Allegedly anti-Semitic people

They can't delete/rename the Category:Anti-Semitic people so they are trying another tactic !

Your vote is requested: [28] This previously unsigned commend was added by 65.94.115.76

I'll look at it. -- Heptor _talk 09:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:SivJensen2421-1-.jpg.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SivJensen2421-1-.jpg.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 00:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, found another one, thanks for the notice -- Heptor _talk 17:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

welcome back

Zeq 10:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg

Hello, Heptor. 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:Heptor. 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 22:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

welcome back

e-mail me. Zeq 13:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A & P

Hi Heptor,
Hope you are fine :-)
Please, don't be silly ;-) [29]
Kind regards, Alithien 14:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yo! Where's the rest of your talk page? Anyway, I am fine, hope you're too, take care! -- Heptor talk 23:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by the way? that was not even my edit... -- Heptor _talk 20:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Corrections

Hi, I replaced some names on your talk page. No worry.
Wish you good continuation of wikipedia. Privacy2 08:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kuessner effect

I have nominated Kuessner effect, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuessner effect. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Crowsnest (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Dispatches (TV series)

Why have you removed the following section from the Israeli Lobby episode? "Other groups featured in the program were the Jewish Leadership Council, the Zionist Federation, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and Camera. " Vexorg (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Vexorg. I deleted this claim because it was unsourced, and included with other claims that were incorrect. Please see the article Talk: page for more details. -- Heptor _talk 20:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the talk page and you haven't responded there. Have you seen the Program? The Program itself is the source. Of course it would be easy to add a ref to the program. I've seen the program and I made notes at the time of braodcast. In fact I now have a copy of it. The section you removed which I've inserted above is factually correct and I know as I've actually seen the program. Why did you remove this section? Vexorg (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue has been plenty discussed on the talk page, I didn't find anything substantial I could add to the discussion. For example you added the claim that 'The CFI paid for 20 Parliamentary Candidates to visit Israel and upon return they received huge donations.' As pointed out on the article Talk: page, this claim is factually incorrect. -- Heptor _talk 19:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove this section in your edit? "Other groups featured in the program were the Jewish Leadership Council, the Zionist Federation, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and Camera. " Vexorg (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This was not the main issue with your edit that I responded to. Why haven't you responded to objections raised on the article Talk page? In any case, what are your sources for this claim?

Also, I hope we can continue this discussion on the article talk page, where it belongs. -- Heptor _talk 20:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you not saying why you removed "Other groups featured in the program were the Jewish Leadership Council, the Zionist Federation, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and Camera. " ?? These groups were featured in the program. I put it to you that you haven't actually even seen the program. Vexorg (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Those groups were mentioned in the documentary, in the respect that they all were mentioned by name. My position is that including this sentence in the article would not be representative, however if you wish to argue for including this you should do it on the article talk page. -- Heptor _talk 12:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I have the program recorded now. I shall watch it again and make sure that what goes into the Wikipedia article is properly representative. Vexorg (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Head's up

fyi, you may have intended to deleted "Per FormerIP." when you changed you voted on Littman at his AfD (as FormerIP has not seen fit to change his voted from delete). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Pleasure. Happy New Year.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please participate in discussion

Hi Heptor. You reverted my additions to Muhammad al-Durrah incident. I'm assuming that you disagree with them, and I'd like to know why you disagree. I took the trouble to explain the edits before making them, and again, one by one, after they were reverted by SlimVirgin and you. I'd really appreciate it if you would participate in the discussion about them. If you don't want to do that, I don't think you should be reverting to restore the status quo. Articles on Wikipedia are for editing, even when they are featured articles. Thanks and happy editing. Tiamut^talk 22:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please sign your comments

You forgot to sign your comment here. When you sign your comments it helps others follow the conversation. Cheers.--Adam in MO Talk 22:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My edit to your user talk page

Hi Heptor, I've just fixed a link after renumbering the talk page archives at Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War. Hope you don't mind. Graham87 09:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Ringheim

This article has been nominated for speedy deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

OR

What was the meaning of your latest edit to WT:NOR? You removed a comment of mine (do you consider it a personal attack? if so, then surely Slim's comments fall in the same category), and removed someone else's comment to the wrong place. If this wasn't what you intended, could you revert it?--Kotniski (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(In fact it's been reverted.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)