User talk:Breein1007

Welcome

Hello, Breein1007! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 08:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

please

Do not merge together articles without asking for permission. The source is accessible and reliable, if you feel otherwise, take it to the talkpage and wait for other views.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Asking permission? From whom... you? lol... you have deleted info in the past because you claimed the source was bad, so don't be a hypocrite please. Those sources definitely were not reliable at Wikipedia's standards. Neither you nor I are authorities on what constitutes a RS, because both you and I would clearly be biased in our selections. Read the page on RS if you need clarification.Breein1007 (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Radical changes like redirecting an article after the same move was reverted right before must be talked about at the talkpage, you also removed info from the other article which deleted all the info altogether. If you want to redirect an article you must make a post about it at the talkpage and if there is a clear consensus amongst editors for it to be moved, it can be moved. You also say that the source is not reliable, this is your opinion, if you feel this way bring it up at the talkpage and wait for what other people have to say, The source has already been called reliable by several editors: [1] [2][3] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It has also been called unreliable by many other editors. Don't think you're going to fool me here; I'm not blind. I won't bother getting links for you to show this, because I know you are completely aware of this fact and simply trying to twist the truth in your favour as usual.Breein1007 (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

It appears that when you redirect an article the previous history is lost. I believe the proper procedure would be to move the article instead, which will move its history & talk page as well; then a redirect will be automatically created. Please keep this in mind. Perhaps it will also be possible to undo & redo your earlier redirects. I am not certain, but it would be worth a try. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that from now on. That option wasn't available to me yet though because my account isn't 4 days old.Breein1007 (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate in some way that the mountains' names that they are known by in English are the Hebrew names, as you have asserted? If so, I will gladly rework the changes and try to straighten out the damage, which should be possible to do. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Aside from my own personal visits to the mountains where I witnessed with my own eyes signs noting the English names as the Hebrew equivalents - something that is not helpful as a source on Wikipedia - I can't really think of an appropriate way to find a source for this. These are minor mountains that are hardly discussed online. The only thing I can think of is to search for the Hebrew-English name and Arabic-English name on google (with quotation marks ie: "Mount Odem" vs "Mount Ahram" to avoid results mentioning other topics with common words). I tried a few of them, and the Hebrew-English versions had more hits by an extremely overwhelming amount.Breein1007 (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Greetings. I am glad you have decided to make an account and start actively contributing to Wikipedia.

In regards to your comment, it wouldn't be proper or fair for me to express my concerns only when an editor for the "other side" catches my attention. I do hope my concerns turn out to be unfounded, and that you choose to continue constructively contributing to Wikipedia.

Lehitraot --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 00:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Israeli wine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. nableezy - 22:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I resent and disregard your warning. This is a total joke. However, knowing you and your edit history in this topic I am not surprised that you have chosen to issue me with a warning while saying nothing to the other user involved in the edits. I know the rules and follow them; your pretentious warnings don't change anything. Have fun with your power trip. Breein1007 (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Resent and disregard what you like, you made 3 reverts on the article, no other user made more than 2. Prior to sanctioning somebody they must be made aware of the rules, this notice was to make you aware of the 3-revert rule. If you continue editing in the way that you have you may very well be blocked from editing. That is not a "total joke" nor is it a "power trip", just the way of the world. Bye, nableezy - 04:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not break or come anywhere near breaking the 3RR. Not that you care to actually look into things properly before throwing around warnings to make yourself feel powerful, but the first revert you are referring to in the 24 hour period was for a completely different edit, and it was a very clearly appropriate reversion because the previous edit had used language that incorrectly implied that various regions of Israel were "occupied". As much as you or your friends may wish to push that POV onto others, it is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Therefore, even if I had made more than 3 reversions, under the 3RR that one would not be counted. I made 2 reverts later about other questionable content, the same as the other user who you conveniently disregarded. I'm done with this matter; I see no need to prove anything to you and thus have nothing else to say about the topic. Just understand that unlike some other users, you won't frighten me or intimidate me into not editing things to remove unfair POV by issuing me with unwarranted and inappropriate warnings or threats of bans that will not actually be implemented. If I continue editing in the way that I have been editing, I'll be on Wikipedia for a long time. I haven't done anything to warrant a block. Bye, Breein1007 (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to read WP:3RR, it is not necessary that the reversions be of the same material each time. And you also need to read an English grammar book, as your reasoning for the first removal was incorrect. I don't intend to frighten you, but if you continue editing the way have been I do intend to report you. That is not a threat, nor is it an attempt to intimidate. It is simply a statement of fact. You did make 3 reverts as defined by WP:3RR and if you continue editing in such a manner you may be blocked. Again, that is not a threat, simply a fact. But as you clearly do not have anything useful to add I'll say bye now. nableezy - 15:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

My reasoning was perfect, and your claim that I need to read a grammar book is pretty comical considering what I do for a living. The icing on the cake for me is that you're topic banned and all you can do is go around annoying people like this! It's really quite nauseating, but I do feel sorry for you. Bye, for the third time. I understand that you're lonely, but please - don't feel the need to come back. Breein1007 (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Previous accounts

You are clearly quite familiar with Wikipedia and its rules and regulations. What was the name of your previous account? Tiamut^talk 10:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason you find this information so pressing?Breein1007 (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not particularly pressing. Is there a reason you are hesitant to respond? Its a simple question after all. Tiamut^talk 20:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

My reason is that I don't like giving up unnecessary information when I don't see a reason. The simplicity of the question doesn't have anything to do with my hesitation to answer. That said, I'd be happy to answer you if you would just explain why you're so curious! Breein1007 (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Is being asked by an editing colleague politely not reason enough? I'm curious that's all. But if you would prefer not to answer, you are of course free not to. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 10:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no previous accounts. Breein1007 (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I'm a little confused though then by your subsequent statement that you are not a new editor. I'm sure there's a logical explanation. Would youmind sharing it? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 13:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Come on Tiamut, think a little! It's fun :) - you don't need an account to edit. What's next, you wanna know all my past IP addresses I'm guessing? Sorry, I don't keep track. Cheers, Breein1007 (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought that may the case, given that's the way I started here myself. I am wondering not about your IP addresses, but which articles you used to edit most intensely? Thanks again for the response and happy editing. Tiamut^talk 08:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Notice

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and 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 Wikipedia, 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. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've already been made aware of this in the last 15 minutes... no need to keep linking it to me again and again. As it stands I haven't made any inappropriate edits, and while I understand that the topic is controversial, I won't let that intimidate me. I will continue to edit articles that are fallacious or employ weasel words that try to imply a meaning other than the truth without actually lying. As the note above states, anyone who makes edits to these pages can be shown this template to make them aware of the rules, so I could very well just go post this back to Sean.holyland, but I'll take the high road here and not mimic the immaturity. If someone has a problem with the edit I made that clarified dubious terms and added sourced information, I would appreciate if they would provide an evidenced explanation rather than simply reverting my contributions with a one word explanation of "nonsense". Thanks,Breein1007 (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is just so we know you know, in clear terms. While your edits exhibit a strong point-of-view, you've not behaved in a way that's put you in trouble or anything, so don't worry about that. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just want to point out that is kind of contradictory... if I haven't behaved in a way that would put me in trouble, then my edits shouldn't be identified as strong POV. While I personally may have strong POV (who doesn't?), I am here to contribute positively to Wikipedia and edit objectively. All that I do here is find inappropriate POV and remove it from articles, while adding factual and sourced information. Anyway, thanks for the notification. Have a good one. Breein1007 (talk) 06:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Two things

שלום בריאין! כמובן זה עניין של כתיב מלא כנגד כתיב מנוקד. שתי האופציות ניתנות בערך, אך יש העדפה לכתיב מנוקד בשורה הראשונה. האיות "רָמָה" אינו הנפצה, אלא איות שלקוח מה"לקסיקון ארץ ישראל" מספרי ידיעות אחרונות. בספרים מסוג זה יש תקן קבוע לתיעתוק של מושגים בערבית. בכל רחבי העולם מקובל שהמקור האמין ביותר לשם גיאוגרפי הוא לקסיקון גיאוגרפי (באנגלית: gazetteer), ועל זה ניסיתי להסתמך כשהוספתי ניקוד לכ-2000 ערכים על מקומות בישראל. כמובן, אם יש ברשותך את "לקסיקון מפה" או "מדריך ישראל החדש", אשמח אם תציג את האיות המובא שם.

בנוגע לעידן רייכל – כן, זה נוח לכולם להשתמש תמיד באותו שם משתמש כדי שיהיה קל לזהות :)

בברכה,
—Ynhockey

Gilo

Hi there. I realize you're a very new editor and may not yet be familiar with Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPOV. Just being sourced doesn't mean material belongs in an article, it must also be notable and exist in due proportion to other material in the article. I look forward to editing the Gilo article, and others, with you to reach an amicable consensus. As another note, I realize that some material that you seem to be keen to introduce in Gilo appears to not be sourced. This is afoul of WP:V, which is another core principle we have. --Dailycare (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a new editor, and I just want to note the irony that you have taken all the WP policies that I warned you to review and follow on your talk page, and simply rephrased an otherwise identical warning to me. I found that pretty comical. You have removed both notable and sourced info from the article, and if you want to somehow construe a presumptuous argument that the info is not notable, you can go ahead and raise your concerns on the talk page. You don't just go deleting valid information from articles because you feel that it hurts the POV that you are trying to push. As I mentioned on your talk page, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. We strive to write objective articles that allow the reader to learn about the topic without being subject to censorship and propaganda. I hope you'll be able to learn from this, and I similarly look forward to having more constructive and collaborative edits with you in the future. Breein1007 (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Halleluya. Finally someone with a brain. You are a rare breed on Wikipedia. --Gilabrand (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rollback

Hi again! Can you please provide an example of regular vandal fighting? If this is one of your primary tasks on Wikipedia, I will gladly grant you the request. Please also note that it is preferable to make such requests in English on the English Wikipedia. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Canadian_Monkey

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Canadian_Monkey. nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 02:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Thanks. I'm getting tired of this shit though... taking up too much of my time and then the anti-Israel fanatics just storm articles anyway and use mob mentality to push their POV all over the place. Breein1007 (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"Ring neighbourhoods" in east jerusalem

Hi, please propose an edit that you're comfortable with that entails the term "settlements" in the lead. The edit war on that article is ridiculous. --Dailycare (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just want to throw in that the Ring Neighborhoods of Jerusalem are in Jerusalem, not "east jerusalem". Thanks, Breein1007 (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, East Jerusalem is in Jerusalem just as West Jerusalem is. How about this:

The Ring neighborhoods of Jerusalem (Hebrew: שכונות הטבעת‎) are five suburban settlements built by Israel on territory Israel captured and unilaterally annexed in 1967 during the Six Day War. --Dailycare (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That would bring up the same problems that we have when people try to point blank classify other Israeli neighborhoods in the municipality of Jerusalem as settlements. This is highly contested; while some choose to call them settlements, some don't. Therefore, labeling them flat out as settlements in the first sentence of the article with no background is factually inaccurate. Breein1007 (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact my proposed text, above, also calls them neighborhoods. It's not really contested (much less highly contested, and even less factually incorrect) they are settlements (except by Israel), so we should simply call them settlements. I frankly don't see the problem. Israelis can call them whatever they like in the Hebrew wikipedia. --Dailycare (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, having attribution would be OK - we can say e.g. that the EU considers them illegal settlements, whereas Israel considers them neighbourhoods. I'll edit to this effect. --Dailycare (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, 200 edits, and a talk page that indicates much more than that

I don't know from whence you came, and it doesn't matter. You have decided to become an editor; this is good for the Wikipedia project. But to me, it appears that your conception of its rules is different than mine. Since we have tangled, it appears that you require some indication where we might stand within its scheme. While I have explained all and each of my edits in my edit summaries, you seem to have only indicated how I might be incorrect in my thoughts, not in my inserted content; you also seem to have missed the basics that we discuss an editor's insertion and comment on what in that content may be incorrect. Two may play your game. We are now down to the insertion of quoted and ref'd content; you can not get more simple than that. Since you have threatened the good ol' 3RR, and I believe I understand what that means, I am providing you a chance to put your edits where your mouth appears to be. I leave it up to you; it is your serve. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ghajar

I've considered your WP:AN3 report, and after looking over the page history and its talk page, I conclude that it's a content dispute by both of you. You should end the reverting now and utilise the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution. If reverts continue after this notice, then the reverting editor is likely to be blocked and/or the page will be fully protected until the dispute is settled. I'd prefer neither to happen. NJA (t/c) 07:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Like so many articles on Wikipedia, this one was a ridiculous hodge-podge of POV by "editors" hell-bent on demonizing a single party (that shall remain nameless). Thanks for the thumbs up.--Gilabrand (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy topic ban violations

I just wanted to pay you the courtesy of noting that I've made mention of edits made on your talk page by Nableezy in violation of his ban here.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You are really clutching at straws here. Informing a "new" user about the 3 revert rule after they have made 3 quick reversions would be a violation of my topic ban how exactly? nableezy - 05:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop spamming my wall. Breein1007 (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Nab--no need to reply, but if your disruptive edit was the result of following me to this page (and I recognize that may not have been the case), I would ask you to not wikihound me to disruptively insert yourself into my conversations with others. Please. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hanukah sameach

Just a friendly holiday blessing

--Shuki (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

תודה רבה, גם לך! Breein1007 (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The wrong version

With regards to your comments about edit protection of the Occupied territories article please read meta:wrong version --PBS (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning: occupied territory

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Your last comment at 02:56, 20 December 2009 on the talk page of the article occupied territory, contained a personal attack. Personal attacks do not help foster a collegiate atmosphere and therefore are damaging to the development of articles. As this is not a school playground, I suggest that you modify you comment and remove the personal attack. -- PBS (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks PBS, I appreciate that you actually warned both of us. I mean it. While I would in principle want to hold off on striking out the comment until after he strikes out his, since he attacked me first, I guess I'll just be the bigger man :) Breein1007 (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the lack of good faith that the two of you have shown to each other this edit was in my opinion unwise as it was provocative. People are given more leeway for what they say on their own talk pages. For that reason I am not going to do anything about this now other than I suggest you remove (not strike out) the comment you placed on NickCT's talk page. If you do that then NickCT's comment becomes meaningless and hopefully that will end the matter. If however I see what I judge to be an uncivil comment by you to or about NickCT. I will block you account for a time. -- PBS (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Neighborhoods in Jerusalem

Yes, if you know about these neighborhoods you may restore them to the template, then try to draft stubs about them. My method has been to look for untranslated articles on Hebrew Wikipedia and to translate parts of them. I looked for the articles about these two neighborhoods and did not find them. I concluded that they were either added in error, or subsumed in some larger neighborhood. If I made a mistake, you should correct it. Chutznik (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Another editor already corrected the error a few days ago so it's fine now. Breein1007 (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Self-revert

I suggest you self-revert your last edit to State of Palestine, as it is your fourth revert in less than 24 hours. In case, you did not know, there a policy against WP:3RR. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 22:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I actually only count 3 reverts though, and the first 2 were simply because the IP was flat out deleting sources and claiming that they were unsourced content. While these reverts still do count for 3RR, my latest one was only the 3rd and I'm going to be leaving it at that. I hope that you will refrain from simply reverting my edit and instead discuss it on the talk page (and not use an edit summary of "per talk" like you did last time while the discussion is ongoing). Breein1007 (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You counted wrong. You made four edits that restored the words "capital of Israel". Whether you did that by wholesale reverting or by editing it separately, it still counts towards the revert total. If you don't want me to report me for it, I suggest you self-revert. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 22:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am the person who originally inserted the words "capital of Israel" into the article. Making an addition to an article is not a revert. You should read over the 3RR page closely again to refresh yourself on the terminology and specifics; I can relate that sometimes it's easy to get mixed up. In any case, I don't really see the need to continue this game of cat and mouse here. If you feel the need to report me, knock yourself out. I didn't violate 3RR. Breein1007 (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought DrorK added it originally. But you should know that 3RR is not an entitlement. Stopping at three reverts isn't good. Its still edit-warring and if you do it a lot, you could still be reported. (I should know, I was blocked for it a lot when I first started here.) A friendly warning for the future: don't edit war. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 22:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the tip. Breein1007 (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein/Nableezy

Hi Breein1007. I would like to work on two things regarding what has happened to Nableezy. On is to file an appeal of Sandstein's decision which I will begin in my user space shortly. The second, concurrent to this, would be opening a User RfC on Sandstein regading his abuse of his admin powers. I have asked Gatoclass for some advice on how to proceed. I hope he responds soon. When I have drafts up in my user space, I will be contacting you for feedback. I hope you will co-sign both the appeal and the User RfC. Also, check out Nableezy's talk page to see what has happened most recently and why these steps are absolutely necessary. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 19:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Nableezy has decided to file an appeal at AE. Tiamut^talk 21:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem the chosen

I would like to try to convince you offline of the merits of my proposal at Israel. You, nsaum and others have latched on to this idea that writing "Israel has chosen Jerusalem" is in some way weakening Jerusalem's title to the crown. But no reader, other than those who have been personally involved in this convoluted debate, would ever read my proposal that way. Set yourself outside this argument, and read these two sentences:

"Israel has chosen Jerusalem, historically the religious and cultural focus of Judaism, as its capital. Jerusalem is the seat of government and the most populous city."

"Jerusalem is the capital, seat of government, and largest city."

Which of these two sentences leaves you with a stronger impression of Israel's claim on Jerusalem?

My point is that the revised text appears to be a capitulation to pressures to weaken Jerusalem's claim to capital status; but, in fact, to every uninvolved reader, we have actually strengthened that claim. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that most readers probably would understand both to mean the truth, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. However, in the chance that even some readers would pick up on the subtle difference between saying "Israel chose" and "is", I can't support the change. It has to be about the facts and only representing the truth. While you may be right in saying that your edit left a stronger impression, it wasn't as truthful as the original wording. I'm sorry that you're disappointed by the lack of consensus; it's not an easy thing to achieve in this area. Breein1007 (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel

Could you please move your comment on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel to the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Israel). As you said, your addition is not an issue to be mediated, but a comment, so the talk page is where it belongs. Thanks. -- tariqabjotu 21:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda

Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels."

— Richard Alan Nelson, A Chronology and Glossary of Propaganda in the United States, 1996

This is what I mean by propaganda.

Sean.hoyland - talk 03:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. The definition I am familiar with (Webster) stresses that the information is not only one sided, but misleading. Breein1007 (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

deadlinks

If a link is dead it is better to tag it with {{deadlink}} rather than remove it and delete the content it was being used to reference. A simple google search would have given you both confirmation that link in the article did exist (Google cache of the original) and a working link of the same Reuters article (here). nableezy - 21:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the deadlink tag. Thanks. Breein1007 (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

the left-wing Palestinian activist group Rabbis for Human Rights

'Nuff said. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry. That is not enough said. Breein1007 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That's called POV-pushing and it's not acceptable. If you read the news article in question, you'll also see it's not true. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific. Nableezy has mentioned that he has an issue with the word "Palestinian". If that is also the source of your concern, then I will remove the word and reinsert the rest of the sentence which is completely correct. The rabbi is the one who took the photo. Breein1007 (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Gilo

Hi Breein, I'd like to work with you on the US view on Gilo, I entered a comment on talk:gilo. --Dailycare (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finally attempting to discuss this rather than restart the edit war every few weeks. When I have time later I will explain my position on the talk page. Breein1007 (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Golan mountain mediation

I'm thinking about requesting an official medcom mediation for the Golan mountain names. If I start one, would you be interested in participating? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you start the process I will certainly consider it. I have quite a busy schedule for the next little while so I can't commit. I also don't think this is an appropriate situation for official mediation, because it's simply a matter of a proposal not reaching consensus. But like I said, if you start it, I'll think about joining. Breein1007 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Breein, Supreme Deliciousness opened this case at the mediation cabal and I have accepted it, could you confirm you are still willing to take part in mediation?Ajbpearce (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for not knowing exactly how the process works, but can you please briefly explain what the commitment is? I don't have lots of spare time these days. Also, I feel like both Supreme Deliciousness and myself have spelled out our respective feelings about the issue very clearly on the talk page, and other users did not support his requested change with consensus. Anyway, if I join mediation, what exactly will happen? Will I just be expected to rehash my arguments from the talk page? Breein1007 (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007, there was more support and sources for the standardized (arabic) than for hebrew, and based on that, I could change the names now. But I want to settle this in a better way, so this is a chance for you. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me Supreme Deliciousness... there was not more support or sources for the Arabic names than for the English names (which originated from Hebrew). We have been over this before. I don't appreciate you following me around and pestering me by repeating your unsubstantiated claims ad infinitum. If you do make the changes right now, I will revert them because you don't have consensus for the suggestion. Breein1007 (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, please do not continue with these unconstructive interventions if you wish to proceed with mediation, Brein mediation is a process whereby we talk through the issues in a structured conversation and try and produce a solution that is acceptable to both parties and that benefits the encyclopedia, it is a voluntary process and requires a willingness to compromise to build towards consensus. There is no time commitment beyond what you can manage. Ajbpearce (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC) (my apologies was not logged in when making comment)

Let me start by thanking you Ajbpearce for your effort in this case. Basically, what happened here on my talk page has convinced me that it would be a mistake on my part to participate in mediation for this matter. There were a number of people who were involved in the discussion, and after discussion and sources from several people, there was no clear consensus to make the suggested change. Some sources that were found showed Arabic names used on English maps, while some sources found showed the status quo English names that originated from Hebrew used. In all honesty, I don't have much else to contribute to the discussion, so I don't see what good mediation would do. I would simply be rehashing points that I have already clearly made on the talk page, and that some editors seem to be ignoring as they repeat ad infinitum their demands that their sources trump mine and there is clear consensus for the change (which there is not). I really am busy these days, and I feel that mediation would draw me into long, frankly pointless, circular debates about the issue. I can't let this issue hurt the more important things in my life right now, so as I said, I have to decline. Breein1007 (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Was there a boy, who was tied to the tank?

No, it is just another lie. Please read here As you would see that very boy appears over and over again in a different Arab, Muslim and left wing media. From 2005 to 2009 he has been used as a human shield in a different parts of Palestine. He's never grown any older that poor boy. The image should be deleted, it is not a reliable source, it is a lie, but you know what, it will never be deleted, and you will never be allowed even to change the description because you will never get consensus for doing so. If you do not understand why you will never get the consensus, please take a look at the world map and the world demography. If you add to that idiots Self-hating Jews you may get the right picture. Any more questions? Good luck with your quest for the truth on Wikipedia! BTW here's an image of another boy . I added it to Qassam rocket. Guess what it was removed because it is "inflamatory" Oh, well.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I share many of your frustrations. But I can't bring myself to give up and allow the propaganda to win the war here, even if they have worked up quite the impressive system and have won their fair share of battles. Breein1007 (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Hi, there is an unresolved NPOV dispute concerning the Israel article that some editors are trying to resolve. You are edit-warring to remove an NPOV tag that is correctly placed in the article to indicate the existence of this dispute. If you care about the dispute, I encourage you to contribute to resolving it, not edit-warring over the tag. Please consider this message a warning in the sense of the discretionary sanctions Regards, --Dailycare (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I still say WP:UNDUE, WP:POINT and possibly WP:Wikilawyering -- (ie: well the RfC didn't achieve our preconceived results, so lets using WP's NPOV tag policy...and if that doesn't work, well we will something else) -- is ongoing at that article, in regards to tags etc, but I no longer have a desire to take part in circular arguments and have threats directed towards me. And, I hardly call Breein1007's single edit to the page in the past week as being "edit warring"...but if we're going to call it that, then both parties are guilty of it as it takes two sides to edit war... Just my 2 cents. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 20:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks nsaum for the message - I'm not concerned though. Dailycare is not someone whose warnings I take with much heart based on his history. Breein1007 (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response on my talk page. I can't help however but be puzzled by your claims that firstly, there would be a "strong consensus" about the article (the discussion ongoing the past month, for example, has so far not yielded consensus), and secondly that the tag would trivialize something. The tag only indicates there is an NPOV dispute, nothing more. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm done wasting my time with your games. That's not why I'm on Wikipedia. I once again encourage you to find a way to contribute positively. Breein1007 (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Breein, can you at least comment on the proposal at the bottom of the talk page? -- tariqabjotu 21:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll do that. Breein1007 (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be good. It would also be good if you stopped removing the tag. A quick review of WP:NPOV dispute reveals the following: " In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. However, repeatedly adding the tag is not to be used as a means of bypassing consensus or dispute resolution. If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag." Tiamut^talk 21:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And a quick review of the last couple of sentences of your post shows exactly what is going on - people are using the tag to bypass existing consensus and trivialize facts. This is an abuse of Wikipedia policies, and littering the article with tags is inappropriate. Breein1007 (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Qualify facts, don't pre-empt them with trivialization. Must you assume the worst in everybody, even people you generally agree with? As I mentioned to okedem, when he politely suggested reordering the phrase, the reason for putting the non-recognition point before, rather than after, was because I thought putting it second would seem to nullify the capital fact, rather than say that, although X is the case, it's still the capital. The best example I can think of would be:

"Although I'm not sure if this is true, I'm quite certain the moon has gravity."

The speaker is emphasizing his certainty that the moon has gravity. Compare to:

"I'm quite certain the moon has gravity, although I'm not sure this is true."

The speaker is emphasizing his uncertainty that the moon has gravity.

I don't really care either way, especially because reordering the piece would sound much better. But I thought doing so would elicit more complaints. Obviously, I was wrong and having the qualification first is actually eliciting more complaints. But I'm a bit shocked that you would think I'm trying to "pre-empt and "trivialize a fact", especially one that I agree with. I'm sure you thought someone else, like Tiamut or Dailycare, proposed that wording, but that doesn't make it any better. Regardless of who wrote the proposal, you had no evidence that the sentence order had such ulterior motives. Just say you want the piece reordered and end it there. -- tariqabjotu 22:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Tariq, don't get ahead of yourself. I'm not assuming anything about anybody. I am saying that the sentence structure MAKES IT SEEM as if the fact is being trivialized. It was not a reference to anybody's motives. Please back off... you're creating an issue out of something that really doesn't need to be one. I was justifying my opinion about the wording, and I feel that saying capital first is better. Saying I want it reworded doesn't explain why, and I am going to back up my opinions with explanations. It's really not pleasant having you hounding me for that. Breein1007 (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

For someone who thinks a pointed command like the one I mentioned is akin to a more innocuous "it seems like..." statement, you seem remarkably offended by my comment ("don't get ahead of yourself", "Please back off...", "not pleasant having you hounding me for that"). I can see from here nothing will come of this thread, so I won't waste my time going any further. -- tariqabjotu 09:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand why I would be offended? With all due respect your comment was very rude and you yourself assumed the worst in me. You misjudged my comment and took it as directed towards you personally, rather than towards the wording of the proposal. After your mistake, you went on the offense and sent me the message above. I don't know what you expect from me... an apology for disagreeing with your proposal because I thought the words trivialized the content of the article? I really don't think that this is something that needed to be an issue in the first place. It's clearly a misunderstanding. I'm sorry you think that working things out and creating a positive atmosphere between editors is a waste of your time. Breein1007 (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop call me "disgusting" and delete my addition to article as "vandalism". Thank you. Ani medjool (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If you vandalize, I will revert you. That's how it works. Thanks for stopping by. Breein1007 (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I not vandalise. I think you abuse warning, but that be just my idea. Thank you Ani medjool (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You removed notable, sourced information from an article. It also was not your first time doing this. Thank you Breein1007 (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This is just bizarre. Ani Medjool's abuse of wikipedia rules gets rewarded, and then he awards you a barnstar. WTF? Anyhow a new person, adept at ridicule, has joined in the conversation at falafel. Sigh... --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 20:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... but things don't tend to surprise me on Wikipedia much anymore. For a while I took Ani medjool's ignorance and moronic statements that reek of brainwashing to heart and argued with him. Since then I've learned to just use it as a source of entertainment. I know a few people in real life who come on every once in a while and laugh at the new things he has posted. In terms of the new person at falafel, I kind of thought it was a troll. I guess we'll see.... Breein1007 (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

Hello, Breein1007. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Response

You of course you have the right to remove content from your talk page, I was just wondering if you would be comfortable with me doing the same? Personally, I don't remember ever having removed content from my talk page as I don't feel I have anything to hide. I am not about to start, but I do plan to provide links to the various ensuing discussions on my talk page. I am wondering though on what basis you consider it 'nonsense,' I am at least willing to keep mine there because it is someone else's opinion. On what basis are your warning well founded, while mine have no place? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Hello Breein1007. I have reviewed WP:AN3#User:Breein1007 reported by User:Factsontheground (Result: ), which is a complaint about your editing. I do not see where you found consensus to add some of the controversial items. Recently I see that Jezhotwells removed some of the changes that others had been complaining about. If you are content to leave his edits in place, I believe that the 3RR report can be closed with no admin action. Otherwise we would still have to consider the issue of your continuing to perform reverts for which consensus has not been found, although you haven't literally gone over 3RR at this time. Regarding the RSN issue, it is well-established that the person adding material is responsible for its being properly sourced. EdJohnston (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I needed consensus to add the material? Maybe I'm missing something, but I wasn't inserting anything new to the article. I was reinserting information that had been removed without consensus! In any case, I have posted a comment at WP:AN3#User:Breein1007 reported by User:Factsontheground (Result: ). The issue is currently being discussed at WP:RSN and there is no consensus about the reliability of the source. Breein1007 (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

How is your English?

Hi Breein1007, I wrote an article here, but you know my English, is not so great. If you have a time please do improve it. You are also welcome to add new Info. Best.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

B'kef - I'll take a look at it when I have a chance and see if there's anything I can do. But for the record, your English is great. Breein1007 (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert Kennedy AfD

Thank you for your message. I'm sorry that you find my behavior disappointing. However, there was a rationale behind my actions. I chided Vexorg in public, at the AfD page, and I didn't think a private message was necessary. By contrast, I left a polite message for Mbz1 on her Talk page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Consider the fact that your public chide at Vexorg will be lost in history as soon as the AfD is closed. In the future, nobody will remember his misconduct unless they search for it. On the other hand, unless Mbz1 decides to delete your warning, people will see a record of it in the future. Whether or not you considered your message polite, the simple fact that it was a private message understandably makes it seem more authoritative. Breein1007 (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point. I'll leave a private message for Vexorg. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Breein1007 (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:WP:TPO

Vexorg wasn't trolling. That's just, like, your opinion man. Factsontheground (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Publicly announcing that someone is using a sockpuppet without evidence is a personal attack. This case is especially compelling because Vexorg posted the claim that Mbz1 was using a sockpuppet after the SPI was concluded and Checkuser confirmed that no relationship existed between Mbz1 and the IP. Thanks for your message. Breein1007 (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It actually falls more under this policy which states: "Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism", and in case somebody wants to find out what is a troll, one could check this out. Thank you,Breein1007 --Mbz1 (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Temporary interaction ban

It was pointed out that you were somewhat involved in the earlier parts of the argument to some degree as well; I have imposed a topic ban on Mbz and Facts and Malik commenting on each other's talk pages and contributions elsewhere, for the next 24 hrs. I think that given your earlier involvement you should be covered as well.

(copied from ANI)

As an uninvolved administrator - I am temporarily banning the "involved parties" here from responding to each others' contributions or talk pages, interpreted broadly, for the next 24 hours. Without regard to origin of the dispute it's being perpetuated beyond reasonable limits. I would like to STRONGLY DISCOURAGE further snipes on ANI but this venue remains open for discussion without threat of sanction.

(end copied)

I don't believe you started this, but having gotten tangled up, if you can avoid participating for the next 24 hrs other than comments on ANI it would be for the best.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks for the message. Breein1007 (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Special Barnstar
		I award you with this Special barnstar for your help and support in quite of few places for the last few days. Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Palestinian terrorism

I was just about to leave you a message. The header at the top of the page says the category is for "topics and subjects", not people.

We don't use categories to describe people as antisemites, racists, etc., because those are subjective judgments. Likewise, we don't categorize them as terrorists. If people are included in Category:Jewish terrorism or Category:Zionist terrorism, they shouldn't be. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

So how is the "Palestinian militants" category any different? Isn't it subjective to label someone as a militant? (Militant: "combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods"). I may be wrong, but I don't think the wording "topics and subjects" specifically indicates exclusion of people. People who have been referred to as terrorists seem like a subject of terrorism. Maybe I'm missing something in Wikipedia policy about the specific terms "topics and subjects", though. Breein1007 (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 27#Category:Terrorists, where all the "terrorist" categories were deleted. The problem has to do with the subjective nature of labeling people as terrorists. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so then all I have to work with is the category of "People convicted of terrorism charges". It's interesting that the ones who succeeded in blowing themselves up and killing innocent civilians manage to escape this category since they cannot be convicted once they're dead. Oh, the comedy of Wikipedia. Breein1007 (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What can I tell you? One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. It works on both sides: Begin, Shamir, et al. Speaking of which, were any prominent Israelis convicted of terrorism charges by the British? (Just kidding. ) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd disagree. We can most definitely refer to people, living or dead, as terrorists, if there are enough RS's stacked in favor of it. It would be OR not to. IronDuke 01:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Ironduke to a large extent. Yes, it can happen. I think the problem is that there seems to be an invalid assumption about the scope of categories built into the categorization system here. There's also a disconnect between categories and the WP:V policy. There isn't anything subjective from our perspective about categorization based on facts e.g. the fact that X categorizes Y as a terrorist. The problem seems to be that wiki rules want categories to be globally applicable and have global scope like biological taxonomies for classifying species. This seems bizarre given that taxonomies that apply to many things in the real world are local in scope. The Supreme Court of Israel for instance categorizing someone as a terrorist is a perfectly valid categorization based on a reported fact. If the associated category contains information about the origin and scope of the categorization I don't see any problem. It's a category that complies with WP:V and is valid within the local categorization system. The same thing/person can be in multiple contradictory local categories. In the end it's supposed to be about helping people locate information. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Imad Abbas

No problem. I'm not always an ogre. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, listen... of course we have had our differences. That is the challenge of working together to maintain a neutral encyclopedia. Everyone has their biases and has to make decisions that will inevitably be affected by that bias. I still disagree with some things you have done in the past, the same way that you clearly disagree with things I have done. But I know you don't have bad intentions. Breein1007 (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Hi Breein1007, may I please ask you to email me? Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Otvetila no ne po-russki :)--Mbz1 (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 31 hours, for accusing other editors of "terrorist rhetoric". Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Breein, you have good reason to ask for being unblocked. Cheers, --Gilisa (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks achi. It's not worth it... if I went too far in my analysis of the rhetoric being thrown around in the opinion of the admin, then I'll take a day off of editing. No big deal. Breein1007 (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well gever(man), consider this then as one day without cigarets ;) The effect is similar!--Gilisa (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha gadol... unfortunately this day has already been full of Marlboro Zahav for me! Ain ma laasot :P Breein1007 (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure Marlboro is any better than Next!--Gilisa (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We'll agree to disagree then hahaha Breein1007 (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Let us agree that for sure Marlboro is more expensive:)--Gilisa (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Aval shaveh kol shekel ;-) Speaking of which, I think it's time to step outside! Breein1007 (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Layla tov ve legabey kol shekel, taluy et me tishal :) (Good nightm and about any shekel, it depends who you ask).--Gilisa (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't share in the language (being an American I am mono-lingual) but will just remind you that you have a much much greater chance of dying from Marlboros than from a terrorist attack. I would just add that that death is not quick either, or pretty. Please consider quitting. Stellarkid (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Stellarkid, your concern is really appreciated! :) Breein1007 (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say you should skip the Marlboro and go for a cafe hafuch or maybe a nice bowl of hummus from Abu Hassan (or the falafel & potato pancakes from Orna & Ella in TLV....mmmmm now I'm hungry!)...but that would probably start an edit war of some sort... :) Regards --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 02:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL Nsaum this block was worth it for that comment alone hahahahaha. Breein1007 (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(: al lo davar --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 03:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, if one is smoking then his/her chances to die in a terror attack are greater! And in any case, those who survived terror attacks are in risk to start smoking in relatively old age. Not to mention that terror is not even enjoying.--Gilisa (talk) 06:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a well known fact that Orna and Ella's pancakes are stolen Arab cuisine. Where's Ani Medjool when you need him? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Breein is much too busy with Falafel now, leave the pancakes for the dessert .--Gilisa (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want discuss me and theft of Arab Food by zionist occupation, then comment on my talk page, but not behidn back of me. thank you. Ani medjool (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You're here aren't you? How's that behind your back? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy to see you stalking me as usual, Ani medjool. Why are you so obsessed with me? Is it because I'm Jewish and you secretly love us? Shame shame. Breein1007 (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Abbas

Thank you for providing a valid source and going about it the right way. However, WND is not a reliable source, you can see the numerous discussions about that in the reliable sources noticeboard. Are you okay with the way the passage is currently phrased? nableezy - 22:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a fair summary of the source to me. Breein1007 (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Behavior of Breein1007 making fun of user who cant speak english well. Thank you. —DoRD (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Leading on from that discussion, I'd strongly advise that you don't make fun of other editors whose language skills are poor. Reverting badly written changes to articles by them is of course not a problem, but the diffs referred to in the ANI section don't reflect well on you, and that needs to stop. Thanks, Black Kite 07:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The cat is out of the bag. A user did incredible analysis and shows strong proof that Ani medjool is faking bad English and poor WP knowledge. --Shuki (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The strangest AN/I ever, I think.--Gilisa (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

How fitting that this was launched just in time for Pesach, when I'm obviously unable to respond. Seems a little convenient. While I will of course not draw any parallels between the attacks made against me on Wikipedia and the brutality and disgusting nature of the Arabs in the Yom Kippur War, I do find the irony worth noting. Chag sameach vekasher lekulam! Leshana haba'ah beYerushalayim habnuyah, Breein1007 (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Israel...A Joke?

so what's reported in Israeli papers is a joke....So all Israeli papers and the Israeli government should be downgraded to unreliable sources?Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Good one dude... Check out some info on the Purim holiday. It might clear some confusion up. Although if you believed that any Israeli government, let alone the most right-wing one in a long time, would allow the Kotel to be used for advertising, it shows a lot about what you're willing to believe about Israel for whatever reason. Breein1007 (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Also check out which day it is today..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow. Are you implying that the article you referenced was published today? And that at the bottom it didn't reference Purim? Breein1007 (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

He was trying to give you the impression that he realized it was a joke when in fact he didn't. Gullible and dishonest. That's a dangerous combination. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ampad27

Any suspicions as to who Ampad27 was? I have my own... it may warrant an SPI. ← George ^talk 01:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Go for it... it's not something I want to waste my time with (or discuss openly on here) frankly. I'm not on Wikipedia to chase people around with bureaucracy and try to punish others. The system is seriously flawed. The fact that an admin was able to twist your words into coming close to blocking me for sockpuppetry is testament to that. I'm here to edit the encyclopedia and contribute positively... so if you feel the need to file a SPI, I wish you the best of luck and hope that it helps fulfill your personal satisfaction on Wikipedia. Breein1007 (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I already have, FYI. IronDuke 01:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} has given you some Chapulines, for to promote good will amongst editors! You see, these things somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else some Chapulines! Enjoy! Chapulines are a Mexican treat dating back to the ancient Mesoamericans, and to this day they are enjoyed at many gatherings amongst family and friends.

Spread the goodness of Chapulines by adding {{subst:BlankWikiLove|border=#003300|bg=#FF9966|image=Chapulines_de_Oaxaca.jpg|article=some|item=Chapulines }} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Do not!

Do not make me laugh...it's not fair.. :) Dreadstar ☥ 00:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... Breein1007 (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Haiti organ harvesting

Hello Breein1007. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Haiti organ harvesting, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The information in this article does not appear in 2010 Haiti earthquake. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to participate in the vote here then if you don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion? Or are you just popping in quickly to once again shoot down any contribution I make on this encyclopedia in your hard-fought quest to stalk me? Breein1007 (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I know it's hard to believe, but my world doesn't revolve around you. I've been going through the backlog at CSD today,[4] and by coincidence I came across an article you had tagged. Sheer coincidence. If it's any consolation, yours isn't the only CSD nomination I declined.[5] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Breein1007 (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for voting. Breein1007 (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

A very unfair block

Hi Breein1007. I just re-read the administrator shabazz's comment on my absolutely legitimate appeal of my topic ban, and realized how unfair your block was. shabazz comment is full with hater, PA, lies and sarcasm.I do not mind sarcasm as long as it is smart and funny, but that... :) This comment was also made at AE, and nothing, not even a warning. Why? Because he's administrator? You know, in Ukraine people used to say: "You're the boss, I am the fool, I am the boss, you are the fool". I am not sure you understand the meaning. It is hard to translate sayings :) Anyway... Please take it easy :)--Mbz1 (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Lawyer

Indeed. I find it quite touching that she cares so much about my acoount and the terrible things that would happen to me if the old 127 account started acting badly, and in the same breath charges me with being a sock. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Racism

What exactly are you trying to say or hint at here? That Palestinians, as an ethnic group, are liars? Please confirm that this is not the case, or at least that you are aware that your comments could be misconstrued. If this possibility is difficult to comprehend, try the old trick of swapping the name of the group you are referring to for another one. Given the offensive nature of such insinuations, we can probably gloss over the rather obvious - one would have thought - multiple logical fallacies inherent in any claim that Tiamut's specific suggestion that one particular anonymous individual might not, possibly, in fact be from group A bolsters an argument that group B (a subset of group A) are congenital fraudsters. If this is the standard thinking of those now involved in I-P issues, I am grateful that yet another crackdown appears to be taking shape. Let's hope that this time it takes down the right people, rather than the passing disinterested. N-HH talk/edits 22:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Umm no? I think it's pretty clear that I'm telling Tiamut it's absurd of her to accuse him of lying. The fact that you jump to conclusions that I meant anything racist by that says a lot about you though. Breein1007 (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, you've confirmed that it is not the case - although your original comments were rather obviously open to being misconstrued through your use of the word "they" when discussing people who might be "known for lying". Thanks. WP:AGF and all that. As for what it says about me, it says I'm very cynical. Which I probably am, with good reason for the most part. --N-HH talk/edits 22:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that, but let's just leave it here. Thanks for accepting the clarification. Breein1007 (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I thought it was clear Breein's "they" was referring to Ani medjool. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

SPI

I responded over there.Cptnono (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please knock it off

[6]

No more. Stop poking people. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)