User talk:Aleverde

Biased Serb

I can't believe what you wrote concerning Bleiburg!! You don't appear to know much about history. Are you fogeting that Hitler and your Germans forced (some more or less willing) the entire Axis (including Mussolini) to kill jews? You say the GERMANS killed jews in Serbia and not Nedić? Who the f... do you think controlled and supported our 'good friend' Pavelić anyway?! I can't believe you're so naive... Serbs murdered Croats and Partisans and collaborated with the Axis, while the Croats were the first to oppose the antisemites. The chetniks were just as bad (if not worse) as the Ustashe, they just didn't have such powerfull support. Serbs fought for the Axis just like the Ustashe accept the later at least didn't con the allies into feeding and arming them! But as for the collaborators at Bleiburg, I more or less agree with you... DIREKTOR P.S.: The traitorous Pavelić regime was anti-Serb, not antisemitic, originally.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! —Khoikhoi 01:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Uhm thank you too, but in the age of intense Islamic jihado-vandalism on Wikipedia, I guess I'll have to neutralize their POV by our POV (the ratio is anyway 21 to 1, isn't it?), and then someone neutral will clear it up. As far as facts are concerned, I don't remember I posted something wrong. If I did, then please correct me.

Actually, it's been my personal observation that there are a great deal of Muslim-bashers active on Wikipedia who feel that it's necessary to point out everything there is to criticise about Islam, while failing to see the faults in their own religion. (don't worry, I'm not talking about you :p) Anyways, I was mainly referring to this edit. Do you have any sources that says for sure he was an "Islamic Jihad" member? If so, please add them to the article. —Khoikhoi 01:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, dear friend, it is you who need to start viewing the picture as a whole. I'd like to suggest that you read the Quran, the Hadith and the Sunna and the biography of Muhammad before saying anything about Islam. I myself am a convinced atheist, by the way, and I don't like religions in general, but please note that Islam is the only major religion that does not obey the Golden Rule of human relations (don't do unto others things you do not want to be done unto you). Study a little bit about it before you call anyone a "Muslim basher". Yes Muslims are to bash unless they change their modus vivendi that thrives on death, destruction and misery - both theirs and their counterparts'. But it is Islam that is the main culprit, not any individual Muslim. I haven't seen any non-Muslim lately that would carry placards a-là "Butcher those who mock Judaism" or "Massacre those who insult Buddhism" or "Iran you will pay, your 9/11 is on its way". Regarding the edit: my sources are the Israeli news that clearly state that Shadi Sukiya is one of senior Islamic Jihad members in Jenin, and that he was wanted (מבוקש). The link is in Hebrew, but I guess you will find more links in English if you want (given you really want to). Yeah, anything Israel's saying about its adversaries is "Israel claims", but I guess for you guys to be sure he is an Islamic Jihad member is to have Reuters (LOL) to film him shooting a soldier or blowing himself up in one of our cities, while carrying Islamic Jihad emblem on him. Right? If so, God help you because after us it's your turn, and don't say we haven't told you. Hamas in fact is already educating children that "Al-Andalus" is a Muslim land, so watch out before putting Israel's words in doubt. Judaism also does not have a notion of Taqiya or Kitman, so I think our news are waaaay more reliable than those originating from Islamic countries.

It seems to me "An Eye for an Eye" would openly violate the so-called Golden Rule of human relations. What text is that in? This entry above is highly prejudicial... Stevenmitchell 07:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It only seems to you because it is a clearly logically wrong statement. Western leftists are at odds with logic when it collides with their Marxist dogmas. See your talk page for explanation and please refrain from entering in this page in the future to avoid unnecessary distress cause to me. You could at least start off with a better argument than this anyway. --Aleverde 19:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic insult, extreme uncivility

I ask you aplogize or I am raising an ArbCom for ethnic slurs. There are personal attacks we can handle, and then there is racist and ethnic insults which are a banable offense for just one instance. I am dead serious. I have a sense of humor until it comes to this. Please read WP:CIVIL--Cerejota 02:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What ethnic insults? What racist slurs? That I said that Spaniards and Hispanics usually do hate Jews? How does that amount to a racist slur? How does that amount to "racism" against them? That is true, and face it. You guys in America are used to treat any inconvenient saying as "racism", but what I said is very far from being racism. I did not say Spaniards and Hispanics are "inferior" to some other ethnic group. I just said they usually hate Jews (and usually becasue of religious indoctrination), and this is true, and you know it very well. So don't threaten me, please, and don't try to intimidate me. Remember Chávez's speech about "those who crucified Christ now own the world"? So when he will apologize, so will I. Till then, you'd better curb your threats. And yeah, I am "dead serious" as well. Aleverde

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Cerejota 02:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That I said that Spaniards and Hispanics usually do hate Jews? How does that amount to a racist slur? It is the very definition of a racist slur: you are adscribing a negative general trait or opinion to an entire ethnic group or "race", whith the intention of insulting and diminishing them. I ask you to again reconsider an apologize to me and others in the talk page of the article in question. This is not a threat, this is a civil intervention to get you to reconsider and apologize.--Cerejota 02:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Then you don't understand the essence of this definition. If I ascribe a negative trait to an ethnic group and claim it to be INHERENT and INTRINSICAL to this ethnic group and that it CAN'T BE CHANGED, then yes, it is an ethnic slur. As you easily can see, I did not say neither of this. I said Spaniards and Spanish-speaking peoples usually hate Jews because of religious indoctrination (that's why it did not stop even after 1492), and this is not a trait that can't be changed. Yes it's cultural, yes it's educational, yes it's traditional, but it's not "biological" or "genetic". Spain's Catholicism is extremely fanatical and very anti-Jewish, as opposed, for example, to Italy's Catholicism. And this is not confined to Spain only. Portuguese-speaking people behave the same, Croatians usually also behave the same (not only towards Jews though). Does Hugo Chávez has a droplet of Spanish blood? I do not think so, he's probably pure Amerindian, yet he's an anti-Semite, because he was raised in Spanish-speaking culture, and you could see its religious aspect in his recent Christmas speech. Again, look at how many "perros judíos" does Google yield? And in what context? And how many parallel Hebrew results pop up (even that single result is at soccer forum and the slur is directed at the football team of Valencia in defense of Claudio Ranieri)? You have to face the truth and not run away from it and blame everybody else on something you might not like. I told you this because I believe that this indoctrination plays a role in your editing of the article and your clear anti-Israeli bias. Even the bulk of mainstream media, which is hard to blame in pro-Israeli tendencies, uses the word "abducted" (because it is a fact and not an Israeli "interpretation" - Kuntar was not released because of Nasrallah not giving info on Ron Arad and not Israel; the fauxtography scandal is not a "mother of all POV" but a proven fact of at least 2 doctored photos, plus death pimping by Salam Daher caught on tape; the border attack as a whole resulted in the death of 8 and not 3 soldiers, because it is not relevant what the other five guys were doing during it - it was still the same attack). I don't see a need to apologize to you, I rather see a need for you to take a look inside yourself and examine what motivates you to do all this. Aleverde.

This is not about an edit dispute. For that we have the talk pages of the article in question. This about your blatant, and now repeated racist and ethnic slurs. Please WP:COOL and realize what you are saying and apologize.--Cerejota 00:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You have not addressed any of the evidences I mentioned, because you cannot rebuke them logically. All evidence I brought points to the fact that what I say is completely true. And I still think that this anti-Jewish indoctrination is what motivating you to slant the article in a clear anti-Israeli direction. It's a personal accusation, indeed, but it is not "racist", and it was already clarified to you many times. It is a fact, and you know inside yourself very well that it is a fact. A hard, cold fact. I don't see a need to apologize for a constatation of fact, though I'll keep on WP:COOL and avoid addressing editors personally in the future Aleverde 12:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I note that you admit to doing a personal attack, but that unfortunatelly you don't recognize the racist nature of your comments. But since I don't think wikipedia is a place to resolve wider differences, I can live with this as a sort of apology. However be warned I will not tolerate any racist personal attacks in the future. As to inability to debate, please do not be quaint, we are all nerds with big mouths here: it is rather complete and utter disinterest. I respect people who disagree with my POV but engage in thought provoking debate. Unfortunatelly your actions and words tell me I should only engage you for specific reasons such as this. Anyone who trully belives that they, and they alone have the truth gets stricken pretty quickly from my book.--Cerejota 07:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't recognize "racist nature" because it is not present there, as have been clearly shown to you. If I say Hutus hate Tutsis it is a fact and not racism against Hutus, and if I say that Spanish-speaking people are strongly indoctrinated by their version of Catholicism against Jews from a very young age, it is also true. Chávez and Zapatero do not even belong to the same race, yet they are both anti-Semites because of the same reason (even if Zapatero may now be an atheist). In Spanish-speaking world you can freely watch a youth telenovela (Rebelde Way of Argentina), on major channels, with explicitly anti-Semitic remarks/jokes by the personages, and even export it to Israel. Imagine if that were in US? Of course in France, for example, you have also anti-Semitic celebrities like Dieudonné M'bala M'bala, but this anti-Semitism has different roots that are not so strongly and subconsciously bound to Catholicism, unlike in Spain. I know much more about the Spanish-speaking world than you might think. I regularly watch TVE channel of Spain and though I don't understand all the nuances of the language and the speech, I see very well how they cover issues connected to Israel. Of course there are other views in Spain as well but they are in minority. And no, I do not believe that I alone have the truth. If I am given facts, I adjust my POV accordingly. Which cannot be seen in other editors here, including you. POV "captured" is still there, factual fauxtography and press manipulation by Hizballah is not mentioned at all, although all these are proven facts and well presented on the talk page. --Aleverde 11:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

Regarding [1] and [2].

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Deuterium 14:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh please? When you guys stop lying (replacing eight factual deaths with three and disguising blatant kidnapping, based on false pretext, as "capturing") then it might become relevant. But you keep on lying, so I'll continue to be on guard. And then the argument is between me and Cerejota so please stay away. And stop threatening me - it's not an Islamic country here, it's cyberspace. I think that you should stop treating Wikipedia as Hizballa's asset, because it is not. Al-Manar is more than enough. Aleverde

Aleverde, the first assault/attacked killed three solders. The next five soldiers died some time later when they tried to rescue the two kidnapped soldiers. Anyways...--Tom 18:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No, this was during the same attack and it is highly irrelevant what the five were trying to do. To save their comrades is what soldiers usually do during battle, you know. Their deaths are a part of that same attack, and noone can change this fact. Also, what I know is that they were also trying to extract the bodies of the killed, not only to rescue the kidnapped soldiers. It's a part of the same attack, period. Aleverde

Aleverde, ok no problem. It seems that you are taking this much too personally. I am sure its hard not to but please remember this Project is trying to be encyclopediatic. I will try to list policy guidlelines since you seem to be new here. Please keep it civil and try to assume good faith and work with other editors where possible. Anyways, carry on...--Tom 19:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. And still, I can't figure out how the fact that these five guys tried to help their comrades puts them apart from the three other victims of the raid? This all happened during the same time and under the same attack. Aleverde

Its really just samantics(sp) I guess. It looks like the initial attack took place at 9:00am and the follow up recovery effort took place approx. 2 hours later at 11:00am. Again, thanks for keeping it civil. There are many editors here who will be more than willing to assist you edit and improve/source articles. --Tom 23:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, such as those you made to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Also, make sure to use an informative edit summary for such edits. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. HawkerTyphoon 18:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider my edits controversial in any way, because they all are factually correct. Also, I have already begun to discuss them, and as for now, nobody can present any valid rebuttal to them, apart from advocating that Wikipedia be neutral for the sake of being neutral and ignore explicit facts. Aleverde

Unfortunately, other editors do consider your views controversial, specifically this edit.. Please dicuss them before making them, otherwise your edits could be viewed as vandalism, and result in warnings and blocks. I would also like to add that Wikipedia has to be neutral, and that any edit that adversly affects neutrality is very likely to be considered vandalism. I understand you want to get your views across, but this is not the place to. HawkerTyphoon 18:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. Wikipedia has to be neutral, but it must not sweep out facts for the sake of being neutral. The fact is that the soldiers were abducted and not "captured", because Hizballah's pretexts for the raid are false, they are blatant lies, and this has been shown more than one time. Other editors may consider it vandalism? Fine, and what if the current majority of other editors are anti-Israeli (which in fact is the situation - Matthew A. B., Cerejota etc.)? Isn't their "considering" a POV? Again, it is FACT that the pretexts for the raid are not valid (neither prisoners nor Shebaa farms), and it should be reflected on the page. Besides, I already have discussed this on the talk page. I am not trying to get my views across, I am calling a spade a spade. Can a fact be called POV? Even Kofi Annan said that this was totally unprovoked attack, which again, makes using of the term "captured" absolutely inappropriate, and even more so because the raid wasn't done by another state but by an armed militia. Aleverde.

Wikipedia has to be neutral, but it must not sweep out facts for the sake of being neutral. - You are right there. However, the soldiers were captured because they were soldiers, and could only be abducted if they were civilians in a purely civilian situation. Hezbollah's pretexts for the raid would not affect the grammatical nuances of the sentence. I don't pretend to understand all the petty little problems that the middle east is concerning itself with, but I know a weasel word when I see it. I will be simple and straightforward - I suspect that you know what you are doing is wrong, and I am giving you a friendly warning: Restrain your edits in future. HawkerTyphoon 18:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I rather feel that what you guys are doing is very wrong - covering up facts and disguising it as "neutrality". Quote: Hezbollah's pretexts for the raid would not affect the grammatical nuances of the sentence. Oh, and why not? If an army captures enemies' soldiers, it frees them after the war ends or after a ceasefire, possibly exchanging them for their own captured soldiers. As you clearly can see, Hizballah's raid had a preset aim - not just to take them POW, but to force the counterpart to do something else in order to free them. And that is abduction. Now we have a ceasefire, Israel has Hizballah's captives, so why Nasrallah does not exchange the 2 soldiers for these captives only? Because he has a preset aim - to force releasing of Samir Kuntar (who is not a POW but a ruthless murderer of civilians) while evading his previous obligation to provide an info on Ron Arad in return. Quote: "...could only be abducted if they were civilians in a purely civilian situation...". And who came up with this definition of abduction? Does definition of abduction include distinguishing soldiers from civilians? I doubt it very much. And if I take a soldier and demand money for his release, is this an abduction or is it "capturing" only because he's a soldier? I remind you that the soldiers were on their sovereign territory and not engaged in any aggressive activity. Those who were in the Humvee weren't even carrying guns. Quote: ...all the petty little problems that the middle east is concerning itself with...". Petty? Is death a petty matter? You can say this calmly sitting in your good ol' England (which refused to accept Jewish refugees during WW2), now try to live in a besieged state under constant threat of possible genocide and destruction, for 58 years, after a massive massacre of your people - try to call it "petty" then! Of course you are an admin so I am basically helpless here, but try to look into yourself and examine yourself before you blame others. Aleverde.

Please form a concensus before making the edit again, that's all. As for my opinions on the middle east, i shouldn't have let them out, but the middle east conflicts are in my opinion petty, as is any conflict that doesn't involve England. I'm not an admin, either, I just sound like one because I talk as if I have the authority to do something. Trust me, I don't! I can see your point, however, and if I was Jewish i would be out fighting for Israel. if I was Arabic I would be firing rockets. However, my beliefs are that I don't really care what's happening, as long as it doesn't involve me... I don't mean to counter-argue this, and I'm not taking anyone's side, but you can Imagine that the Arabs are probably rather annoyed with Israel, for reasons that are equally as valid. Both sides just go about things in questionable ways. Hmm. HawkerTyphoon 19:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but I suspect that in current situation facts cannot be presented properly, since the current majority of the editors are anti-Israeli. And anyway, Arabs are "annoyed" with Israel mainly because it just dares to exist, not anyhting else. And that's why they started wars with it over and over again. FYI, half of the modern so-called "Arab states" are situated on an originally non-Arab territory - Maghreb (Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Libya) is Berber; Egypt is Coptic; Lebanon, Syria and Iraq are Aramaic. Moreover, in most cases the original population still exists and is being treated like second-class citizens or outrightly persecuted (like Copts and Assyrians). Questionable ways? Maybe; Israel is not free from errors, however hitting civilians intentionally was never its policy, as opposed to its counterparts whose intents have always been overtly genocidal, ever since the grand mufti. Aleverde.

I see your points. I don't agree with Hezbollah's methods, or with Israel's, however. Firing rockets at the civilian population, even if it's the only way to get your messages across, is inexcusable. Arabs are in my view annoyed with Israel over Jerusalem, and Israel's ownership of it despite its actual ownership never being decided post-British Mandate, and the fact that the land has been for the past few hundred years, Palestine. They feel like they're being invaded, even if they aren't, and they feel that they have to pro-activley defend themselves. Israel cannot be excused for dropping leaflets before they drop bombs, it's no more excusable for them to order south Lebanon evacuated than it is for Hezbollah to order north Israel evactuated. Both sides need to sit back, Israelis and Palestinians need to calm the hell down, after 53 years it's fast becoming old news, and sooner or later the US will invade to keep the peace, and it'll all go to pot. Then it will be my concern - I'm in the Royal Navy! HawkerTyphoon 19:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the land wasn't "Palestine". It was a part of a larger province of the Ottoman empire. "Palestine" is just the name of the place, it has acquired its Arabic context only recently. See, Arabs' "wrath" is not over Jerusalem - they've been offered East Jerusalem by Barak back in 1999, but they started intifada instead. Now Israel has withdrawn from Gaza, and what do you see? More Kassams and raids from Gaza. Because the aim is to bring the Jews down and have it all their way, not to acquire any partial territory by fighting and subsequent negotiation. Read Hamas' charter and you'll see for yourself. Their angry sentiment is not because they are Arabs, it's because they are Muslims. It's Islam that makes them think in such a way. For a Muslim mindset, anyone reclaiming a land that was once conquered by Jihad, is inflicting heavy shame and humiliation on all of the Umma (this includes Spain by the way, and the recent Perejil island incident is only a beginning). Read Faith Freedom International, read the Quran, read the Hadithes, read the Sunna and then you'll understand what motivates the Islamic mind. Quran calls Jews descendants of pigs and monkeys, Hadithes call for Muslims to kill the Jews to the last one till they hide behind rocks and trees, - so Jerusalem is only a pretext (even more so that it is not mentioned in Islam's holy scriptures at all; identifying Jerusalem as the site of Muhammad's rise to heaven is only a guess and a deliberate choice of Umar). Israel wanted peace from the beginning, so it needn't "calm down" because it was never "hot". Even the territories captured in 1967 were originally to be used for exchange for a peace treaty; the leaders said they "wait for a call" from Assad, Hussen and Sadat (but the three leaders decided to dump the headache of holding them on Israel - as you can see well, in the 1994 peace treaty Jordan was not asking for the West Bank at all; Egypt was not claiming Gaza strip back in 1977 as well). Also, you say: "Israel cannot be excused for dropping leaflets before they drop bombs" - but that's the whole catch! Hizballah is totally blended inside the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon and they did it deliberately. They get arms from Syria using the national Lebanese highways, they've built their headquarters and weapon stashes in the midts of densely populated areas - what can you do in such a situation? Refer to the UN? I hope you understand it's totally useless. Aleverde

Obeyance of the Golden Rule

To quote you, "Islam is the only major religion that does not obey the Golden Rule of human relations (don't do unto others things you do not want to be done unto you)." With all of your admonishments to others about what to read, you obviously haven't read the New Testament. I am not saying its adherents follow the book, but as prescribed the text does not prescribe adherence to the "Golden Rule" and certainly not vengeance as you interpret it to be... But if it makes you happy to hate, so be it... Stevenmitchell 02:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Plying

The term is plying, not playing ones trade. To ply ones trade means to put it to use (ie footballers ply their trade at football clubs). I am going to revert the edits that you made since it doesn't make any sense grammatically now, don't take it personally though. NYC2TLV 03:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Lebanese Americans

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Lebanese Americans, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Waggers 12:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of Rock hyrax

I see you've made several contributions in the past to the page Rock hyrax. I've pretty much rewritten the page, putting things on a much more encyclopedic basis, and rationalising a lot of stuff that was scattered around the article. I'll leave it in my sandbox User:Arikk/Sandbox/Rock_Hyrax for a couple of days before replacing the existing page (although I think it's already much better), but if anyone wants to comment, please do so on my talk page. Arikk (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Aleverde! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 939 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Itzik Kornfein - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Submicroscopic

The article Submicroscopic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is a dictionary definition

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Whpq (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)