User talk:Sonofzion

Hi

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Sonofzion, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid

I'm not going to start a revert war, but History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era is a high-quality article, and South African apartheid is the only "indisputable" use of the term Apartheid, because that's where it was invented and officially used. The redirect to the specific name is to prevent the page being diluted with discussions of other countries, where the term has no official status. This is by far the preference of the editors of History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era and I respectfully request that you, in turn, respect this. Zaian 21:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus, achieved after much discussion and upheld over several years, is that Apartheid should redirect to History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era as the article about the official use of the term. The longer name is to prevent confusion and controversial editing involving other countries (in particular Israel) from taking place at that location. That debate should not take place under the official Apartheid heading as it is very much secondary to the official historical use of the term in South Africa. If you would read the many archives at both Talk:Apartheid and Talk:History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era you would see that your recent editing of the page Apartheid is a perhaps unintentional hijacking of this topic. Again, I respectfully ask that you allow it to be returned to the previous status quo. Otherwise I've absolutely no doubt that a great many editors of the South African article will disagree with your move and see it as unilateral. Zaian 21:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that if you want to continue this discussion, we use Talk:Apartheid. I have copied our conversation there. Zaian 21:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Altalena

Please don't vandalize pages by blank erasing them or you will be banned from editing.

Guy Montag 21:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly warning

Please be aware of WP:3RR and other WP:RULES. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing because evidence strongly indicates that you are a sockpuppet of Homey being used to skirt a 48 hour 3RR block. If you want to be unblocked, you'll need to prove you're not a sockpuppet of Homey. FeloniousMonk 22:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not Homey, you could start by telling us who you used to edit as. FeloniousMonk 23:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. This means what?

I used to edit without being registered for about a year. I forgot to sign in once today. This is why I'm blocked? You talk about evidence, please show it to me.

Why can't I edit? Is this because I opened a complaint against Jayjg?

I see now. Jayjg told you to block me after I complained about him. This is a conflict of interest. He doesn't give you any actual proof, just his view which was possibly biased by his conflicts and you accepted this. Sounds like you are his puppet. Can I block you now?

5 million people live within an hour of where I am. This city probably has the largest population of Israelis and Arabs outside of the middle east. Did Jayjg tell you this. No? Would that effect the interpretation of his data? Yes. Maybe you should have asked someone who is not involved with me to judge? Instead you asked someone with the appearance of bias. If this was a court and you were a police officer your action would be thrown out. Probably large number of people who edit articles on Israel live in my city. Are you going to block all of them now?

jayjg says on your website {Unsurprisingly, the CheckUser evidence was consistent and strongly suggestive (though not 100% conclusive) with them being sockpuppets of Homey}

Show me this evidence or remove the block. You should have asked someone else ... why did you ask someone who is in a conflict of interest? He covers self by saying "not 100%" what does this mean, 20%, 50%, 60%? If evidence is not conclusive...and even with conflict of interest he says it is not, then you have no proof to block.

Feh. I will go back to editing without registering. Thank you for your waste of my time.

I would like to settle this false accusation that you are my sockpuppet> Could you please send an e-mail with your regular mail to Kim (mailto:kim@kimvdlinde.com) and I will do the same. As soon as she has both, she will run some checks. She only will report if we are the same, likely the same or not, without revealing any personal information or details about how this was checked (WP:BEANS). Ideally, if you could indicate your real name (which I will keep confidential at all times), that would be a good additional verification method. Thanks. User:Homey 12:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what difference will it make? All you have to do, Homey, is e-mail from a library or somewhere you don't normally post from. That kind of check is completely useless, as I believe Essjay has already told you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Essjay was responding to my request for Checkuser. User:Homey 16:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated the block. Homey unblocking his own alleged sockpuppet is a clear conflict of interest. This is obviously a sockpuppet account; Homey needs to stop wasting everyone's time here. FeloniousMonk 16:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's so obvious you wouldn't have left the door open when you blocked him/her three weeks ago or used weasal words such as "the evidence strongly indicates". I've posted my IP address on your talk page. It's obviously no where near the IP address this user was using.User:Homey 16:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skirting positive identification by IP is easily done, something you as an admin already know. Stop wasting your time and ours and find a productive way to contribute to the project. FeloniousMonk 16:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me for evidence that your allegation is false whilst at the same time dismissing any evidence I could produce. You based your banning on Checkuser evidence evidently produced by Jayjg but dismiss that same evidence if it could be used against your claim. Your inability to distinguish between suspicion and fact will hurt you one day. User:Homey 18:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonofzion was asked why he suddenly arrived at the article and reverted to your version just after you'd been blocked. He said he had read about the dispute on a left-wing or Marxist discussion group for students. He was therefore asked to supply details of which discussion group so that the claim could be checked, but he declined to answer. As I recall, he also said at one point that he was posting from an internet cafe, so KimvdLinde doing one of her pointless checks will show nothing, as usual. There is almost no reasonable doubt that Sonofzion was you, or someone responding to a request by you, and as you know, WP doesn't distinguish between sockpuppets and meatpuppets. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted nothing to any list, nor did I ask anyone else to. Was this list local or international? Who is on it? What is it's name? Where is the post? What was said in the post? You have no details of this list and you have absolutely no evidence that I had any relationship to it. I understand your back is against the wall given the RFA and the proposed sanctions against you but frankly if you had anything to complain about you should have done it a few weeks ago. That you didn't suggests you know your claim is built on sand. That you suddenly bring all this up now smacks of something ranging between opportunism and desperation. User:Homey 21:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bringing anything up suddenly. I raised this before when Sonofzion was editing. I have no information about the list. I don't believe there was a list. I believe you are Sonofzion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belief is not fact and suspicion is not proof. User:Homey 21:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tunnel vision is also not an admirable trait. You reject out of hand not only any evidence that may disprove your suspicion but the possibility of any evidence that may disprove your suspicion. I can't use checkuser, I can't use email or anything else to try to prove a negative. So let me try reason - given Zeq's obsession with sockpuppets and his almost daily accusations against me and various others he disagrees with of sockpuppetry why would I take the risk of using a sockpuppet when I know full well that Zeq is stalking me to try to prove something, anything? I'm not stupid and given that Zeq sees sockpuppets everywhere I would not take the risk of using one, particularly not one with a Toronto IP.User:Homey 21:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic that I'm being accused of having enough "savvy" to evade checkuser but not enough "savvy" to know that any sockpuppet activity would instantly raise suspicion from Zeq. Given that he has cried "sockpuppet" endlessly when there have been none it would be logical for me to assume he'd cry the same had I actually used one. User:Homey 22:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Im not homey -- Sonofzion

PS sorry Im out of town since a few weeks or i would have seen this before. Also ive lost my password but since im blocked, so what? Will start new account. Bye - Sonofzion

Sonofzion, you said earlier that you took part in the dispute when you did, and knew which versions to revert to, because you had seen it publicized on a discussion group. When you were asked which one, you didn't answer. Could you please tell us where we can find that discussion? It would go some way to explaining your presence on those pages, and the timing of it. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I lost my password. Its common mistake. Now please leave me alone. - Sonofzion

Now I see you're in Sweden. :-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever's at the Swedish IP just vandalized my user talk page. Weird. Su-Laine Yeo 16:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not possible. I live on Lago di Como in summertime. Maybe the ISP confused Sweden and Switzerland?? I dont know. Im tired of this. Ciao - Sonofzion

question

In this edit: [1] you have indicated that you have edited before without registration and intend to do it again after being blocked. If indeed you are telling the truth can you provide the names of articles you edited and diffs ? Thank you. Zeq 18:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]