User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg/Archive 2

NPOV on Arab-Israeli_conflict

Hi Moshe, It wasn't me that added the NPOV tag on Arab-Israeli_conflict. I mearly reverted its removal.

Larougite

I appreciate that you admit making an error. It shows good character. A "mensch", as they say in Yiddish. Cheers, -Will Beback 10:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Butcher of Beirut

It shouldn't be in the introduction, no. I wrote that opinion on the talk page but I don't want to start editting this article. I have enough troubles already. --Zero 11:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few minutes, please?

If a person says he will change A and add B to support it, and you see he has changed A, please give that person more than 3 or 4 minutes to finish the edit before reverting the whole thing (again). Especially when you requested B. In this case I did it in two parts because the first was a revert, which I wanted to save as such. Huangdi 12:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grouping

I will try to group together in single edits... but since I tend to edit lots at a time, you might be able to see the net result of changes by comparing the start of my editing mania and then the end point of my editing mania which should show you the net change that I made... I think you will generally note (oh, wait, we disputed on the word generally today ;) ;)... anyway, I think you will note that most of my changes are relatively small and have to due with language and particular words. So, it shows many different edits, but it often simply deals with particular word changes or commas or whatever. Lokiloki 12:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epithets for Sharon

I've commented on the page; thanks for alerting me. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lehi

I could not find the Lehi quote in Wikiquote; did you put it there? In any case, I have the whole article translated as well as a scan of the original Hebrew, so I'll put that in Wikiquote and we can keep this short extract in the article. --Zero 03:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they thought you were an anti-Zionist agitator ;-). --Zero 03:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

... about all those quotes in the beginning of the article... how about putting them in that wikiquotey or at least reducing them... I don't think so many are necessary, at least there, before people get the idea... Lokiloki 04:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what this is about, but in general I think Wikiquote should be used for long quotes and quote collections. Some short quotations illustrate an article very well and moving them out makes just the article less interesting. --Zero^talk 07:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual

I never had a talk link in my signature before, but now I do (hopefully). "Intellectual" is a hard one. There are lots of people in Wikipedia called that (do a search for the word). Not all intellectuals are scholars so we can't substitute that automatically. Maybe the idea would be to call someone an intellectual if they are widely regarded as such. But then we have the difficulty of checking that in the case of someone who is not so well known. --Zero^talk 07:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche

There are a lot of dirty tricks going on at the LaRouche pages. I thought that you might be a sockpuppet of Will Beback, SlimVirgin or Cberlet (which I hope you are not.) --BirdsOfFire 16:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic left wing bias

I saw your comment on Lokiloki's page. This is news to me. Care to fill me in with the details? No hurry on this; whenever you have the time. —Viriditas | Talk 03:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the explanation. Personally, I feel the tit for tat strategy doesn't get us anywhere. Let's take the higher ground [1] and lead by example. My two cents... —Viriditas | Talk 03:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. BTW, Lokiloki has created History of the Arab-Israeli conflict which hopefully, will be linked from the main page once the split is complete. Please help contribute to this article. —Viriditas | Talk 04:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Chesin

You can't delete it but I can. And did. The algorithm is "ask an admin". --Zero^talk 08:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chumash

On September 9, 2001, members of the Chumash tribe paddled from the mainland to Santa Cruz Island in a tomol, the first such crossing of the Santa Barbara Channel in 125 years. Their craft Elyewun ("swordfish"), is reported to have been circled by a pod of at least 30 dolphins during part of their voyage.

Why did you delete this text from Chumash? You wrote,

I'm sorry but I don't see how this is particulary notable, I just went on vacation in Mexico should I put that in an article somewhere?

Don't the facts that the Chumash were famous for their boats and seamanship, were closely-tied to the islands, and that this was the first time they'd done it in over a century all seem to be notable? Please be more careful about deleting information. -Will Beback 10:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

axis mundi

i was going to (and in fact belatedly did) suggest that we just eliminate the "indigenous" part and leave the rest, but i see you've already done that. Looks good. cheers --He:ah? 05:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of the Sun

Thanks for gettin' my back on the Japanese invasion of Manchuria vs China proper. My mistake, got the yrs a bit goofed up there. TommyT

3RR

Hi. I noticed you have been active on a few articles lately, but one has caught my eye. It is a touchy subject, but I wont get into the content of the article. I just want to make sure you know about the 3RR rule because I noticed you reverted one article twice today. The 3RR rule means 3 Revert Rule. It is a stop gap to prevent revert wars on articles. It basicly says after three non-vandalism reverts within 24 hours (or close enough to), you need to walk away from an article. This isn't a warning, but I know the article in question can heat up easily and I just want to make sure you know the rules regarding reverts. Thanks for listening. --OrbitOne 13:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Israel Public Affairs Committee. --OrbitOne 13:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it appeared to be referenced though. --OrbitOne 13:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith should be assumed though, so the best responce would be to delete the parts which you feel (as an objective editor) should be removed for stated reasons while leaving intact the parts which should stay. --OrbitOne 13:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

viewing videos

"I tried viewing the vid with the women but it says I need to download a pugin but when I tried it wouldn't do it automatically, would someone please tell me which plugin I need to download since I can't view a lot of internet videos?" - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, go to this link and try to view the video there. If that doesn't work, tell me what operating system and browser you are using. Kriegman 09:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe, you need the Windows Media Plugin. Let me know if that doesn't work. Also check out this piece that includes a terrorist who was inspired by the Grand Mufti. Kriegman 21:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, Moshe. Any luck? Kriegman 12:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should enable you to see all such WMV videos:

In Firefox, click on "Tools." Then "Options" Then "Downloads" Then "View and Edit Actions" Scroll down to WMV's Click on "Change Action" Choose "Save them on my computer."

You may have to close and restart Firefox, but then you should be able to at least see the videos in question and any others like them in the future. Kriegman 13:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drat. That may not work either as putfile.com may prevent videos from being downloaded. OK, if a video is an important part of a discussion about an article, tell me and I'll post it to another website from which you will be able to download it. Kriegman 08:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I think I have a solution. You should be able to view the checkpoint video here. Kriegman 00:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Jews

Could you keep an eye on this article? Some people have been making some very interesting remarks in the talk page. Aucam an^Talk 06:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

check my talk... sorry about that edit summary Lokiloki 08:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR at Persian Jews

I have followed up on your report at this page and found that the anonymous user has indeed violated the three-revert rule after being warned against it. As I'm sure you're aware, you should probably back off of the article yourself for about 24 hours as you have accumulated three reverts cleaning up after these edits, which do appear to be more than just vandalism (the only time you are permitted to "break" the 3rr). Thanks for your report. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to whether it matters that you were reinserting different material each time: it depends on the situation. In this case I probably wouldn't have blocked you, but another admin might. From WP:3RR: Reverting, in this context, applies to undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part which I think does not require that all of your versions of the page be the same. If in doubt, keep it on the talk page and wait on your edits. As I often find myself saying in edit wars, the world won't end if the article isn't perfect in 20 minutes :) (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy tag on Category:Greek poker players

I was wondering why you tagged this category as a speed delete. As it doesn't meet any of the WP:CSD criteria for categories, I've changed the tag to a {{cfd}}. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your feelings on underpopulated categories. It'll have to go through CfD first to get deleted though. Feel free to go vote on it. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troll User:66.228.120.35 also User:69.57.177.154 ?

Woops! This is actually addressed to User:Piotrus. I edited the wrong page. Sorry about that! Chris Chittleborough 13:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. At Talk:Mark_Lawson, you wrote "66.228.120.35 (talk · contribs) is a troll, no doubt about it. Revert on sight". I've noticed that 69.57.177.154 (talk · contribs) makes the same sort of edits, labelling people (mostly or all British) as Jews, without providing any evidence — eg., the latest edit to Trevor Dann. S/he is also a bit "wheely"; see here and here.

I've only been editing Wikipedia for a few months, and I'm not completely sure what to do about this. I'd appreciate any suggestions you might have. — Chris Chittleborough 12:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latasha Harlins

The Wikipedia entry is already sourced. That she was about to pay is what is said in the L.A. Times article that's listed at the bottom of the entry as a source. Mwelch 20:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you didn't feel the source that was already given wasn't good enough, but if it allays your concerns at all, I've now added as another source a second article that says the same thing. Mwelch 20:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Jews

Please go and participate in the discussion page here[2], and see if you can provide some references.Zmmz 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the following: "For Persian Jews, the change from Parthian to Sassanid control was negative. Heavily influenced by Hellenistic attitudes towards religious freedom (relatively secular in governance and tolerant in general), the Parthian environment protected Jewish communities and rights. The change to Sassanid control was, for all religious minorities, manifestly negative. The Sassanid program favored the Pahlavi language and wholly restored the old monolithic religion of the Zoroastrianism (founded upon worship of the universal God Ahura Mazda) which, under the favoring influence of the new government, attained the zeal of conservatism and all its intolerant byproducts.[3]"

Please amend as necessary. A few footnotes from our discussion could stand insertion. Well? black thorn of brethil 11:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll see if you check that the complaint was disallowed. Of course, I made the complaint in good faith, though I appear to have misunderstood the intricacies of 3RR Law. Of course I stand by my intentions - it is wrong to engage in a revert-war. In your defense, it was also not wise to respond to your revert with another revert - your initial revert was the point at which it ought to have become a wholly Talk-page issue. Cheers - black thorn of brethil 20:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parthia

The selecid empire never survived for hundreds of years afterwards!! --193.190.145.91 18:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

300 years is long enough.black thorn of brethil 03:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no this is wrong blacky. --Bully007

Moshe: Tell me what you think: the reason I think the quote is important (or at least part of the quote is important) is to hammer down the fact that Sassanid Persia was all too often a place of religious supression for Persian Jews (others too, but that's not topical). One reason I think it needs hammering down is that I have noticed in the page history revisions that downplay (or eliminate altogether) this naked intolerance. This priest's quote is, actually, amazing in how far it goes to demonstrate the point - something very very hard to refute. I worry that you confuse the remarks concerning 'idols' as somehow reflecting on orthodox Zoroastrian opinons concerning Judaism. Not the point at all. I profer a compromise quote - "In the time of Bahram II (276-293 CE), a Zoroastrian priest went so far as to declare that under Sassanid rule the 'Jews (Yahud), Buddhists (Shaman), Hindus (Brahman), Nazarenes (Nasara), Christians (Kristiyan), Baptists (Makdag) and Manichaeans (Zandik) were smashed in the empire ... '"

Well?black thorn of brethil 03:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

under Sassanid rule the Kristiyan and Yahud live in peace. --Bully007

Deal. How 'bout this: "In an inscriptiong from time of Bahram II (276-293 CE), a Zorastrian priest went so far as to declare that under Sassanid rule all other religions (including Judaism, Christianity etc.) were 'smashed in the empire'." black thorn of brethil 04:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you have to give ME a break! I could, I suppose, not have a direct quote and just say 'were quashed in the empire', but a picky person would certainly call me on it ("Black" they'd say, "that's not exactly what the inscription says - that's POV"). I think I've gone to great lengths to maintain the integrity of the information needing presentation while accomodating your concerns. At some point, you'll have to go the translator of the inscription and complain. If you think the typical article reader is going to be confused by that metaphor, well - a. it's not a metaphor, because 'smashed' is a word that stands for 'defeated' or 'suppressed' all the time, as opposed to being a word more or less exclusively limited to smashing things like potatoes; and b. no one will be confused - no one. So...can we put this issue to bed and let stand the quote I proposed immediately above? black thorn of brethil 04:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sorry. Not angry at all - just trying to get past obstacles that exist solely for obstacles' sake, and get the deed done. You must imagine my tone as animated and energetic, as opposed to angry. Final form: "In an inscription from time of King Bahram II (276-293 CE), a Zoroastrian priest went so far as to declare that under Sassanid rule all other religions in the empire (listing Judaism, Christianity etc.) had been 'smashed'." This will be attended by the appropriate reference directing those with interest/more questions to the source. I'll put this in shortly. black thorn of brethil 07:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 seconds actually

Thats what my bot took to notice and fix it :) -- Tawker 04:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perdew

I know what I'm doing dude ;) Maybe you should update the delete tag to a "by author" tag. (J.reed 08:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Persian Jews quote

If you mean the quote on the prohibition on going out in the rain, then it serves not to illustrate a particular POV, but rather one aspect of Jews being considered unclean in Shi'a Islam. The aspect is sufficiently notable for pretty much every scholar writing on the treatment of non-Muslims in Shi'a Islam to mention it and for probably all European travellers to Persia to describe it. In the source materials translated by David Littman and others, it was just amazing to notice how no one could pass by this issue, and perhaps not surprisingly, because that particular aspect of life in Persia struck people as particularly strange and maybe even barbaric. Pecher ^Talk 09:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because without the specifics, the statement of uncleanness will sound inane to the reader. People will ask: "OK, they are unclean, so what?" It is more than justified to describe the practical consequences of the Jews being considered unclean. Pecher ^Talk 09:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moshe. Both you and Aucaman left me mewssages asking to look at that article. Thank you for believing in me. My knowledge of the subject is not deep and I don't get the subject of the dispute. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moshe - I'm sorry I haven't been around lately and will still be at a conference for the next few days, but if you bear with me a few days longer I"ll gladly take a closer look at it. I want to make sure I understand the dispute clearly. I apologize for the delay. Thanks Ramallite ^(talk) 04:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khomeini

I've added some stuff about Khomeini's views on non-Muslims, but people might try to take them out. Could you keep an eye on that article as well? Aucam an^Talk 14:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"inuse"

Please read the "inuse" tag on top of Persian Jews. Wait untill I'm done please.

"This article is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. As a courtesy, please do not edit this article while this message is displayed. The person who added this notice will be listed in its edit history should you wish to contact him or her."

--ManiF 23:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battles

I saw that u have added a disputed tag in Battle of Mu'tah. i have some comments to make on that article, concerning its content and POV-adding and made a comment on the talk page. but is there any other dispute for that article? (also,u have added tags in many battles as i just saw) --Hectorian 13:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. so, i am not the only one who thinks that! cause these articles seem more like religious articles on Islam, rather than articles concerning battles... --Hectorian 13:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe,yes, at that period it was Byzantium, not Rome!i guess that the same thing should happen in the Battle of Mu'tah...Erase the whole text, cause it does not have anything to do with the battle actually.it's talking about what the muslims commanders said to the byzantines, mentioning the words Prophet,Allah and Quran in almost every sentence!what can be more POV than that? i had removed the word 'martyred' before (which was a blatant sign of muslim POV), but the article did not get better...Only a rewritting would really help... --Hectorian 13:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly,i do not know much about battles in general...But since these articles are in such a bad condition, i really do not believe that i will make something worst than what it is now:). i will have to read them deeply first, and then we can work together in rewriting them.ok? --Hectorian 14:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes in the Battle of Mu'tah and i removed the tag. i am not sure if it is NPOV enough, though. what do u think? --Hectorian 17:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

message

thanks in regards to the message you left on my bot's talk page. however, the word 'existance' is intentionally misspelled to show users the incorrect spelling i am fixing. but thanks for look'n out (i have made edit summary mistakes before, yikes). JoeSmack ^Talk 16:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ooooh, i see what you're saying: i put in an extra 't' in the edit summary 'correct' spelling. thanks for the catch, i will definitely change that. JoeSmack ^Talk 22:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe

Do you have a MSN or AOL id? --ManiF 02:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or a yahoo ID, I just wanted to discuss something with you over an online messenger. Cheers. --ManiF 04:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casus-Shmasus

See Template_talk:Infobox_Military_Conflict#Remove_casus_belli.3F. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Moshe, would you mind e-mailing me, please? There's an issue I'd like to discuss, but I see you haven't specified an e-mail address in your preferences. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casus of the six-day war

Hi,

The reason why your edit didn't work, is that Template:Warbox does not have a "casus" field. wbr, Heptor _talk 10:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Khaybar

They just really love telling that story, don't they?Timothy Usher 21:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The battle of Khaybar!

If u want to can write the article and then i will make some changes. Ok Bro, and about beheading that man, it is stated in the Quran that don't attack anyone unless that person attacks you first. Now i am not saying that Prophet Mohammed SAW killed that man but according to the story u told me, then maybe that man attcked my Prophet first.

I didn't say anything about beheading the man, what are you talking about? and I don't know enough to write the article, but I do know that none of your versions belong in any encyclopedia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Salman gem

Abu Zar Timothy Usher 03:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And another...Battle of Hunayn, though in this case with co-conspirators. I stubbed it like the others.Timothy Usher 06:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Alliance

...is a group of antisemitic, white supremacist, neonazi ideologues. Their recruitment tactic is to claim they are merely "white nationalist." This is not a disputed issue in scholarly books and journal articles on the National Alliance.--Cberlet 13:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Aqsa Intifada

By shortening, i've fixed format of the table of content area. if you do work with high screen resolution you should also think about those who don't. just take a look how is you're 'proper heading' breaks toc. --tasc 07:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Echidna

I noticed what you said on UtherSRG's talk page, and I have to disagree with you. I am from Australia, and have never heard it referred to as a Spiney Ant Eater, I thought that was an American animal or something. Also all my Australian mammal reference books call it an echidna. --liquidGhoul 08:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to that, every time it is called an echidna as the primary term, it is one less time that it is referred to as the spiny anteater. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deuterium

The thing to understand here is that Deuterium is another abusive sock puppet of Hrana98/24.7.141.159/216.118.97.211 - no doubt there are others - as was made all too clear on the Talk:Islamism page (see the most recent archive for details). Not sure if any of these other aliases are familiar to you, but be advised of the way this user operates. I've noted this on WP:ANI.Timothy Usher 08:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas on what I've posted on WP:ANI?Timothy Usher 07:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PI

could you look at my page and see if it seems "safe" now? elizmr 15:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRmep: How should I deal with this?

Hi Moshe. I just made an edit [3] to the IRmep page with the summary "added claim they are a charitable organization registered in Washington DC with link to registration certificate". This actually summaried quite well the change I made. You reverted it [4] with the comment that "rv, please don'ty label your edits minor when thy really aren't". I am confused. Are you reverting the change just because I didn't mark it as minor? Or are you reverting the change because you feel it isn't factual? I understand that last time I intrepreted your behavior in a negative fashion and I apologize, that won't happen this time. I am just confused as to how we should proceed in resolving this argument as to how IRmep should be characterized. Did you notice that IRmep recently released their official Washington DC charity registration certificate? I used it as a source. Best. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 03:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Claim - can we find a better source?

From article The Council for the National Interest:

"It is the organization's position that the Israel holds a virtual dictatorship over the American congress, and that the Iraq war was launched primarily on behalf of Israel. [5]"

I do not deny the above but the current source, an article on National Vanguard (a racist website) about Paul Findley, whose position they like, doesn't mention CNI by name nor does it mention anything specific about a dictatorship. I would suggest that the precision of the claim be improved if you want to use this source. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 04:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe added it back into the article with the claim that "If it was dubious it should be removed, but you admitted that it was probably true".

Moshe, you need to follow WP:RS in editing articles. Wikipedia would break down completely if we just added what we felt was true rather than what is supported by reliable sources. I also didn't admit "that it was probably true", but that I have no information either way at the moment given that the provided reference doesn't mention either of the actor or the claim made. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 16:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

You seem to not require sources on one page (The Council for the National Interest), but require more than decent sources on another page (IRmep) depending on how you feel personally with regards to the topic. You also do not even pretend to participate in the RfC on the IRmep page. What's up dude? I am not going to get in an edit war with you or be rude, since I've learned the outcome of that. I guess I need to figure out the next step here -- this is a good learning excuse since these skills may be useful going forward. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 23:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the RFC you deleted

I've reinstated it. The RFC does not appear to be directed at you, rather the RfC is on the article. Article RFC's belong on the articles talk page, unlike user RFC's which get their own page. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of Compromise

Moshe, can you please go here[6], and see if you feel like leaving a short comment there?; it is very important to me. Thanks Zmmz 09:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe, I really appreciate that you left a comment on that page on my behalf, but please be kind enough to move your comments here, by today if possible, because they want it to be submitted in this page[7]. Thank you so muchZmmz 18:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank you Moshe for your kind comments; it worked, and I`m grateful.Zmmz 19:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]