This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Re: Copyright infringement
regarding the revert (15:36, 27 February 2007): This revert doesn't comply with the official policy on the English Wikipedia (If you find a copyright infringement). The summary of the revert ("revert to june 10, 2006 (07:45 [utc]) version due to subsequent copyright violations") doesn't provide any reference to proof the copyright infringement. A staff member of the Israel Museum has been informed by email. --ThT 11:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The first two paragraphs were a carbon copy of this page from the Israel Museum. For future reference, it would be best to inform the relevant editor if you want some more information about the source of the copyright violation, especially since it's quite clear no one was following this article. -- tariqabjotu 16:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Referring to the policy"a note ... should be made on the talk page, along with the original source". Thank you for posting that note. --ThT 15:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Narthex
Hi, I've got a problem. I never touched the "Narthex" page, is it possible that someone else out there has the same IP as me? 71.252.128.110 16:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It is possible that you have a dynamic IP address, so the IP may have been assigned to another computer at a previous time. I would recommend registering an account so you can have a personal username. -- tariqabjotu 03:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I complained to several admins about the ban they placed on User:Tajik. He is being accused of being user:Tajik-Professor. I know for a fact that that is not him. User:Tajik has been on Wikipedia for 3 years and is the best contributer I have seen, just look at his awards and his record. User:Tajik-Professor also lives in Germany and that is why his IP is in the same range, but the admins looked more carefully they would see their IPs are not the same. Also, User:Tajik-Professor if you check my talk page you can see he asked me for help. Obviously User:Tajik who is a veteran editor wouldn't be asking me for help and other easy things like how to open an article! You can see that here. So please take a look at this and review this again because its very obvious once you see this and we need User:Tajik on Wikipedia, he is the best editor that I know of, so please do look into this. It is whats best for the Encyclopedia and I am very concerned about the articles without him. Thank you. --Behnam 21:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it really matters whether Tajik is indeed Tajik-Professor; it is quite clear, especially considered the history of Safavid dynasty, that Tajik is editing from anonymous IPs and/or using sockpuppets to evade his block. -- tariqabjotu 01:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
But if you check his talk page/block log, it shows that the reason he was banned was because he was prematurely accused of being user:Tajik-Professor. Please check his block history here. It says, "Tajik, the determination was made based on a CheckUser result, which showed that it was highly likely that both User:Tajik-Professor and other anons are you based on IP evidence. Dmcdevit·t 01:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)". If the reason provided by the admin for his ban is false than that ban is illegitimate don't you think? --Behnam 03:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)UTC)
Hello? I think you missed my last reply. Please take a look at it, this is an important issue. Thanks. -- Behnam 19:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
If the reason provided by the admin for his ban is false... But, I don't believe the reason provided by the admin for his ban was false. How would you know the checkuser data is faulty? How can you look at the IPs of Tajik and Tajik-Professor? -- tariqabjotu 21:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello again, sorry for the long delay. I know both of these users personally. Tajik (talk·contribs) is a medical doctor in Germany and Tajik-Professor (talk·contribs) is a student in Germany. If that is not confivincing enough, on my talk page and other user's talk page Tajik-Professor (talk·contribs) on many occasions has asked for help on very simple tasks that a veteran user like Tajik (talk·contribs) would know already, he came on long before and I was asking him for help so obviously it wasn't him asking me now how to cite sources and other simple tasks. The admin who accused him of this simply looked at the IP range or the first two digits not the entire IP and because both users had the word Tajik in their user names, the admin quickly assumed they were the same user without even investigating. Please again check their IP address and you will see they are not the same IP. Tajik (talk·contribs) is the probably one of the most valuable editors in Wikipedia and there is no replacement for him, 3 articles are featured thanks to him and he has several awards and has written some solid articles. He is too valuable to loose just because an admin didn't do his job thoroughly. Can you please check their IP addresses again? Please, this is for the good of the community. --18:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not have checkuser capabilities and cannot check the IP addresses of the two users. I have a feeling this has been investigated already and that no one with checkuser capabilities will address it again. Personally, I don't believe your explanation. I can't understand why a student would give himself the name "Tajik-Professor". I don't see how you could know these two people. On your userpage you have said you are from Canada or Afghanistan and never mentioned being from Germany (or having knowledge of German). Additionally, the coincidence that the two suspect users, even according to your explanation, come from the same country is hard to ignore. (By the way, I have filed a RfCU at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik.) -- tariqabjotu 02:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Mediation reminder
Yeah, I've still got the topic watched. I was waiting for Giovanni to reply as you'd seemed to address most of your points in your last comment to him. John Smith's 09:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
ITN
Thanks for updating the ITN item. The figures I used were a day old. --mav 01:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
ITN
Good point, I wasn't thinking about the context. Alone we would say Orbiter, but with the name we omit it, you're absolutely right, sorry. --Golbez 01:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Mao: The Unknown Story
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the RfM for Mao: The Unknown Story doesn't seem to have concluded yet. But John Smith's seems to have made edits that are directly the issues being discussed in the article, and edited in his favour.[1] I haven't thoroughly read through the entire RfM, so if it actually concluded in favour of John Smith's edits, then just disregard this. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The page was unlocked, so I assumed I could make edits again. If I've broken any rules regarding mediation I must apologise, but I wasn't informed of any that apply here. John Smith's 22:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The unprotection, of course, allows you (or anyone else) to edit the article, but it would be better if you waited until the conclusion of the mediation before you began to make changes involving the four issues. -- tariqabjotu 23:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. In the past Giovanni has claimed that my lack of editing a point after the page being unlocked was sufficient reason to revert my changes because my silence had made it "consensus" or some such. John Smith's 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
He has not raised that point in the mediation yet. However, if he has indeed said that, he's not correct; prolonging a discussion ought to be sufficient to show continued interest in a dispute and clearly there is ongoing discussion (i.e. the mediation). There's no reason to start reverting again. -- tariqabjotu 00:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Also if HongQiGong insists on reverting the edits in question that I made, can you please insist he not remove the other changes I made - his last revert was technically vandalism. Thanks. John Smith's 00:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
His last revert was not vandalism, but a revert based on a content dispute. You would be best served talking to him about parts unrelated to the RfM (while refraining from calling his edit "vandalism") and letting the mediation play out on matters related to the RfM. -- tariqabjotu 00:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Unexploded ordnance
I removed the link. Of course, it could be argued that given the increasing use of bombs by non-state actors in asymmetrical warfare, our article on unexploded ordnance should include more about unexploded ordnance from terrorism, but I'm far from an expert on the subject and leave that to more capable editors. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Gonzales image
Found it. It sometimes takes a while for the links to filter through on the image page, but if you view recent changes for the template namespace only, that reveals most cases.--Chaser - T 00:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Having receieved additional data from a private source regarding this case, I checked the accounts again. They are all unrelated to each other, and using the new data, it also seems they're all unrelated to Tajik. --Deskana(apples) 16:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thatcher had banned User:Tajik with no reason. Now, he is accusing me of being Tajik, while I am not. User:Tajik lives in Hamburg. He has even used various IPs from the University of Hamburg; the same IP was also used by the Wikipedia admin known as User:Future Perfect at Sunrise who is also German and works at the University of Hamburg. In fact, he and Tajik know each other in person (ask him if you do not believe me). I am writing to you from Kassel in Hessia (if you check my IP, you'll see that I am right) - I know Tajik from various forums (I am also from Afghanistan, just like him). Thatcher's claim that Tajik is the same person as User:Tajik-Professor is more than rediculous. Thatcher simply needed a reason to ban Tajik in order to support his favourite Wikipedian: User:Atabek. And because Thatcher did not have ANY proofs, he simply took the similar name to accuse Tajik. Everyone who had followed Tajik's edits knows that User:Tajik-Professor was a sockpuppet of User:NisarKand. His edits are totally contradictory to those of Tajik, and various socks of NisarKand had already vandalized Tajik's page. Tajik has requested twice an unblock in order to explain his situation, but Thatcher has refused to give him a chance. Instead, he is continuing to further expand his pointless accusations. Interestingly, last week, User:DerDoc was also banned as a suspected sockpuppet of Tajik. The funny part is that DerDoc is a medical doctor from Vienna in Austria, using 193.xxx IPs. Any checkuser file would prove this simple fact. But like in the case of Tajik, DerDoc, too, was banned without any checkuser file. Not even NisarKand (this time in the shape of User:Rabeenaz) claims that DerDoc is Tajik, although he has (with the active support of Atabek, as one can see in his contributions' history) tagged various accounts without any permission, claiming that all of them are socks of Tajik - just like Atabek. Prior to DerDoc's case, another user, namely User:German-Orientalist, a German Iranologist from Dortmund, was also banned because of the same reason. The only proof against him was a weak checkuser result, saying that a link to Tajik would be possible. Interestingly, Thatcher - the one who has banned Tajik because of false accusations and whose wrongs have been exposed - was enganged in almost all of the cases mentioned above. I've talked to User:E104421 who was part of the ArbCom which endorsed Tajik's ban, and he was shcked as well, because it was very clear from the beginning on that he and the ArbCom were used by certain admins to get Tajik banned. In order to muzzle Tajik, admin Thatcher131 used a wrong accusation against him and got him banned. In the following process, Tajik was prevented (by Thatcher) from defending himself in the ArbCom, and was banned indef. The same Thatcher131 did not mind to ban known vandals of the Azerbaijan-Armenia ArbCom for only 1 year, even though many of them used sockpuppets. However, in case of Tajik, only one wrong accusation of Thatcher was enough to get him banned forever. This is very very very very very suspicious and does very much look like a conspiracy against User:Tajik. And everything points to admin Thatcher:
Thatcher131 initiated an ArbCom along with a few others
Thatcher131 made up wrong accusations against Tajik (i.e. that Tajik is Tajik-Professor, a claim that has been proven wrong twice since then!)
With this accusation, Thatcher got Tajik banned and prevented him from defending himself in the ArbCom
Thatcher's accusations also forced the judges to endorse Tajik's ban (the same ban that was initiated by Thatcher)
7 checkuser files were requested against Tajik, and 90% either proved that the accusations were wrong, or did not have clear results (... possible ..., ... likely ...', ...unlikely ...), the other 10% were rejected anyway
Thatcher refuses to request a checkuser file in case of DerDoc, German-Orientalist, and Tajik-Professor. The reason is very simple: since these 3 people are NOT the same person, they CANNOT be Tajik's socks at the same time. That means that Thatcher's accusations are wrong, and that he abused his admin rights to get a user banned whom he did not like (or maybe what he had to say).
Thatcher's edits seem to be coordinated with those of Atabek. And Atabek's edits are certainly coordinated with those of User:Rabeenaz. Anyway, this case needs to be investigated. Other admins need to take a look at this, and many other Wikipedians need to urge neutral admins to have a look at Tajik's case, and Thatcher's admin rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.177.136 (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Mediation Committee nomination
It is my pleasure to announce that your nomination to become a member of the Mediation Committee has been closed as successful. I encourage you to place the Mediation Committee page and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation on your watchlist, as well as the open tasks template, which will be updated as new cases are accepted. You are also encouraged to join the Committee's internal mailing list; please email me directly so I can confirm your email before subscribing it. If you have any questions about how the Committee functions, please feel free to ask me. Congratulations!
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 00:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! I've given your MedComWiki account sysop, bureaucrat and checkuser rights. Do you use IRC at all? If so let me know your nick and sort access for #wikipedia-mediation. WjBscribe 00:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the congrats. As for my IRC usage, I've never learned how to set up a permanent IRC username. However, I'll figure it out and set one up in several hours (later in the morning for me). -- tariqabjotu 07:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
RFC
I have requested community comment on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Italiavivi. I know you have contacted Italiavivi previously in attempts to resolve issues, your input is appreciated. This is just a friendly notice. --Hu12 19:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Mediation (again)
As per last time I am waiting for Giovanni's response, as it appears he is the party that needs to address a point. However I notice there were a few points I missed so I've tried to answer them. John Smith's 18:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Is he going to bother to respond to your last point? John Smith's 17:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Your block
Sorry, Tariqabjotu, but I do not understand the reasoning behind your block of Tiamut. If you want to block everybody who has edit warred on ME issues, then I am afraid 90% of the regular editors there would be blocked. I really cannot see that Tiamut has done anything to merit this block: she has had 11 edits to Arab diaspora during three days; not a highly unusual amount; and you block her 5 days for edit-warring? I simply do not understand it. (Also: I know that at least one of her previous blocks was quite dubious and contested ..and now you are using this old contested block against her?)
However, do not in any way question your block of Egyegy; besides the 3RR-issue, I think the level of incivility by him/her is rather more than anybody should have to put up with. Like: "Your messages are almost as ridiculous as your editwarring."[2], or leving messages with edit-lines: "your nonsense"[3]...or lots of the messages s/he has left on talk page of Arabs: not really acceptable, IMO.
Anyway; I hope you will review your block of Tiamut, say, if you could lift the block under the condition that she did not edit the Arab diaspora-article during the time Egyegy is blocked? Thank you for your attention, Regards, Huldra 02:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not unblocking her, but I will extend Egyegy's block due to the incivility and personal attacks which Tiamut did not appear to be engaging in. As I told Tiamut via e-mail, she should post an unblock request if she wants a chance to be unblocked (as I see nothing wrong with the block). -- tariqabjotu 03:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I suppose most people are in her part of the world (=Israel) are still asleep. As a final note: I must say that I do find the block of Tiamut rather draconian: she has remained reasonably civil under quite out nasty attacs and she has not (AFAIK) broken any rules. However, I have no trouble with your extension of Egyegy's block; I have never been in edit-conflict with him/her myself, but just reading his/her talk-page comments is quite enough. Regards, Huldra 03:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
An unblock request has been posted here FYI :) SGGHspeak! 11:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. In that matter, would you like to comment on the blocked user's unblock request? She has stated that she understands that she erred in editwarring and won't do it again, and she sounds more or less sincere in my opinion. Under these circumstances, the preventative purpose of the block may have been served. Sandstein 12:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
As it appears, Tariq, that you've already commented that you'd like to leave the decision up to others, and you're offline, and I agree with Sandstein, I've gone ahead and unblocked Tiamut. Mangojuicetalk 14:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 05:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This is crazy!
You are now trying to get me banned too? You and your Pan-Turkist friends KNOW that they are not the same person but you used that opportunity to ban him and now you are up to your dirty tricks again! No one is falling for this! I can see what you and your friends are trying to do! Also, German-Orientlist and Tajik-Professor were confirmed to be different people, so then how can Tajik be both? This is place a damn joke~ -- Behnam 02:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Beh-nam, but you have officially depleted my last bit of interest I had for investigating this Tajik issue when you called me and some group of people I don't even know "Pan-Turkist". Please don't bother me about this matter anymore and if you continue (as appears to be disturbingly common in regard to Mideast articles) to call people pan-[any ethnicity], perhaps you will be banned. -- tariqabjotu 17:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Investigating?! You didn't do anything, don't lie. You just accused me of being him, that is the only investigation you did. I know what you're all up to. -- Behnam 19:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
You meant 'that will secure'? I mean instead of 'as will secure'? Squash Racket 16:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I meant "as will secure". It's a direct quote so you can't modify it (in the same way, this was not permissible). -- tariqabjotu 16:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't want to interrupt anything. It was just a bit strange to have 'Palestine' three times in one sentence as I wrote in the edit summary. Squash Racket 17:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
FYI: an anonymous person vandalized the Israel page by inserting some text into the History of the Levant box in the history section. It took me a while to figure out how they did it.
The text was "The references that mention that the Jews ruled over Palestine for over 2000 years are both published by Israeli government and therefore their neutrality can be easily disputed and no other point of view is listed or referenced despite their abundance, for example the US King-Crane Commission report of 1919."
I had a hell of a time removing it.
Have a good Ramadan (if you fast) and Happy Jewish New Year.
Jonathan Telaviv1 10:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 21:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Long time no see
Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi, this user asked for an unblock review. Personally, considering the fact that he tried to engage the discussion via his edit summaries, I think that the block here may be a bit harsh. -- lucasbfrtalk 21:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
First, regarding his claim that he only made three reverts... that's not true. There were one (18:35, 12 Sep), two, three, and four (00:18, 13 Sep) reverts within a span of six hours.
"Personally, considering the fact that he tried to engage the discussion via his edit summaries..." Please don't tell me you're serious. Via his edit summaries? That's not discussion. In fact, his use of edit summaries instead of the talk page is clear evidence of inflaming an edit war. If he had engaged in discussion in the appropriate location, the talk page, I might be a bit more understanding. But discussion in edit summaries is not discussion at all, but instead is a sign that said user is not interested in engaging in any sort of real discussion. -- tariqabjotu 22:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
He, that's why I stay as far as possible from 3RR, I'm too prone in assuming good faith (I also counted 4 reverts myself). -- lucasbfrtalk 08:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
No block of Hornplease
Please respond to my posts on the 3RR noticeboard. When you didn't respond to my post noting his fifth revert and near-miss at Bat Ye'or, I filed another report with the full record. Arrow740 06:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Please take this opportunity to explain not blocking an established editor with 5 reverts when you previously blocked me with 3. Thanks. Arrow740 22:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
No, thank you; I will not. I knew you were going to rehash that episode and that's why I did not respond to you the first time. I addressed the report on WP:AN3 the first time you brought up this report and another admin addressed it when you brought it up the second time. The circumstances surrounding your case and this case are entirely different, far from comparable, and not worth discussing again. -- tariqabjotu 22:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
If you were trying to bait me into filing an RfC over your use of admin tools, you have succeeded. Arrow740 01:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi:)
Im not sure iIf you are an Arab but I guess so by your username, If so?, then I would be greatful If you helped here [4] It's a ongoing page about world ethnic group. thanks in advance Nick10000 09:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
It did strike me that the Aliyah template is not good to the Israel articles physical appearance. On the other hand including it could justify removal of some of the (I find them rather boring) references to aliyah one two, three etc.
Telaviv1 15:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Eurominuteman
Thank you! I understand that the same user was blocked on the German Wikipedia. He was extremely persistent here. Dreadstar† 07:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Shalom
OK. But there was no warning. Look at The USA. It is a warning about it. But in Israel article there wasn't.
As the aforementioned warning says, "This template should not be used in main article space, as it renders any content obscured within the template unprintable. This is especially true with text content, such as citations, according to a June 2007 discussion." -- tariqabjotu 07:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. You are right. But there was no this warning in Israel article. I have seen that in The USA article and then I stopped. I am a newbie akhi. Don't annoy with me ;) Teşekkürler, iyi çalışmalar. XD kızılsungur 08:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah... ok. I thought you had seen the warning at United States first. -- tariqabjotu 08:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
"claims that the 1949 line is not a valid border form a fringe opinion"
I don't want to embarrass you, Tariqabjotu, but this comment from you betrays that you are pretty ignorant of the subject. Please do a little research before you make such claims. Tegwarrior 15:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
For fun, you can try to find the 1949 line on this map from an Israeli government website: [5]. Does the Israeli government count as a fringe group? Tegwarrior 15:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
For more fun, you can try to find any map from the Israeli government that recognizes the Green Line as a valid border. Tegwarrior 15:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
You do realize we are talking about the 1949 line, not the 1967 line. Right? -- tariqabjotu 15:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am well aware of that. Here is something else for you to peruse: "The agreement states that this is a necessary step towards reestablishing peace in the Land of Israel, and emphasizes that in no way is the armistice line to be interpreted as a political or territorial border, nor does it constitute interference with the rights, claims, or positions of any side vis-a-vis the final settlement of the question of the Land of Israel." [6]. Let me know when you've seen enough. Tegwarrior 15:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Um... that's a primary source from 1949. It's 2007; times have changed. -- tariqabjotu 15:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Tariqabjotu, the words that carefully point out that the 1949 Armistice Agreement does not regard the armistice lines as borders are current words on an Israeli government website. They are not words from the Agreement. It is the Israeli government's position that the Green Line is not an international border, and they are on that up-to-date web page pointing to the 1949 Armistice Agreement to support this position. It is not a position that the Israeli government publicizes broadly, but it is their position, and it has been their position since 1949. Times have not changed as much as you think. If you doubt me, find some statement from the Israeli government to the contrary. Tegwarrior 16:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
From the website you mentioned:
The agreement states that this is a necessary step towards reestablishing peace in the Land of Israel, and emphasizes that in no way is the armistice line to be interpreted as a political or territorial border, nor does it constitute interference with the rights, claims, or positions of any side vis-a-vis the final settlement of the question of the Land of Israel.
That sounds to me like that's talking about the agreement. -- tariqabjotu 16:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Explanation of my edit comment: many of the sea islands of the US were, after abolition, home to freed slaves (it didn't become cool to hang out on the beach until many years later). More recently, some of these islands have been converted to essentially all-white resort communities. And how did they do it? Buy some of the land from the poor black farmers, build stuff, arrange to raise tax rates until no one can afford to be just a poor farmer on any of the rest of the land, and so must sell and move out. Nonforcible ethnic cleansing. Tegwarrior 05:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
