Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:10, 1 November 2007

Welcome

Hello, Robert Ham, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Chris53516 14:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem as Israel's capital

I have replied at Talk:Knesset#Jerusalem as capital (the earlier discussion was a total mess). Number 57 14:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

One of your recent edit summaries in the article Knesset did not accurately describe your edit. Changes to the content of articles should be accurately described in the edit summary. Number 57 13:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

How was it inaccurate? Robert Ham 14:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You claimed it was reverting vandalism, when in fact it is a NPOV issue. Number 57 08:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was an anonymous edit, of a controversial issue, in contradiction to concensus on the talk page. I took that to be vanadlism. The most damning thing being the anonymity. Was I wrong? Robert Ham 08:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly there was no consensus for using West Jerusalem (you took my comments the wrong way) and secondly, you were wrong, it was still a misleading edit summary. Coming from an IP address does not damn an edit - there are many quality editors on wikipedia who use IP addresses rather than get an account. Number 57 08:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I acknowledge that damning an edit because of using an IP could be a little hasty. Perhaps I was over-zealous in my damning.

Regarding the consensus, I though we had one. There was a discussion of the issue, a solution was highlighted and implemented and no further discussion or objections ensued. That seems like a consensus to me, but that's just me; I'm a relative newbie on Misplaced Pages. What form does a consensus usually take? Robert Ham 10:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite weary of the battles raging over numerous Israel/Palestinian related issues and I only get involved when there is a clear breach of fact (such as editors claiming that saying Gaza is not part of Israel is POV!), so with the Knesset thing being quite vague I couldn't be bothered to go on. From my supposedly "pro-Palestine" viewpoint (something I am regularly accused of based on the issue mentioned above) the Knesset is in Jerusalem and Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Even if it is West Jerusalem, unlike Berlin (East Berlin and West Berlin), I don't believe the city was ever referred to in that way, even when it was split (1949-1967). Number 57 10:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you have your views on the "Jerusalem"/"West Jerusalem" issue. I don't wish to debate that here. What I was much more concerned about is the issue of what constitutes a consensus and what form it takes when one is arrived at. What's the different between a talk page with no consensus, and a talk page with consensus? Robert Ham 11:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I think you need more than two editors, but I guess it is a compromise on wording, or a completely new way of saying something so that no-one objects. Number 57 11:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't start this again. The part of Jerusalem which the Knesset is in is indisputably part of Israel. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

So make the page reflect that, and not some wish that Jerusalem is wholly Israeli Robert Ham 08:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

See the first sentence of Jerusalem. If one article can state that, so can another. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence of Jerusalem is also WP:POV. In fact, a lot of that page is WP:POV due to WP:BIAS. Right now, the issue is the description on the Knesset page, not the Jerusalem page. Robert Ham 08:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

All talks with Peter Cohen and Timeshifter above

on the page, extended talk on this and the other categories. Amoruso 06:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Unindenting

On Talk:Jerusalem, you have unindented your response to Tewfik. This is not necessary and makes the structure of the page erratic and messy, causing a lack of clarity and opening the door to confusion. Please don't do this. Robert Ham 09:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I copied your above comment from my talk page. There are many talk pages where the habit is to alternate indented and unindented as a method of threading a discussion. I guess it depends on what one is used to. But I went ahead just now and indented my last response to Tewfik.

I use a large font. So at some point I have to unindent or the thread gets squeezed into a narrow column that takes too long to scroll through to read. This may not occur when using a smaller font than I use. Or it occurs after more indentation. My unindentation of my second-to-last response to Tewfik was necessary for me for this reason.

Please reply here. I will watchlist this page. This will keep this thread in one place.--Timeshifter 18:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Alternating" indenting is only useful when there are two people communicating. By definition, a talk page involves communication between more than two people.

If indentation gets to the point where you can't read things clearly, that in itself is an indication that you should start a new section. When you unindent and start from the beginning of the line, this is what you are effectively doing. Next time, if you feel the need, might I suggest you create a new section properly? Robert Ham 14:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There would be dozens more sections, and it would be very confusing. It would create more problems than it would solve. But I get your point, and I will unindent less often. The unindentation is not confusing once you get used to it. Not to be flippant, but I have been on wikipedia a couple years, and I have many more edits than you on talk pages, and unindentation is very common on talk pages. --Timeshifter 22:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The confusion would exist if they weren't separated out. If you have a section where instead of unindenting you create new sections, and as a result of this, many more sections are created, this is a good thing. If a section is that big and contains that much discussion, breaking it into separate issues would clarify them and help communication.

Regarding the common practice on Misplaced Pages, there are many things which are common practice and shouldn't be. Just because they have been done in the past and continue to be done in the present, doesn't mean they should be done in the future. Robert Ham 11:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is room for much improvement at wikipedia. :) More sections are a good thing, I agree. But oftentimes even in short sections there is a point reached where indentation is untenable. At that point people either completely unindent, or they alternate between levels of indentation. Note the current discussion at Talk:Jerusalem. For example; the discussion between you and Tewfik where you two alternate between levels of indentation. There is no perfect solution when several people are involved. --Timeshifter 16:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem maps

I have been compiling some external links to Jerusalem maps here: *Positions_on_Jerusalem#Jerusalem_maps

See also:

• commons:Category:Maps of Jerusalem

They may be useful in various discussions on article talk pages, etc.. I believe also that UN maps are in the public domain, and can be uploaded to the commons. I believe User:ChrisO negotiated that with the UN people. --Timeshifter 16:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Civility warning

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Knesset. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You can only give civility warnings if someone has been incivil. I have not made personal attacks on you, I have just disagreed with you. You on the other hand have been calling people morons and fools. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You stated that I have a problem. You also implied that I am aggrieved by wikipedia. Both are condescending and insulting. If you are to condemn me for insulting you, don't turn around and insult me in that condemnation. That is the height of hypocrisy. Robert Ham 10:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You insulting people on Wikipeda makes it clear that you are (a) aggrieved and (b) that you have a problem with WP:CIVILity. I hardly think pointing this out constitutes a breach of civility on my part. Feel free to ask an uninvolved admin if you doubt me. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Commenting on editors and not content is uncivil. We disagree on what constitutes a breach of civility. Robert Ham 10:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but calling someone a moron, and describing edits as "moronicity" and "foolishness" is the very definition of incivil. I suggest you read the policy. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was uncivil. And you were uncivil as well. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Robert Ham 14:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)