Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:14, 27 April 2008

Source and Content Rules

http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:RS

How to Edit a Page

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page

Arab-Israeli Conflict

• WP:AIC

• The AIC Oasis - General discussion for all.
• /Project Articles - works like the Village pump, specific to this topic.
• Shortcuts to this and related pages.

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Israeli-Palestinian_Conflict - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Dispute Resolution

Hi Dajudem, welcome and thanks for your kind words. The best place to start is at the article's talk page: bring your encyclopedic arguments there. If those args are of high quality, they may even make it into the article later. More personal messages may go to the editor's talk page (like this one). If that doesn't seem to work, you may want to follow WP:DR processes such as WP:RFC or WP:ArbCom, etc. Earlier, I kept my own policy of not engaging into RV wars but found that this does not always work well: while most people are reasonable and do listen to sensible arguments, some just won't listen. In any case, it is imperative to act within WP:RULES, assume good faith and WP:NPA. Best regards and happy editing! ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Palestinian Jews

Hi - I noticed you reverted yourself in regards to some Jews being considered Palestinians. I was going to fix a comma issue but wanted to make sure you did so intentionally and not by accident. Ramallite 20:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

=how to put up a disputed label

{{npov}}

Welcome to WikiProject France

Welcome Dajudem, to WikiProject France! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on France-related topics, please list them at our announcement page and tag their talk page with our project template, {{WikiProject France}}.

STTW (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

Hello, I noticed that 2 years ago you added this link to Philip Mendes which is clear, neutral and of good quality on the topic.
If this topic interests you, you are welcome to contribute to this article which becomes more and more pov-ed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.197.147 (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Gelber

Hi, you can find Appendixes II and III here. At the end of the list of documents. This more pleasant to read than through google books. Ceedjee (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I think you misunderstand something

You don't like Morris but you like Gelber ?

Do you know they are very good friends ?

Ceedjee (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Please review this, and weigh in here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby_campaign#New_evidence_surfaces Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Its pretty obvious to me they caught you.Your best course of action now is to be contrite, apologize, learn WP ethos and spirit, and accept a quite generous topical ban. Then contribute to other articles unrelated to your pro-Israel agenda.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

lol 'caught me' at what? I don't have an "agenda," unlike you, whose agenda seem to want to get those who are pro-Israel off the topic, imho. People who have opinions do not necessarily have an agenda, only to have their side fairly heard, instead of banned by association. Collective punishment, McCarthyism, Big Brother.... it's all there. The wiki spirit? You're a fine one to talk! Why don't you find a distortion or NPOV that I've put up and deal with that, instead of witch-hunting the enemy! Juanita (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I took a quick look and found almost all of your edits to be clearly POV. :) And, your "associations" and membership of a group with a very clearly stated goal provides a pretty good definition of what an "agenda" looks like. It's just happens to be one that is incompatible with WP norms.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A small sampling if your edits confirms your POV disposition. In fact your account looks like a single purpose only account along these pov lines: I found this a little disturbing, as it shows an artificial division along ethnic/religions lines, applied to WP editors!: "I find it amazing that non-Jews want to define Jews. Seems like Arab Palestinian sympathizers want to define Mizrahi Jew for the Jews. Isn't that weird? Are Jews over in the Egyptian section telling them what their history is about? And who they are?"'' Here are some other edits, taken pretty much at random that clearly shows POV editing: As far as I can see all edits you have made serve to advance a single POV. This doesn't make you unique, however, the connection of your account to the off wiki organizing agenda does puts it in a completely different context, supporting your role in such an enterprise. Why not improve articles on other subjects? Just the fact that there is evidence connecting you to this should make you want to voluntarily avoid impropriety giving yourself the topic ban. This will allow you to regain the trust of the community. Giovanni33 (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am interested in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict mainly. I read a lot of books and histories about it. I am interested in history and the middle east conflict and politics. I have a POV of course, but not to distort or falsify anything intentionally. Good luck finding editors about the issue that don't have an opinion. Also I do not buy your contention about the user group, ie that it was intended to undermine wiki. That was a spin that was put on it. I did not read every email but I wanted to contribute if there was something that was unfairly or wrongfully represented in wiki I would be able to help correct it. It is a shame to paint everyone with the same brush. None in the group is responsible for what others have think or have written but the original intent was a simple and honest one that has been given a nasty spin. Juanita (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC) I

I'd hate to imply it's a foregone conclusion

But in light of the crap that jew hating website has stirred up, are there any minor articles you think need an eye kept on them? My email feature has been enabled. John Nevard (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No comprende, por favor. which jew-hating website are you talking of? What exactly is a foregone conclusion? confused Juanita (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess it should be obvious now. Pathetic. It always bothers me that the burden of protecting the articles on Judaism and Israel from the anti-semites falls on so few shoulders. My consolations. John Nevard (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I guessed that you meant what you meant but I wanted to give wiki the benefit of the doubt. I have never got involved in the personality issues here, just did some editing regarding what I know to be fact and such. Tried to be fair and balanced within my POV. It is enough to make one cry. As you can see, Leonard Cohen(?) put it up for arbitration (link below). Is that a foregone conclusion as well? Juanita (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Going to answer

Are you going to answer any of my points on http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby_campaign or have decided that your only option is to claim your being discriminated against. 02:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about you, buddy, but I have a life and do things besides sit in front of the computer breathlessly waiting to answer your charges. Your 'points' have now been answered, but your grammar still leaves a lot to be desired. Juanita (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of grammar, you write: "dumped the Allon quote. It is supposedly "aleaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, pub in the New York Times, 23 October 1979" Unless verified, it is more slander than anything eles)" (SIC) There seems to be some similarity with errors I've noticed, although I don't necessarily make anything out of it, without looking at a larger sample of your writing.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah so you are beginning to look for some facts instead of indicting me for my group membership. That's a start anyway. Typos are not the same thing as errors in grammar such as confusing 'your' and 'you're'. What is interesting to me is that you are picking up on what you consider an error made in 2005, but want to ban me for membership in a group started in 2008, lol. Let's face it. It has only to do with the fact that my bias is not your bias, doesn't it? You are one of those who would like to ban anyone who might believe that Israel is a good country doing the best it can in a bad neighborhood? Or are you one of those rare editors with absolutely no bias at all? lol Juanita (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Attacking everyone like this does not help you. I started with your most oldest edits. That is why I found that one. I did not look at more than a few, starting from the oldest. Naturally, I don't think you joined this group by happenstance. It flows from your goals on WP, as can be seen from your very first edits up to today. You don't edit that much anyway, so its not a big deal for me. I just tried to help you come to terms with the issues and advise you as to what would be the best course of action in your own interests, if you wanted to become a trusted participant and put these issues behind you. Unfortunately, your responses have not been conducive....Giovanni33 (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith? I am not attacking everyone. I am only attacking those who are attacking me. I will tell you again and again. I don't have 'goals' on wiki other than to have a fair and accurate representation of facts on an issue on which I am fairly knowledgeable. I have nothing to apologize for.

I found this on your talk page:

By the logic used to support this block, all I have to do is create an account, follow you around, adopt your vernacular, and support your POV, then someone can claim "socketpuppets!" It is too easy, hence do not unilaterally block on such flimsy grounds. An admin can, but is that justice? That there are other users who simply share a similar POV is no crime. To say I am connected to them, or they are one in the same, is, but then there should be solid evidence, not negative, bad-faith speculations, prompted by people who edit war with me over content disputes. (Giovanni33 (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2008 )(UTC)

Sounds a bit like the way they railroaded Zeg, and how it is planned for me. See my new notes on CAMERA the other pageWhy is this stupid thing in a code box?? Juanita (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The crucial difference is that in the case of Zeq, there was solid evidence. It was not mere speculation, and coincidence. Also, there is evidence of your membership to this wiki-lobby effort. In fact, I do not believe you even deny being a part of this volunteer group? Do you understand that this group's goals are antithetical to how Misplaced Pages is supposed to function? There seems to be a failure on your part to grasp this quite essential point.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you see my notes on CAMERA? the other page Bottom of the page. Not antithetical. Signing off now Juanita (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine

Per WP:ARBPIA you are banned for a year from all articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The length of this may be reduced if you show conclusively that you really understand the principle that Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Please note that this topic-ban will be enforced by blocks if necessary. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dajudem

I don't see any solution for you except asking for an ArbCom with all involved editors but you should prepare your argumentation because what you are accused of with the others is not anecdotical.

From my pov, the only argument in your favor is that you didn't disrupt wikipedia (even if in the email what is written is a preparation for that...)

Sorry for the situation and good luck... Ceedjee (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI - arbitration on Israeli Wiki Lobbying

I have filed an arbitration request in regards to the Israeli Wiki Lobbying and attacks uncovered: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Israeli Wiki Lobbying. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The (not so) aborted statement for arbitration

I have so many issues on this it isn't even funny and I hardly know where to begin. I have edited wiki occasionally for several years now based mostly on my area of interest and expertise, and for which I have an obvious & acknowledged bias, ie the middle east conflict. I have not got involved with personalities on wiki because I really believe that wiki is not about personalities, but to get valid information and facts on wiki regarding the conflict. Obviously it is very much about personalities. Because suddenly I find myself in a brouhaha that has nothing to do with my edits here but everything to do with personalities.

Obviously there is propaganda on both sides, as this conflict is one of words as much as of actions... Those who would deny it haven't been paying attention, or mistakenly believe that not acknowledging the propaganda war demonstrates a neutral POV. Propaganda in itself is not bad -- in fact one definition of propaganda might be the propagation of one's own POV. What is bad is fiction posing as fact, whatever side you are on. Facts can be fictionalized a number of ways, including perversion of context, false or unverifiable references, or simply by omission of a different POV.

Anyway, I initially forgot that the email went out at least appearing to come from CAMERA. I belong to a number of web groups. Of course for all one knows it's possible that it was a fraud perpetrated by the Electronic Intifada on CAMERA stationary. Someone from EI apparently joined the group. This person obviously had motivations never conceived of by CAMERA, so clearly neither wikipedians nor CAMERA know what each of our motivations were for joining, except and unless they scan our private emails and determine guilt or innocence based on our leaked and private emails. Which apparently is what has been done in the case of Zeg.

I honestly can't understand the enormous mountain that is being made out of a small effort to recruit some pro-Israelis editing and even administrating on wiki. Surely there must be one or two or even quite a few Palestinian partisans writing in the Israeli/Arab conflict section?

Anyway, the call for an editing group at CAMERA went out very respectful of wiki. That can be seen by anyone who reads the letter with an open mind. A number of people signed up. I don't know how many actually signed up and from that group how many actually edited anything. As I recall there was quite a limited response and most people there had never edited a thing themselves, though there were a number of people who were professors and instructors at universities. I brought up the possibility of using members there as a resource, to have use of their libraries and what they had read, to do some fact-checking -- which indeed I did do. One of the people on this list had a Uri Milstein book and checked a quote for me. The university has research resources that the average person cannot access. It seems to me that fact-checking is something really positive for wiki. That of course is down the tubes now thank you very much fellow wikipedians. "Assume good faith"... yah!

As one can see from reading the emails (if they are all there at EI, I have been too busy to check), a few people were more into discussion and guidance than others. I don't pretend to know the motives of others. Editing wiki is not an easy matter and takes a lot of practice to learn the language. I am still very bad at it and some of the college professors were lamenting how hard it was to make even the smallest edit.

I didn't read every email from the group because I already knew how to edit and because I am a busy person that cannot read every non-personal email that comes across my desk. Then suddenly the list gets shut down and within a day or so I am banned from wiki! LO!

Up til now, hardly anyone has made a negative comment regarding my edits... BUT NOW! I get suddenly a note on wiki that to answer charges about belonging to this subversive listItalic text. Here it is:

Please review this, and weigh in here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby_campaign#New_evidence_surfaces Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The subversive part had already been assumed by most editors on this wikilobby page and by the time I weighed in, they had already feathered and tarred Zeg, claiming he was Gilead or Israguy or someone at this list, and an evil being.

Under the section under my user name I read this, for starters:

Yes, that seems correct. Further, I'd be interested in finding out who this I <3 (email yonathan@ou.edu) character is. Seems like he's been at this game for a while. What, then, do we do about Dajudem (talk · contribs)? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the "assume good faith" part of wiki anyway?

In fact, prior to editing for 'clarification' after I took offense, one wikipedian referred to pro-Israelis as "like terrorists" and "like criminals justifying their crimes."

"Won't there be that much more ammunition on the pro-Israeli side for screaming "oppression!" and for using even more underhanded methods" Couldn't disagree more, they will always scream oppression, they (edit added later for clarity; they includes ALL POV warriors of ALL races, religions, group or creed) will use any method to push their POV. Just like terrorists they need to justify their crimes by claiming it is legitimate resistance against a superior force, they believe they can do what they want. Since the start of the year i've been called anti-american, anti-semitic, islamophobic, too right wing and too left wing when i have dared to disagree with a POV warrior,Bored Now!. (Hypnosadist) 02:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

later he claimed it that I made it up:

"One of the editors on this page called supporters of Israel "terrorists" and criminal."NO but keep pushing that LIE, it might eventually become a BIG LIE.

CAMERA was reviled and it was suggested that it was taken off the 'reliable source' list. Others added their comments above, exhorting me to have the proper wiki spirit etc and apologize, etc etc. They are there to read.

Then I get this on my talk page:

Per WP:ARBPIA you are banned for a year from all articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The length of this may be reduced if you show conclusively that you really understand the principle that Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Please note that this topic-ban will be enforced by blocks if necessary. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So my sin, then, is one of not understanding a certain principle which in fact I believe I understand quite well. I did not get to discuss it with anyone prior to being told I didn't understand it and being banned according. I reiterate: I am not here to do battle but to make sure that the Israeli side is fairly represented. There are Palestinians on wiki making sure that their side is fairly represented as well. Perhaps even some that are disruptive and push their POV, whether or not they are part of an email list or possible or would-be editors and administrators.

Then I got this -

* FYI - arbitration on Israeli Wiki Lobbying

I have filed an arbitration request in regards to the Israeli Wiki Lobbying and attacks uncovered: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Israeli Wiki Lobbying. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So I get notice of an arbitration at 16 hours today and before the evening is up I read this at the arbitration page:

*Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0)'

• Reject. No diffs, no case. Arbitration is led by evidence of onsite bad editing behaviour, not perceived "threats". Be assured that with diffs, we would not be slow to act. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess that means it's finished. Never mind with the 'statement' anyhow. The whole thing has been what? two days or less? What a whirlwind. Another pro-Israeli poster bites the dust. Yawl must be very proud. Juanita (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no, it's not over. See how we all have statements there? On that page? Just copy the formatting of the last statement that is there now on that case, replace their name with yours, and place your statement under it. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 05:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

thank you for clarifying. I did that. What does that Arbitrator's opinion mean then?Juanita (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That he thinks the case is largely without merit for them to investigate, but he's just one of many, and is one of the more conservative ones in their views on this sort of thing. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 13:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians for Palestine

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wikiforpalestine/?v=1&t=search&ch=web&pub=groups&sec=group&slk=1

This is the description of the group.

This group is for experienced Wikipedians actively working to combat anti-Palestinian and pro-Zionist bias in the English language version of Misplaced Pages. It is not the purpose of this group to introduce a POV bias into Misplaced Pages; however, this group is for those who are consciously and proudly pro-Palestinian even as they are committed to, and work for, an NPOV.

In order to verify their status as both a Wikipedian in good standing and someone who is pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist, those wishing to join this group will be asked to provide their Misplaced Pages user ID.

It is quite possible that some of these members (whoever they are) are actively involved in this CAMERA dispute and in voting for bans on pro-Israel (should I say consciously and proudly pro-Zionist?) wikipedians such as myself. hmmmm..... could be have a conflict of interest here?

Note the use of the word combat to describe their activities. Also notice how the group requires verification of the pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist (anti-Israel) point of view before they are accepted into this "secret" society. Could it be that these 12 wikipedians do not understand the principle that Misplaced Pages is not a battleground??

As of today Wikipedians for Palestine has 11 members. Today being 25th April. However, on 7th April, (see cached version here ) there were 12 members. Apparently one member quit recently-- perhaps in fear that the group would be infiltrated and his/her private emails exposed. Who knows?

Anyway I have made a screen-shot of both.Juanita (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking again at original accusation against CAMERA from Electronic Intifada:

A pro-Israel pressure group is orchestrating a secret, long-term campaign to infiltrate the popular online encyclopedia Misplaced Pages to rewrite Palestinian history, pass off crude propaganda as fact, and take over Misplaced Pages administrative structures to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged.

A series of emails by members and associates of the pro-Israel group CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America), provided to The Electronic Intifada (EI), indicate the group is engaged in what one activist termed a "war" on Misplaced Pages.

A 13 March action alert .... calls for "volunteers who can work as 'editors' to ensure" that Israel-related articles on Misplaced Pages are "free of bias and error, and include necessary facts and context."

Secret long-term campaign? Wikipedians for Palestine has been "underground" for 2 1/2 years. About 2 1/4 years longer than CAMERA's. Wikipedians for Palestine is secret in that all members are screened for the correct POV, ie pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist. So far it is secret enough that they have not been exposed nor their private emails exposed.

It seems to me that those who claim to be so neutral in their POV and yet are actively engaged in their attempts to get me and other members of the group banned, should infiltrate this group and publish their private email addresses as a matter of fairness. In point of fact, it is possible even probable that some of these 11-12 wikipedians are active in prosecuting this CAMERA issue and getting us pro-Zionists silenced, is it not?

The assertion that one of the Israpedia members called for a "war" on Misplaced Pages is certainly no worse than this group's description of what they are doing as "combat," protestations of NPOV aside. What in fact wiki has done up til now (perhaps arbitration will change the end result?) is to buy into Electronic Intifada's spin against CAMERA and the Israpedia group. No one seems to see the irony of the name. Juanita (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

==Wikipedians for Palestine== has eleven members who by their own criteria, are members of the wiki organization in some capacity acting in a clandestinely promoting their agenda while remaining 'wikipedians' in good standing. surely that is the very definition of stealth. no mechanism exists by which wiki is able to detect these agenda driven wikipedians. unless there exist some redress to this problem, the rules of wiki will apply to some but not all thus voiding the fair application of justice. this is a flaw in the wiki model and as a flaw it will affect what is wiki especially when these individuals sit in judgement. it appears the model in which wiki prides itself has faltered and is not the answer to the achieving a neutral point of view promoted as axiomatic to the wiki philosophy thus making wiki no better than the encyclopedia that use to be given away in supermarkets. other evidence of this is demonstrated in the contending 'universes' of contentious issues. perhaps the john stuart mills model would serve better! "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/two.html at least mills would not contrive barriers to free speech which seems to be part of the herding instinct at wikiland. Davidg (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note

The topic-ban I placed on you above does also extend to talk pages. My apologies for not clarifying this earlier. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

POV debate

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Folantin/Userspace_Folantin5Juanita (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Request to UnBlock

Dajudem (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

75.164.50.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Judadem". The reason given for Judadem's block is: "CAMERA meatpuppetry, disruptive soapboxing, personal attacks.".

• Blocking administrator: Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: No, your obivously related accounts. — MBisanz 15:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Not true. I have a fellow user in my household. He does his own thing and I do mine. He made no personal attacks, but attacked the wiki model. My case is under arbitration. I should have the right to make my case. If he is blocked he will remain blocked. I deserve the right to make my case while it is still in arbitration. I wish to remind you (editors)that you have exposed my email address and exposed my private correspondence which is considered harassment under wiki rules. I should at least be allowed to edit in regards to this issue. I urge you to try to imagine how you would feel if the shoe were on the other foot. Again, I have done nothing wrong. Juanita (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)