Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:23, 28 May 2008

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

• notes

Stuff I'm reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Jaakobou&diff=prev&oldid=212053710

Copied from . (wikilink fixed) Jaakobou 07:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Gratitude for the tireless efforts on the Wiki Page of CMKC. Especially knowing how busy you were, you were still able to help out; for the gracious efforts, I thought the "working man's barnstar" was the most suitable. Yonigs (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict (May 14, 2008)

Per this diff and this reversion of Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict:

Regarding the use of "abduct" versus "capture"... While I agree with you that "abduct" is the most accurate descriptor, I think "capture" is an accurate and more neutral descriptor. I would rather not drag Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict into a long and drawn out edit war over "abducted", "taken hostage", or "taken prisoner of war", when the accurate and neutral term "capture" can as easily suffice. Since Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict wikilinks to Gilad Shalit, I will leave it to the editors of that article to decide the appropriate wording. Also, because of the wikilink, the additional sources are superfluous -- thanks, though, for adding them.

Good day and good luck with your edits. ← Michael Safyan 20:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't say I agree completely with the "capture" terminology since the word "abduct" is used by high quality neutral sources -- I used 2: International Herald Tribune and CNN -- plus it was already accepted by Pedrito as NPOV and a proper descriptive. However, this issue is not really the topic of the article so I'll let this go for now so not to distract from the development of the newly re-written article - Good work btw. Jaakobou 20:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

5/15 DYK

On 15 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article CMKC Group, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 22:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Offense

Offesive comment diff, and explanation. (added Jaakobou 07:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

If you would like me to remove the comment that offended you, I am happy to, on the condition that both of us remove that whole exchange, since without my actual words all our back-and-forth will lack context anyway. At this stage it's just between us, really, and the discussion has gone off the topic of changing the name of the category. Let me know what you think, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll think about it a little bit (I have to go out now anyways) and get back to you.

Cordially, Jaakobou 07:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. You can either strike your text with the <s>Text</s> tags (result text) or remove it completely and also remove the comments starting with "(offtopic comment to LamaLoLeshLa)".

apologies for the delayed response. Jaakobou 08:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Glad we could resolve this with respect. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

PEA

I see you labelled the change from 'critiques' to 'denunciations' PEA. I don't see it that way. I think critiques is pretty weak - you can use it with a plan people are critical of, or a film people don't like - but these human rights org.s denounced Operation Defensive Shield. I'm feeling like this is getting personal. Is it?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't say what it is that may have triggered this, but I certainly sensed that there was an issue when you've decided to make a personally directed comment to a discussion of mine from last year. I wasn't sure on how to respond or if I should respond at all to the content part of your question, due to the nature of the question. Content disputes occur, and you should avoid carrying personal disputes across articles.

By the way, I don't know what you refer to here (re: personally directed comments), please explain. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to this policy: Misplaced Pages:CIV#Engaging_in_incivility, my concern was specifically the judgmental tone directed at me in person (see also WP:NPA), rather than a civil inquiry regarding the content issue which you were unclear about. Judgmental commentary directed at fellow editors detract from an ability to discuss your concerns in a calm manner (see also: Erosion_of_critical_thinking).

The golden rule, in my opinion, is "Comment on content, not on the contributor." (from the NPA)

With respect, Jaakobou 19:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I assure you that there is nothing personal here, but I am a bit concerned regarding your recent misuse of sources, more specifically, the ElectronicIntifada.net edit which I reverted. If you have used this source on other locations, I request that you either find a WP:RS replacement or that you remove both the reference and the related materials.

If you want to continue this conversation, we can either go over it on the relevant article talk page or that you can e-mail me.

With respect, Jaakobou 06:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have never used the Electronic Intifada as a source. I have been changing the ordering of many articles recently, so that they are more chronological and followable; I haven't added many of my own footnotes in the past few days of editing, so maybe you misconstrued my copy-pastes as new additions. Maybe in that case I copied from another article. But actually if I remember correctly, all I was trying to do in that case specifically was to add that it is referred to variously by different populations. I think you managed to keep my basic point in? And I was fine with that.

As an aside, I think Electronic Intifada varies- it depends on the author, but no, I don't tend to use it as a reliable source of historical data - it can however be valuable in terms of reflecting sentiments during a particular time... I wouldn't necessarily assume the worst if someone cites it, though I understand that it raises eyebrows. I have reservations about it as a source as well, depending on the article. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you review WP:QS and also the attached diffs from my earlier comment. If you see this error being done by others, you should revert it. Let me know where you copy-pasted the Erekat text from, it was a clear error that should be corrected. Jaakobou 08:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Second Intifada

I just need you, to put a comment under where you accepted the proposal, to just write that you're aware that the decision will be binding. As the mediation has gone on for over two months, it really needs to press on, I need you to do this ASAP. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 00:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, Jaakobou 09:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikicookie

Pallywood

I think the 3rd journalist mentioned (the Canadian one) is clearly not a conservative commentator, but I am not going to edit war over this. If you are fine with "conservative" - so be it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Jaakobou,

Thanks for your vote of confidence in the process in the RfM for Gilad Shalit. My role, as I see it is to do the following:

• Listen to all participants
• Help formulate an agenda
• Identify common interests
• Identify pertinent facts/policies/research that would assist participants in forming agreement
• Facilitate an agreement and action plan.

I suggest that we start with an opening statement from each of the participants on the RfM talk page. I've also suggested a few groundrules there. If at any time you wish to contact me privately via e-mail, please feel free to do so here. Best wishes. Sunray (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Again, my apologies for talking about you before contacting you. I only meant to introduce your name in a complimentary way, as I was struck by your objectivity in exploring something from a POV you clearly find objectionable. Cheers,John Z (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)