Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:59, 14 February 2009

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:

		The Israeli Barnstar of National Merit
		Jaakobou, You have worked hard to attempt to improve wikipedia's Israel/Palestine related articles. You have made appropriate additions and changes, added sourced content, and dealt with the POV issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I believe you have at many times tried to promote improvement and NPOV in many wikipedia articles, and have greatly improved many articles. You have had to deal with some issues in the past, have faced at times controversial sanctioning, but when you were wrong, you have learned from your mistakes, and improved your editing, and since, you have become a very good editor. For all you have done, you have won my respect, and are in my opinion very deserving of this barnstar. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:2007–2008_Israel–Gaza_conflict#2008_Israel.E2.80.93Gaza_conflict_merge

It would seem to me that this is a snowball merge (the oppose was irrelevant and confused the articles, understandably so). Should I move ahead with the merge? I want to really fix this stuff, as you can see I am not very concerned with the debates of content but more about ledes, structure, WP:SUMMARY/WP:POVFORK, for me having the information neutrally presented in an well-structured, encyclopedic narrative is more important than gathering information, at this point. The older events (up to the first intifadah and probably Operation Grapes of Wrath) are relatively well done (some issues with titles etc but I can ignore it for now), but anything since 2002 or so is very disorganized (there is actually a general POVFORK on "Second Intifadah" that is ridiculous (don't get me started on the template), some articles are exactlly the same except one has one side's perspective and the other has the other side's - POVFORK Classic Edition) I percieve you have the same idea, so I would like to work with you to that end. Am I wrong?--Cerejota (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My time is a tad limited these days but I would love to collaborate as much as possible. Maybe you should set up a temporary user space page for making the merger so that every content that gets removed/done can be pasted on the talk page and available for discussion if necessary so no one's past efforts get oblitherated without a second opinion. I'll try and follow the progress as much as possible... if you have other ideas on how to do this, I'm open to that as well - more than anything, this needs to be done. Jaakobou 08:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Warning

You've edited the Lead significantly without discussing it on the LEAD talk page. I've reverted your edits, and opened a topic about them in the talk page. Please discuss first --Darwish07 (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been discussing the issue for a couple days now and have made a full explanation alongside another few editors to why the current phrasing is POV driven. Clearly there is no wide range consensus amoung editors not named 'Nishidani', 'Tiamut' (from East Jerusalem]]), 'Nablisi' (from Nablus) and Darwish to include a controveral allegatory title and either we put it in ful context in the lead or leave the full context for the body of the article. Jaakobou 12:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying "aiming for self destruction" is not such a context and you know that well. There's nothing can be defined as "context" when you mention things like war names. Names are names on their own, with no context. --Darwish07 (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Jaakabou in your comments above you have implied ethnic references regarding the usernames of editors you disagree with, that is not acceptable. You have been cited and disciplined in the past for your behavior on pages related to Israel. Suggest you consider where your current disruptive editing on the lead of the 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict article might lead. RomaC (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Only thing that is disruptive is the "it's just a name" game being played. This is clearly against the purpose of Misplaced Pages and will not last long term. Jaakobou 14:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I would like to request you to be a bit more constructive with your edits. As other editors here have mentioned, your last edito to the Israel-Gaza conflict page violated talk page consensus. Moreover, it was sourced using Youtube and a fairly unreliable extreme right wing site. I understand that you disagree with other editors on this issue, but surely disruptive editing of this kind will not achieve anything? best, Jacob2718 (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Jacob,

You got it wrong as there is no clear consensus for the "Massacre" phrasing and as such, there is a lot of room to move it to the talk page for discussion and moving it into the article when there is not even a semblance of consensus is disruptive on its own. Also, it is worth noting that amoung the sources was the BBC as well as the IDF website, which are considered wiki-reliable, certainly when the content is nothing controversial and has been reported on every single news outlet I've been watching the past two weeks, which includes 3 Israeli channels, BBC, Sky News, CNN, France 24 News, and Al-Jazeera. I'd urge any reasonable experianced wiki editor to review the WP:TE issue on the first paragraph of that article as well as the "lead" talk page, on which I've participated.

Cordially, Jaakobou 18:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages

Please don't remove non-vandalism edits to discussion pages, however hyperbolic they may be. Thanks. yandman 15:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Would have been better for the discourse if these personal attacks would have been removed as the actual content issue could have been addressed. Jaakobou 16:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Michelangelo's grave

I just found your cleanups of that pic and your request for input. No.5 (not your work) is much too bright. The colour in No.4 is just a little too intense in the reds for a natural fresco colour, and elswhere, the contrast is also just a bit too intense. No. 3 strikes a pretty good balance between both the crop and the colouring.

Enhancement of pics of old artworks is often quite problematic, unless you are very familiar with the original. The ghastliest colour adjustments are the ones that people do using an automatic function on their windows program. Aaaaargh!

I have such happy memories of trailing around Florence, introducing people to all these wonderful things.

Amandajm (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Steward Elections, 2009

Please link from your meta userpage to your enwiki userpage, and vice versa, or your vote will be removed. Thanks! Prodego 00:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't need to do it because I have an SUL account WP:SUL. You will need to to prove you are the same as user Jaakobou on meta. Link to meta with the format ], and to enwiki with ] Prodego 02:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Avigdor Lieberman

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Avigdor Lieberman. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

JCDenton, welcoming regular editors to Misplaced Pages with a template is patronising. There is an essay about it, WP:DTTR. Further, why should the article lead list all the ways in which Lieberman's place on the spectrum has been described? Frankly, I agree that its unnecessary and confusing. Avruch 14:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin

Hi. I've reverted this edit of yours. I'd appreciate it if you could explain why you believe the sources are "confused". Cheers, Nudve (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)