Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:50, 20 September 2011

Mairead Corrigan

On the Mairead Corrigan article, you edited a direct quote. Please see the Misplaced Pages manual of style for editing quotes: MOS:QUOTE. Generally, we do not fix the grammar of quotations. —Ute in DC (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I should have mentioned that the edit was made in order to correspond with the way the quote appears in the cited reference. The bad grammar was what alerted me to the discrepancy, but I did make sure to check what was in the original source. —Biosketch (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

For you

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thank you for the clean-up over the last several days. I especially appreciate the fixing of my hangover mistakes Cptnono (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I enjoyed reading and learning about the incident, glad to help.—Biosketch (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Vanunu

Thank you for your note. You are right and I was mistaken: Vanunu was born in Morocco and immigrated to Israel as a child. Hope the changes just made are OK. User:Emesz —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC).

Edit warring

Another editor has reported you for breeching the one revert per 24 hours (1/rr) rule that is in place in the Palestinian-Israel conflict topic area. I recommend that you do not continue to revert. I also recommend that you read up on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Further remedies. This 1/rr has been very useful in tempering the edit warring that has been common in the topic area.

I assume you were not aware of this unless you really were just thumbing your nose at the rules. Blocks are meant to be preventative and not punitive so if you express on the edit warring report that the 1/rr issue is now clear and that you won't be violating again then you might be able to avoid a block. The discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Biosketch reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: ). Cptnono (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The die is cast, bitch! (I'm only teasing you) I can show you more wikilinks to background sections in FAs related to events (wars, murders, protests, corporate buyouts, whatever), If you want to have fun with it I will end up winning. I will reluctantly crush you for the prize of one week off of the article if you want.

In all seriousness, nice stuff keeping up on the article. You really have been doing good work.Cptnono (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case, you'll be delighted to hear that during the month of April I'll be far away from WP for almost three weeks backpacking in Europe. You'll be free to fabricate all the misleading backgrounds you want and corrupt the factual integrity of otherwise credible and decently written articles on the altar of quality scale ratings. From now till then, though, you'll just have to deal with it.

That was just teasing you back, of course.... I've found your input to be invaluable, not to mention that you've saved me from getting into trouble a few times.—Biosketch (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Then the bet is invalid! Have fun traveling. Forget saving you from trouble since you seem to be getting a hang of things and contributing just fine.Cptnono (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Your Strong Reaction

It seems that you have strong reaction towards the edits on Miral and Hind al-Husseini as well as Deir Yassin. I want to inform you that I am happy to collaborate with you any which way that I can on edits. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You've been Reported to http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts

Hello, Biosketch. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Just want to let you know that I've reported certain elements of your conduct which I believe to be uncivil to http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts. GoetheFromm (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Santorini

Thanks for putting up some links on the talk page - I used those to significantly expand the article, and will shortly nominate it for a DYK, naming you as a co-expander, if you have no objection. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the acknowledgement.—Biosketch (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

talkback

• and another Swarm 00:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Dirar Abu Seesi

I just combined the two paragraphs that list the reasons why Abu Seesi was kidnapped. For the moment, I deleted your addition about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's comments on why he was kidnapped as not sourced. I know you are working on getting it sourced. When you do, could replace your sourced sentence with the last sentence (Israeli officials were insinuating that Abu Seesi was involved in weaponry for Hamas). Your comment is by the Israeli side, the other sentence just insinuated. Bgwhite (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, and I appreciate that you updated me. I edited it very soon after the interview and didn't include the Jerusalem Post source because their translation was flawed and the article had typos. By now, though, Netanyahu's comment is being referenced in numerous places, including a better JPost article: JPost, SFGate (AP), Monsters & Critics, etc. I'm kind of occupied with other things at the moment and won't be back at a computer tomorrow until evening. If no one's incorporated Netanyahu's comment by then, I'll restore the sentence with a solid ref, as I do think the comment (cryptic though it was) is noteworthy.—Biosketch (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria usage

FYI: WP:WESTBANK --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What is this in relation to?—Biosketch (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

After seeing this edit (which is absolutely right), I just wanted to make sure you are familiar with the policy. It's no way a warning or attempt to educate you, only a friendly suggestion to take a look at something you might find interesting/useful. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Copy: A reminder of the 1RR restriction

User:Ajnem, please consider that the frequency and nature of your edits at Itamar killings may constitute a violation of the 1RR restriction. While they appear to be in good faith, they are also symptomatic of WP:OWN. Without having warned you first, Administrators are unlikely to take action; so please review Misplaced Pages policy at WP:1RR and in particular keep in mind the following: An editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Take this message not as a personal insult but as constructive criticism and endeavor to be more careful in the future.—Biosketch (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Biosketch, don't know what you are referring to. Maybe you want to explain, what it is you object to? Ajnem (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The above from my talk page. Biosketch, please refrain from making accusations you cannot sustain (and from playing administrator). And not anwering my question is not comme il faut at all. In view of the fact that you are very new at Misplaced Pages (or are you?) I asume good faith for the time being, Ajnem (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I'll post the diffs about that at your Talk page presently. And the message wasn't intended to sound like a threat from an Admin or anything but rather, as indicated by the title, a reminder, in the event that you weren't aware of the restriction. As to whether or not I'm very new at Misplaced Pages, that depends of course on how one defines "very new" – but I wouldn't consider myself very new, no.—Biosketch (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No kidding? Ajnem (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to ask a question?—Biosketch (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Not unless you want me to. Cheerio, Ajnem (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If there's something on your mind, spill it.—Biosketch (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Help desk

 Chzz  ►  13:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Transclusion isn't as horrible as it sounds;

I just made a little test page, User:Biosketch/Test page, which contains "Test page la la la".

If I put, right here, {{User:Biosketch/Test page}}, it will show the contents of it;

Test page la la la

...and if that page changes, then it'll change here too.

You can think of transclusion as 'subroutines' - for adding common text on several pages. They can also do cleverer stuff, with conditional code - like "If I'm being transcluded on user page say THIS, otherwise say THAT". So, they're used for all kinds of things.

I hope that maybe unravels the mystery a little! Cheers,  Chzz  ►  13:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, since you've gone to the trouble of trying to explain it to me personally, I'll make more of an effort to understand what it's all about.—Biosketch (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think, possibly, the easiest way to get your head around it is this;

• There is a 'magic word' NUMBEROFARTICLES.
• I write {{subst:NUMBEROFARTICLES}} at the end of this sentence, it will record the number of articles when I hit save: 3,605,601
• But If I write, at the end of this sentence, {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}, it will show the number when this page was last looked at: 6,930,930

Hence, the second number will change regularly - but the first will never change.

The same applies to subst'ing and transcluding a page.

• At the time of my writing this, the page User:Chzz/transtest contains the word "sausage" (in green) - so, if I put {{subst:User:Chzz/transtest}} at the end of this sentence, it will put that content on this page, forever: Sausage
• But if I put {{User:Chzz/transtest}}, it could change - and in a few moments, I will edit and change that page: Elephants

I hope that helps! Cheers,  Chzz  ►  21:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it correct to say that curly brackets are used to substitute or transclude information? So if I understand correctly, the difference between substitution and transclusion is that the former is fixed whereas the latter is dynamic. The information stored at Template:! is the pipe symbol. Now, by using curly brackets without the subst prefix, it becomes a transclusion instruction: if someone changes the information stored at Template:! from, say, a pipe symbol to a semicolon, then anywhere that {{!}} is found, what will appear is a semicolon. But if {{subst:!}} is used, then it will continue to show the pipe even after the template is modified, provided the {{subst:!}} command was saved before the template was modified. (I'm still not at the level of understanding what happened at Talk:Geddy Lee, but did am I getting the rest right?)—Biosketch (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is absolutely correct.

And, templates can transclude other templates or pages.

On the talk page Talk:Geddy Lee, there are various templates. One is {{WPBiography}}, which makes the box that says, This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography.... It also transcludes a subpage - Talk:Geddy Lee/Comments, which it shows within a collapsed table, like this;

Comments:

This is Biosketch's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. This non-existent page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: Biography: Musicians NA‑class This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This page is supported by WikiProject Musicians. Canada: Toronto / Music NA‑class This page is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This page is supported by WikiProject Toronto. This page is supported by WikiProject Canadian music. Gershon Eliezer Weinrib has never been Geddy's legal name In this video, at timestamp 9:30 or so, Geddy states very clearly that "Gary Lee Weinrib" is the name on his birth certificate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMUaFy-bJSs Gershon Eliezer Weinrib was a cultural name, and is the source of his legal name. But it has never actually been his legal name at any point in his life. His legal name was "Gary" up until he himself had it legally changed to "Geddy". Ξxtreme Unction 19:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Before I edited the subpage (here), it contained a == Heading ==

The table of contents (TOC) always appears just before the first == heading == on a page.

Therefore, the TOC was being displayed inside that hidden ('collapsed') part of the page.  Chzz  ►  19:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the lessons. I have another question about transclusion. If you go to File:Golan_Heights_Map.PNG, there's a section titled "File links" with a list of all the articles where the image appears. I can't edit the page to view the source code, but I'm guessing what generates that list is some kind of dynamic (transcluding) template not unlike the ones we've been talking about, only not one that's been made available for public use. Now, I'm interested in knowing when that list of articles changes, but watchlisting the page won't be of any help, because that template itself won't change when what's transcluded in it changes. Is there any way for me to subst (not transclude) what's in that section in my user space, so that I can have as a reference the list that's at File:Golan_Heights_Map.PNG as it appears right now? I could just copy-paste the list, I suppose, but...curiosity is gnawing at me.—Biosketch (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's not actually a transclusion thing; the "File usage" is generated automatically by the mediawiki software.

There's no easy way (that I know) to get a list in a wiki-code-format; you could copy/paste and add the ] things, I suppose. Or, if there were lots (e.g. 100+), it'd be worth asking someone with database access to get a list for you - .

But the easiest answer is, use the popups gadget - in My Preferences, under the 'Gadgets' tab, under "Browsing", there is Navigation popups, article previews and editing functions popup when hovering over links. If you 'checkbox' that...then whenever you hover your mouse over a file-link (such as this one: File:Golan Heights Map.PNG), you should see a list of pages using it.

That's probably the best way to keep an eye on what pages use a file, really; keep a list of the files you are interested in, and just hover your mouse over them to see which pages are using them.

You could list them using "lf" (which stands for "link file) to give links, e.g.

* {{lf|Golan Heights Map.PNG}}

Which will look like this;

• File:Golan Heights Map.PNG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

That gives you the 'links' link, showing what-links-here for the file.

Sorry though; I can't think of a way to actively monitor changes in which pages use a file. If that's what you really need, I suggest asking on the helpdesk, as others might know of some tools, or something. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  10:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Santorini (ship)

On 11 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Santorini (ship), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the crew of the Santorini tried and failed to smuggle weapons, hidden inside barrels, into the Gaza Strip three times, before being caught on their fourth attempt? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Lucy Aharish

On 19 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lucy Aharish, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 2007 Lucy Aharish became the first Arab to present the news on mainstream Israeli television? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for this article Victuallers (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Mairead Corrigan

You are absolutely right Mairead Corrigan deserves a better class than start. My apologies for being way too quick. You have done a fabulous job on this remarkable lady. I have fixed it to a B class, which is the highest available without peer review. Thank you for bringing this to my attention to fix! --Tbennert (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize – on the contrary, I'm grateful to you for assessing the article in the first place. And I appreciate that you considered my comments and reevaluated the assessment.—Biosketch (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your edits, which I found today in random wandering... thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much.—Biosketch (talk) 08:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Golan Heights

Re: Invitation to comment

Will take a look in a bit, as I'm a little busy at the moment, but the first two edits look like they happened one after the other? Consecutive reverts count as a single revert, just FYI. ← George 22:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No rush. It's way past my bedtime – not to mention that I basically vowed to myself to make only one batch of edits per day. But things are deteriorating in the I/P area, so there's a certain sense urgency to consider.—Biosketch (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Zenga Zenga!

Thanks for the heads up. If the story on Amir Benayoun develops more, I'll create an article on those songs/album. If not, I'll try to find the time to make a page for Amir himself. Much appreciated for the info. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hi

Hi Biosketch, I saw your posts at AGK's talk page. Have you heard about my hacker ordeal? When I decided to end the game I played with the hacker, and to change my password, it was really hard for me to do so. It almost looked as somebody from the other site is preventing me from doing so. My gmail account went absolutely crazy. I am not sure if you're having the same issues. BTW there is button that is named "details" Look for the text:

Visit settings to save time with keyboard shortcuts! You are currently using 0 MB (0 %) of your 7588 MB. Last account activity: 1 hour ago at this IP (--------). Details

I replaced my IP with -------, but just by looking at this line you could see, if somebody with a different IP entered your account. Then click that "Detail" button, and it will give you the full report of the stupid and criminal hackers activities if your account was hacked. The hacker IP will be in the red color and in the first line/lines of the report. Please feel free to ask me more questions. Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Also you can enter your account with two steps verification using your Cellphone

settings->accounts->Other Google Account settings->Using 2-step verification--Shrike (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for the suggestions.—Biosketch (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

naska day

Hi Bio, the reason why I deleted the video was becuase other videos linked to the video seemed to be one-sided analysis of the event (they all seemed to be anti-Israel side), but then I saw the company that did the video and then I thought it was no surprise given the russian gov't position on Israel and the gov't's ownership of the channel. Maybe you can find another video that talk about the event n link to the article?Festermunk (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There are indeed problems with RT as far as being a WP:RS for most things involving Israel. Norman Finkelstein is a recurring Mideast "expert" on their shows, for example. But in this case, since the video is only raw footage and doesn't have any voice-over editorializing or anything, it itself can't be considered a biased or unreliable source for how it's being used in the article. And about the links, well that's unfortunate. YouTube is inundated with videos from people and groups who've made it their life's mission to bash Israel. But that can't really be considered as an argument against the video itself.—Biosketch (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

B'Tselem

User:Biosketch, I think my edit summary was 100% clear on the subject. My edits conform to what both Haaretz and NRG say, without resorting to the sort of mealy-mouthed double-talk you wrote. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 05:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

This edit summary is absurd. The lone sentence I removed in the preceding edit was The kibbutz has an industrial aria which includes factories for producing stretch films and other plastic films. That sentence was cited to the website of a company that makes such films, meaning it was promotional spam not cited to a third party reliable source. To call that removal possible POV pushing/selective removal of content is absurd. Do not continue making such comments about me. Also, do not continue hounding my edits. If you continue to do so I may ask for administrative assistance in stopping you from tendentiously following me around. It has gone past annoying, considering the absurd accusations that accompany your hounding. nableezy - 02:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You're partly correct: I ought to have added something like "+expand" at the end of the edit summary, given that I added more content than what you had removed. But this has nothing to do with hounding. Editing one or two articles per week where you were the most recent editor is virtually unavoidable. I don't do it to provoke you and you shouldn't take it that way. I examined your edit, saw that you had removed sourced content, was able to find additional sources allowing me to restore your removal and expand the article some more, and that's what I did. If anything, you should be appreciative of my contribution to Niran. And by the way, you've followed me around plenty lately, so I wouldn't be so quick to be making accusations of hounding were I in your place.—Biosketch (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Ive followed you around? Where? But the hounding is not the issue, the issue is the asinine accusation you directed at me while doing so. How exactly is the removal of a companies website, meaning not a third party reliable source, and the statement it was used for "possible POV pushing/selective removal of content"? How exactly do you justify making such an accusation? And why are you looking at my contributions anyway? nableezy - 03:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Where have you followed me around? User talk:Sean.hoyland, for one; Vittorio Arrigoni, another. And look what's happened there. The moment you contributed to those places, all hell broke loose. And then there's Chesdovi (talk · contribs)'s Talk page (diff). I know you commented there after my message at a related AN/I before he got sanctioned. I know because a short time after I used the expression "emphatically object," you used it at AE. Not that I care one bit that you borrow expressions from me, but I did pick up on it. And like I said elsewhere, you're free to edit articles I edit as long as it's to improve them. At User:Sean.hoyland's Talk page, your contribution was sarcastic and nonconstructive. At Vittorio Arrigoni, it was petty and nonpolicy-based. Now, without saying anything about you personally, I have been detecting a pattern in your edits. Consider your quarrel with No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs) yesterday. You removed a historical detail unfavorable to a certain political narrative. Then take your edit at Niran. You removed a mention of a factory on a settlement. All these things raise questions. They raise questions about whether this pattern can be considered NPOV. Do you see my reason for concern?—Biosketch (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? That is so very interesting. I "followed" you to an article that I had edited a good two months before you edited. Because to "follow" somebody means to show up before they come, right? And I "followed" you to a user talk page where I have the second most number of edits, and I "followed" you to discuss something that happened on my talk page. You have demonstrated the quality of your argument. Thank you for that. But to respond, again, to the substance of it. At one article I removed an unsourced statement. Misplaced Pages policy specifically allows for the removal of any statement without a reliable source supporting it. At Niran I removed promotional spam that was not cited to a reliable secondary source. If either of those edits raise questions it is how exactly does any sane person object to either of those edits. About the comment at Chesdovi's talk page, I made that without knowing that anybody had proposed it. I had not read the RFC, the ANIs or anything of the sort, I only saw what happened on his talk page as I have it watchlisted. I felt like giving him an easy solution that would answer the objections, however ill-considered they might be. I did not know you had made such a suggestion because I did, and do, not care about the topic enough to have read more than two words from any of the discussions. And I dont appear to have ever used the phrase "emphatically object" on AE, so I have no idea what you are talking about there. Regarding Arrigoni, I gave a policy based reason, and while you have demanded one from me you have not once offered one in support of your position. Some might be tempted to call such tactics "petty". But, once more, do not make such accusations in edit summaries. And do not continue to hound my contributions. While we may run into one another in articles where we share a common interest, you should not be following my contributions to repeatedly confront me at articles. If you end up at the same article I am editing organically then great, what is not great is repeatedly going through my contributions to do so. I should not have to deal with a collection of internet tough guys annoying me from one place to another. Unless of course you would like me to actually start going through your contributions and repeatedly inhibiting your editing. nableezy - 06:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Kids, stop it. Please. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Id be glad to, if I did not have to read some inane accusation about "POV pushing" for removing spam, followed by asinine accusations of hounding somebody to places I had already been. nableezy - 14:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Overreacting

Nableezy (talk · contribs), I'm going to say something about you personally now that's meant not as an attack but as a candid observation, and I sincerely hope you'll take some time to contemplate it with an open mind before responding. Simply put, you are overreacting. You are blowing two or three edits I made over the course of a week way out of proportion and making a giant mountain out of an incy wincy anthill. For whatever reason – I can only speculate as to where your hostility toward me is coming from – you appear to have turned me into your archnemesis here, when I never did anything remotely deserving of that role.

Early last month when Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs) and I were involved in a dispute and you were still banned, you couldn't resist stirring the pot at his Talk page, in what can only be described as a deliberate and sustained effort to provoke me into losing my temper. I did not ask for your input there, yet you forced it upon me just the same. For two weeks that charade went on (and perhaps it has endured ever since, only each time in a different form). Again, no one invited you to offer your opinion – but you did anyway, and in a sarcastic and counterproductive manner effectively guaranteeing that nothing constructive would come out of the interaction but only machoistic cervine horn locking.

Then on 17 June you made a puzzling edit at Juliano Mer-Khamis, inserting Arabic letters into an image caption. Well, naturally I removed the Arabic letters – and not because I was stalking you but because I've had Juliano Mer-Khamis watchlisted ever since he was killed and I'd contributed to the article and to its associated Discussion page. Now, as I'm sure you, and many others, do sometimes, when a problematic edit is found at one article, it's not uncommon to examine the editor's contributions at other articles to see if it's an isolated problem or part of a general pattern of problematic editing. And if you still want to know at what point in the day I looked through your edit history on 22 June when I edited Tourism in Israel, I think it was while I was eating a bowl of cereal and milk for breakfast, as I had gone to sleep rather later than usual the night before and gotten out of bed late that morning. I saw that you had made an edit at an article that for obvious reasons I would want to examine more closely, and lo and behold I found that you had added an un- or mis-sourced claim to it. So what was I supposed to do? Take you to AE for it? No – I edited your edit. End of story.

But of course it was not the end of the story. No, the saga had to continue with you diagnosing me with a disease and calling me insanely obsessed with your edits. If that's not a wild overreaction, then please tell me what is. You diagnose me with a disease and accuse me of being insanely obsessed with your edits, basically because of one edit I made, and you think I'm the one with the problem?

Who has been stalking whom?

Ok meanwhile, ironically enough, you had already started editing pages after me. On 22 June, the day after I left Reenem (talk · contribs) a message on his Talk page, for example, you suddenly showed up there. Then on 1 July I edited Vittorio Arrigoni, and who should edit my edit? You again (and again), citing Misplaced Pages guidelines that weren't even relevant. Of course before either of these incidents there were all those mounds of crap at User:Sean.hoyland's page. And then, on 20 June, I left a message at AN/I involving Chesdovi (talk · contribs) using the expression "I emphatically object," and whaddyaknow, the very next day you say "I emphatically deny" at AE. Not only that but you go and leave a message at User:Chesdovi's Talk page, clearly related to the AN/I where I had commented, essentially suggesting the same thing I had suggested, which he even acknowledged in his reply to you.

So, what...all that's just coincidence? You still want to deny you track my edits and follow me to articles? But I've told you: I don't really care if you follow me around, as long as the edits you make are professional and well-intentioned and not spiteful. Maybe you're infatuated with me. I don't know. It doesn't matter to me as long as it stays constructive. Take Zero0000 (talk · contribs), for instance. Do you know that he's edited after me at three different articles recently in the space of a few days? So what? It doesn't bother me. His comments have been professional, his edits have for the most part been constructive, and our interactions have been mature and civilized, even though I'm disagreeing with him regarding his latest revert. Why then did you have to go ballistic after two minor edits I made?

Possible POV editing

Now, about this latest row at Niran. The night before I edited there, you made a controversial edit at another article and got into an altercation with No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs) over it. His criticism was actually very valid. You're an experienced editor in the topic area. You're expected to edit in an NPOV spirit and with a mind to improving articles. Your edit at Adora, however, was something an anon IP might try to pull. You have to understand that when you behave a certain way, the reactions of your colleagues will be commensurate with that behavior. Again, User:No More Mr Nice Guy was right in calling you out for your removal of the details of the terrorist attack. It's hard not to suspect you of POV editing in a case like that because the source for the claim you removed was easily obtainable through a Google search; and even if was pure laziness on your part, then why not tag it with Template:Cn? I'll tell you why presently, but to make my argument stronger I'll first address the other controversial edit you made that night.

At Niran you removed a detail concerning a factory on the settlement, citing spam concerns. That is not a persuasive concern. The text you removed was not promotional-sounding in the least. It did not say that P.V.Ran is one of the world's leading manufacturers of plastic food wrappings. Something like that could be considered spam. What you removed was a completely neutral and seven-word-long description of what the factory does, "producing stretch films and other plastic films." There is no spam there.

Now for the bottom line. First you removed the mention of Palestinian terrorists killing a five-year-old girl and a family on an Israeli settlement. Then you removed the mention of a factory that manufactures plastic products on another Israeli settlement. This is why my edit summary said "possible POV pushing/selective removal of content." You didn't remove other unsourced content at Niran. You surgically removed the mention of a factory that's a source of income for the settlers there. Again: first you remove the mention of a hideous terrorist attack carried out by Palestinian terrorists against Israeli settlers, and then you remove the mention of a factory that's a source of livelihood for Israeli settlers. That's enough of a reason to summarize my edit as "possible POV pushing/selective removal of content." It's arguably enough of a reason to have gone to AE again, but I reckon it's only a matter of time before that happens anyway and right now I haven't the patience for it.—Biosketch (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

@ElComandanteChe (talk · contribs), forgive me for saying so, but I resent the implication in your request (which I know was meant in earnest) that there's any kind of symmetry between Nableezy (talk · contribs)'s behavior and mine.—Biosketch (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Now you actually are getting on my nerves. You describe the removal of unsourced material as a "controversial edit", something that an "an anon IP might try to pull". WP:V specifies that any unsourced material may be removed by an editor. That is Misplaced Pages policy, and doing so is not "controversial". I use {{cn}} when there is some mundane detail that needs a source, this was not that. I removed a completely unsourced sentence. That is something we are supposed to do, that is, those of us not interested in seeing how many times we can include the word terrorist in a sentence (only 2 above, you need to try harder). At Niran, there was a companies website used as a source for the existence of the company and information on what they manufacture. That you think that is acceptable for a company to be advertised in such a way in an encyclopedia article is nice, but unimportant. Misplaced Pages has policies on what may be included in articles. All material must be cited to third party reliable sources. Our articles do not exist to advertise for private companies.

There was nothing wrong with including the Arabic script in the caption of the article, and many articles include foreign language script within them while giving a translation. I did not do anything there because dealing with you was not worth the irritation. But that edit does not entitle you to begin following my contributions to further whatever feud you think you have with me.

Ill deal with your "hounding" allegations now, because they are easily the most absurd ones I have seen in a long time, and it took me a bit to craft, lets go with, appropriate response. I am so very sorry for using the word emphatically after you did. I must never have used such a word in the past, I surely saw your post at ANI and decided to use it there. I mean, what are the chances that I have used the word emphatically in the past? I mean, that must be impossible, and of course never at AE. You think I followed you to Reenem's talk page? I have been dealing with that user over the same issue for some time now, your visit there had nothing to do with my message to the user. A brief look at the user's talk page should make any person who was interested in ensuring the veracity of their complaints see that such a charge is patently bogus. Much like everything else in the 8.5 kB above. But, about my diagnosis, given that you admit to hounding my contributions, doing so over breakfast, do you really question it? Again, the problem is not the hounding, I can deal with it, but I may be inclined to return the favor. The problem is the asinine accusation, that you repeat above, that the removal of a companies website as a "source" for an encyclopedia article is "POV-pushing". This was way too much time for me to get to the point here, so Ill do so now. WP:HOUND specifies that f "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. If you continue hounding my edits with the apparent aim of annoying me I may seek such restrictions. You admit above that have, repeatedly, gone through my contributions to inhibit my work at separate articles. You do so on the most spurious of grounds, and make personal attacks such as "POV-pushing". Kindly stop doing so. I dont have a problem discussing the content of the articles, I do however have a problem dealing with people whose aim it is to annoy me. You are quickly demonstrating which of those things you are interested in doing. A commonly used phrase is "comment on the content, not the contributor". If you can do that with me, I will respond in kind, and we will not have problems. If however you cannot control the urge to follow me around and annoy me with such asinine accusations we will have problems. Which of those happens is up to you. I can be an exceedingly pleasant person, even with those that dislike my views. I can also be quite the asshole. Which one you see is really up to you. nableezy - 03:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

An edit is made controversial by virtue of there being controversy around it. You are an experienced editor, and your colleagues in the Project expect you to respect certain norms that are established praxis in the topic area. When you go around removing content – even unsourced content – from articles in a way that can be construed as being motivated by a particular agenda, it undermines the confidence your colleagues have in you and you should not be surprised that they monitor your edits from time to time. I don't expect you to be as diligent as I am at Talk:Jewish religious terrorism, but I'll cite that as an example. It's a controversial article and there's a high degree of probability that any edits I make there will be scrutinized as being potentially biased. The way I ensure that my behavior is not a function of whatever biases I have is by carefully relocating whatever unverified claims I find to the Discussion page. That way it's easy for the next guy to see what used to be in the article and a constructive process of further research can ensue. Is it so much to ask that you do something similar? Sure, if you wanna hide behind Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies to defend your conduct, then maybe you're right and I can't really criticize your behavior. Just know that I expect a higher standard from someone in your position.

You're claiming that I admit to hounding your contributions? Please show me where I ever made such an admission. You said yourself that hounding involves certain sinister motives of wanting to annoy another editor. If you think my edits were intended to annoy you, then you haven't understood anything from my last response to you. In fact, part of me wonders if this whole business of you accusing me of hounding you isn't in fact to intimidate me into never editing after you again so that you can continue to remove content you find unpleasant in certain articles. Well that ain't gonna work, we may as well be clear about that right now. There are plenty of articles I could have involved myself in if it were my intention to annoy you. I could have taken Cptnono (talk · contribs)'s place at Gaza War and picked up where he left off. Or at your AE against Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs). Or at a bunch of other articles where you've run into opposition. I don't fly that way, though. I'll edit where I think I have something meaningful to contribute, and I'll stay away from what's less important to me. You are quite simply not a consideration when it comes to where I choose to edit.—Biosketch (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If that last sentence is true than you have no reason to follow my edits. If not, well, we'll see what happens. Pins and needles Im on. nableezy - 05:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

<- Biosketch, I have something to say about "When you go around removing content – even unsourced content – from articles in a way that can be construed as being motivated by a particular agenda, it undermines the confidence your colleagues have in you and you should not be surprised that they monitor your edits from time to time." This is completely wrong. The topic area is covered by sanctions. It is essential that content is sourced and if it is not it can and should be removed as quickly as possible. I see both "pro-Israeli" and "pro-Palestinian" editors (if we can use those meaningless terms) removing unsourced content in what could be construed as being motivated by a particular agenda very often and it in no way undermines my confidence in their editing because they are doing what they are supposed to do. Imagined patterns and motivations don't matter, people/personalities don't matter if the edits are consistent with the rules. There is far too much focus on people here, it's unhealthy and obsessive, imagining what they are thinking and feeling, what drives them etc, when the only thing that matters is whether their edits are consistent with the set of rules and objectives of the project. I think you are being drawn into the destructive cult of personality that so many people, often toipic banned editors, try to foster here. It turns the place into a war zone. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You're of course entitled to your opinion on the matter, and I respect both you and your opinion; however, I regret you've once again chosen to defend the losing side of the argument. In this case it's WP:BOP and WP:PRESERVE that're crystal clear about Misplaced Pages policy in our context, and perhaps you would do well to review those policies and refresh your memory in relation to the question of how to deal with unsourced additions. To wit, while a user may "remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it," it "has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself." What you described in your comment applies strictly to WP:BLP articles, not to ordinary articles under WP:ARBPIA purview. Furthermore, if, as you say, you regularly encounter users systematically or surreptitiously "removing unsourced content in what could be construed as being motivated by a particular agenda," you are being remiss in not bringing them to the attention of the community or at least advising them strongly against such behavior. Indeed, WP:ARBPIA is unequivocal in its censure of editors who use articles as a platform for advocacy, for furthering outside conflicts, or to advance a political or ideological struggle.

Regarding your opposition to focusing on people, here too you're wrong, though I don't know of a policy that specifically addresses this aspect of your comment. Nature consists of patterns. Science exists because these patterns are meaningful and identifying them reveals profound insights into the workings of the universe. That's true for astronomy, for art, for psychology, for linguistics, for economics, and for political science, among other disciplines. To disregard patterns and approach the world as a collection of arbitrary isolated incidents is – you'll pardon me for being blunt – to shut one's eyes off from reality. Misplaced Pages editors are thinking and feeling agents, with drives and strengths and failings just like anyone else. To overlook basic human nature and deny or downplay that there is a pattern underlying an editor's contributions when that pattern is clearly there for all to see is to follow the ignorance-is-bliss path. And it has nothing to do with cult of personality. It has to do with a basic acknowledgement that behind the user accounts here are human beings and not subatomic particles in a Large Hadron Collider. I would argue that this is also the rationale behind the escalating severity approach at AE. Editors who cannot resist backsliding and repeating the same disruptive behavior they were sanctioned for in the past need to be dealt with more severely than editors in whose case an identifiable pattern is not yet established. And if the same editor goes from article to article selectively removing unsourced content in a manner indicative of a biased agenda, that too is a pattern that needs to be taken stock of and dealt with.

Finally, if you're such an enthusiastic proponent of deleting unsourced content from I/P articles, why haven't you done so at, say, Yachad or J Street?—Biosketch (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

@Nableezy (talk · contribs), if it makes you feel in better company, I also occasionally check where Soosim (talk · contribs), Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs), Cptnono (talk · contribs), and ElComandanteChe (talk · contribs) have edited lately – sometimes in the morning while eating my cereal and milk, other times in the evening when I like to vegetate on the couch and unwind with my feet up and a drink.—Biosketch (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You know what, if thats the way you want it to go, fine. Im cool with that. Id rather not have it be the way you seem intent on making it, really, Id like to be more relaxed in life, but this works too. But before I bid you farewell, Id like to give you some links to peruse. Material is routinely removed as unsourced, even by the same editors who complain about such removals now. There is nothing wrong with such removals, and the proper response when you see that is to restore the material with a reliable source, not cry that some big bad monster is destroying the article. Ill see you around. nableezy - 04:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Um...I am not that editor, and that editor hasn't commented here, so how is that a rebuttal to what my comment was? And I already told you, if you want to hide behind the literal wording of the guidelines, then you're safe and I can't attack you for it – at least not until it reaches the level of an undeniable POV pattern. But the guidelines were formulated with a certain spirit in mind. The better editor is the one who actually tries to find sources for stuff that isn't sourced, not the one who goes around furtively removing inconvenient details from articles that aren't sourced but easily can be.—Biosketch (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You are not that editor but you raise his objection as proof that such a removal is "controversial". At the very least, try to be a bit more honest in your portrayal. If I had wanted to "furtively" remove the unsourced or poorly sourced sentence I would not have said in the edit summary "rm unsourced line" in one and "remove material not cited to third party source" in the other. See, my edit summaries are accurate representations of my edits. Not inaccurate, almost incoherent, attacks on others, as was the issue that initially brought me to the now dumbfounding decision that I made to come here and ask that you not make such accusations without basis. Ill take if you want to hide behind the literal wording of the guidelines to mean that if the policies of this website support my actions, which they do, so yes, I guess I am safe. nableezy - 04:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right that if it weren't for your good-faithed edit summaries, I wouldn't have picked up on the removal of content. To this day I haven't checked the other edits you made that night. That's to your credit. I do give people credit when they do something right, even if I loathe their guts. The third-person pronoun in my last comment wasn't meant to imply one as in "Nableezy (talk · contribs)" but rather one as in the unspecified sense. Which means maybe it does include him, but I'm not committed to that interpretation.—Biosketch (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

How long did it take you to dig up all that stuff? And those were the best examples you could find? That's pretty funny. I do like how you included both stuff that could be considered pro-Israel and anti-Israel, in the topic area and out. Not to mention most were direct reverts of information just included in the article, per BRD. Can the same be said about your edits? Should I do a little digging? Have you ever removed unsourced material that you actually agreed with? I doubt it. Maybe I'll go look next time you're at AE. What do you think I'll find? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A few seconds, I only grabbed the diffs where you wrote "unsourced". And which of those diffs could possibly be called removals of "pro-Israel" material? Oh, by the way, BRD is not a policy or a guideline. WP:V is Misplaced Pages policy, which says any unsourced material may be removed. But Im done here, aint no point dealing with such hypocrisy. nableezy - 14:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You can wikilawyer as much as you like about BRD and V, we all know you removed a longstanding and easily verifiable historical fact because it put the Palestinians in a bad light and you thought nobody would notice your removal. Show me where in any of the edits you listed above I did anything even remotely approaching that. And please, you're the last person here who can talk about hypocrisy. Your editing reeks of it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The term "wikilawyer" is usually used by people who seek to twist essays into trumping guidelines, guidelines into trumping policies, or are generally displeased that the policies of the website do not back up their position. I have quoted, several times now, what a Misplaced Pages policy says may be done with unsourced material, that is, it may be removed. I removed a line on something that does not even belong in an article on a town (can you imagine details of each family murdered in Chicago being included in that article? Or details on each family murdered by Israelis, be it settlers of soldiers, in the occupied territories in each article on each village?) because it was unsourced. But, since you are sooo very opposed to hypocrisy, why did you remove this? Or this which I was able to find a source for in less than five seconds? Please, pray tell, why did you remove material that you dislike that was easily verifiable? And given that the reason provided in the edit summary is exactly the same as you say is some terrible crime, why are you engaged in such hypocrisy as to call my removal of unsourced material wrong? Unsourced material does not belong in an article. If you dont get that I cant help you. But you apparently do get that, as you have repeatedly done the same thing you claim is wrong for me to do. So the question is not why do you think unsourced material belongs, it is pretty obvious based on your actions that you dont, but rather why you think it is okay for unsourced material that, as you say, "put the Palestinians in a bad light" should stay in articles? nableezy - 17:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the term "wikilawyer" is used when someone (like, say, you) tries to argue his action was technically correct (like removing longstanding, easily verifiable, historical facts) when it's obvious it was not proper editing (like when a topic area is under discretionary sanctions, the editor has a long history of battleground behavior and V saying good practice is to look for a source).

As for your diffs, are you really arguing this is not a good edit? Apropos hypocrisy, battleground, etc? The first part is hardly intelligible, and the second part is an unsourced editorial making statements in the neutral voice about what stuff "clearly means" and what "never" happens. Are you seriously arguing it should have remained in the article? The second diff, as is clearly stated in the edit summary is not only unsrouced, but even if it was sourced does not belong in the section it was put in. Moreover, it was a direct revert of a bold edit per BRD, not something that was in the article for months (which you often claim means it's there by consensus, again apropos hypocrisy). I am completely open to any uninvolved admin scrutinizing all of the diffs you provided above. None of them is comparable to what you did, and none of the information was restored as far as I can see.

Anyway, like I told you on my talk page, you go ahead and keep removing stuff like that and we'll see what happens. If you need to puff your chest and say you'll continue doing it but in fact you'll stop now, that's fine too. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we will. I sincerely hope that I happen across another similarly unsourced sentence as I go through the settlement articles to add the text on legality to them, and if I do the chances that this material is kept in the article is approximately 0. And Ill be real nice and leave an edit summary saying "rm unsourced", or something along those lines. And if you do exactly what you did the last time, that is justify the removal of reliably sourced material that has an explicit consensus to be included on the basis that unsourced material was removed and that your revert, while removing the sourced material, was only really a revert of the removal of unsourced material, then we will indeed see what happens. nableezy - 19:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed we will. In the meanwhile, and apropos hypocrisy again, I noticed you're rewriting the Raed Salah article, but didn't bother to change where it says "allegations" to "accusations", despite the fact you were claiming "accusations" is a more neutral term here (among other places) and despite the fact Salah was actually charged in court with some of these things. I'm sure you just didn't get around to doing it yet. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You "noticed"? How sweet. But since you are "noticing" these things, you may have noticed I have only begun working on that article. Would you like me to start "noticing" your edits? Because I dont mind doing so. I mean, it isnt like you or I made a deal to not do such things. Although, if you keep up with your current practice of only editing where you see me doing so there wont be much for me to notice. nableezy - 20:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we have a deal, but in your typical wikilawyering fashion, you continued to pop up on talk pages of articles you never edited to give me your opinion of stuff rather than actually edit the articles. Are you really trying to pretend you don't look at people's contribs?

Anyways, I am not going to edit the Raed Salah article, so you can relax. I just find it intriguing that it took you just a bit over an hour to remove the word "alleged" from the Arrigoni page, yet on the Salah page you made several edits to a section titled "Allegations of Hate Speech and Antisemitism", including to the header itself, but you seem to have missed the use of a word you argued repeatedly is not neutral. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Im not pretending. Though I did just look, did I show up at Counterpunch? Or 1948 Arab–Israeli War, or 949 Armistice Agreements, or Haj Amin al-Husseini, or, well you get the point. We will occasionally end up in the same place, that is expected and not problematic. What is not expected and is problematic is for you to have, as apparently your only focus, articles that I edit. I do look at certain peoples contribs, the same people you look at, but for different reasons than you. I look at the contribs of a selection of editors that I particularly like, such as Tiamut. Where you look at those same editors contributions out of spite. Bit of a difference there. Or any other article you had been focusing on? But to the point. It would be hypocritical of me to go around changing accused to alleged. It is not however hypocritical of me to do nothing when I see alleged. I am not under any obligation to make every edit, even every edit that I agree with, and if you or anybody else changes the section in the Salah article to accused I wont revert it, I wouldnt even raise it on the talk page. And I may yet change it myself, once I spend some more time on the article. Im not under your command, and I dont plan on bowing to your dictates. If you think an edit is needed go make it. nableezy - 23:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So you are of the opinion that arguing a word is not neutral and immediately changing it when you think it casts doubt on claims you like, but not changing it (while editing the same sentence it appears in) when you want it to cast doubt on claims you don't like is not hypocrisy? Interesting.

I'm not dictating or commanding you. Seeing some intellectual honesty from you would be a nice change of pace, and pointing out where someone who keeps calling everyone he doesn't agree with "hypocrites" is being a hypocrite himself is always fun. So change it or not, that's up to you. I suspect you will, since you usually prefer your battle to be subtle and once this has been exposed it can be used against you next time you're in trouble. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No last word? How untypical of you. I'd just like to end this interesting discussion by pointing out that on the same Raed Salah article you added the label "Israeli" to a source critical of Salah but in a consecutive edit removed the label "anti-Israel" from a source supportive of Salah because you said it's "well poisoning". Good stuff. No hypocrisy whatsoever. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I dont really want to waste time with you, but to reply to your asinine accusation here. It is a BLP violation to call Jonathan Cook an "anti-Israel author". I would just love for you to restore that to the article. The source for the material on for the supposed hate speech says, and I quote, At the time, Israeli newspapers quoted him as saying .... Not just newspapers, but Israeli newspapers. But I did not add the qualifier to a "source critical of Salah", I added the description that the source cited used for the source of the quotes. So no, not hypocrisy, it is editing that is in line with the policies of this website. You should try it sometime. I had hoped my "last word" would be a list of diffs of an editor removing unsourced material, an editor who is calling me a hypocrite and complaining about the removal of unsourced material. That had a certain appeal in demonstrating the quality of the accusation and the character of the accuser. But alas, you felt obligated to make an even more ridiculous accusation. nableezy - 19:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If I had said it's never ok to remove unsourced material, maybe your diffs would prove something other than your intellectual dishonesty. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course. You words and actions provide ample evidence that you do not feel it is never ok; it is apparently not ok when, in your words, "it put the Palestinians in a bad light", but your actions appear to show that it is ok when it does not do that. Ill keep that in mind. Perhaps my "intellectual dishonesty" is also the cause of my removing a BLP violation from an article, which now forms the basis for further unfounded attacks by your oh so honest self. nableezy - 19:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice strawman. Nice selective quoting, too. Once again, no discernible intellectual dishonesty.

Intellectual dishonesty certainly had something to do with the fact you removed a label from something you support ("well poisoning" it was, apparently) yet had no problem adding an almost opposite label to something you don't support (it would seem that doesn't poison any wells). If you were or weren't technically within the rules is not really the issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, now a charge of "selective quoting" when you claim the cause of my removal of a BLP violation was "well poisoning". Since you are "noticing" these edits, would you care to quote the entire edit summary for the removal of the BLP violation? Here, Ill do it for you. It was rm nonsense well poisoning and BLP violation. So, for those of not interested in "games", the cause of the removal was that it was "nonsense well poisoning" and it was a "BLP violation". How very honest and not hypocritical for you to charge me with "selective quoting" in an edit in which you selectively quote me. Now, why did I add "Israeli", and is it "an almost opposite label" to "anti-Israel". The first question, why? Because the source says that it was specifically Israeli papers that reported this, not newspapers elsewhere. Next question, is "Israeli" the "an almost opposite label" of "anti-Israel". There is a very obvious answer to that question, but it requires a bit of intellectual honesty to give it. As you apparently are incapable of doing so, let me try. The "opposite" of "anti" is "pro". An "Israeli newspaper" can be "anti" or "pro". "Israeli" here is giving the location of publication, not a judgment of its editorial stance. So it is not true that I added this because it was about something that I "do not support", I added this because the source makes that distinction. And it is also not true that the label I added was "almost the opposite" of the label that I removed, in fact the two labels are not related to each other in any way. One gives the location of publication, and is supported by the cited source, and the other is a BLP violating subjective judgment of a living person. Any honest person can see the difference, but I understand that you will have trouble doing so. nableezy - 21:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering the last sentence of my post addressed the BLP issue, your pretending I only addressed one part of your edit summary is....? Contrast with the fact you selectively quoted one of the multiple reasons I gave you, ignored the rest and pretended that was my main argument.

So you're saying that the only reason you added "Israeli" is so the reader would know the location of the newspapers? Why is the location important? What difference does it make if it was Israeli newspapers or other newspapers? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Im sorry, I was not aware that you considered removing a BLP violation to be "gaming". That puts your comments into perspective, thanks for that. nableezy - 01:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't you get tired of erecting all these strawmen? It's pretty obvious you are unable to address the actual points made when you keep doing that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, I was not aware that I had constructed a strawman. You wrote above Considering the last sentence of my post addressed the BLP issue. The sentence you referred to is If you were or weren't technically within the rules is not really the issue, with the link to WP:GAME. Those two thoughts combine to say that you believe that you addressed the BLP issue by saying it was an issue of whether I was "technically within the rules" and further said that the issue is "gaming" (by your wikilink). Do you know what a strawman is? It isnt using your words accurately to demonstrate the quality of your opinion. The "actual points made" where that you think my removing a BLP violation in one instance and accurately representing the cited source in another is somehow bad, or "gaming", or "dishonest". You can think that all you like, I dont plan on spending much more time on such an absurd idea. Off to find more unsourced material to remove, toodles. nableezy - 14:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

To quote Straw man - To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. That's exactly what you've been doing. See ya. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Giant wall of text with words arranged in strings that mean things and have a purpose

Biosketch, I don't normally invest much time talking to other editors because talking is overated, but I'm making an exception for you. Take it as a compliment because I think you are a good editor who is losing their way a bit.

I'm not defending a side here. There are no sides. It's not a battlefield. It's about resolving interpersonal conflicts that shouldn't be happening because they are irrelevant to the objectives of the project.

I'm aware of what it says in WP:V and WP:EDIT. I'm not a new editor and I've seen how they can be misused by editors to preserve substandard content they like or remove content they don't like. Such is life. Let's agree to disagree about how to interpret and implement policy with respect to unsourced information in a topic area covered by sanctions in a way that maximises compliance with the mandatory core policies of the project.

Regarding my being "remiss in not bringing people to the attention of the community or at least advising them strongly against such behavior", I'm not a fan of pursuing, badgering and purging people because I disagree with their interpretation of policy or because I see a pattern in their edits that may or may not represent something (and certainly not because of their opinions about the world). I reserve that for the worst offenders and my getting-people-blocked metric is near perfect, the one exception I can think of who had been causing disruption for weeks and weeks simply stopped editing after I reported them. I could elaborate on this point giving some examples of several editors who I think would certainly be blocked if I reported them based on a large but selective sampling of their edits. They are all what people call "pro-Israel" for reasons that are never quite clear. I'm not going to because, on balance, the evidence indicates that, although they are at times highly problematic and have difficulty complying with the sanctions, they do more good than harm contentwise as far as I can tell. I don't think that is how admins at AE would see it though. How I deal with people is my choice and from what I've observed, my methods do okay.

We could have a discussion about generating or identifying patterns, trying to interpret those patterns, and how foolhardy it is to not appreciate or understand the degree to which eyes are already shut off from what you describe as the "reality" (but actually just a model) those patterns are supposed to represent. It's somewhat off topic though.

You cite Yachad or J Street. This is where your patterns get you into trouble because built into them are all sorts of invalid assumptions about sampling a very large information space and editor actions within that space. There is a reason for everything but as is so often the case when dealing with people, you won't know unless you ask. Since you asked, there is nothing in Yachad that is unsourced or inaccurate. The problem there is quite the opposite. The content is sourced directly from their site and it is a series of small copyright violations. There's a reason for that. The article was written by Yachad. It's a problem, yes. Do I care ? Yes, not much though, it's not a priority for me. Do I care about the organization Yachad ? Not in the slightest. For interest, I saw the article by chance, the best way, because I use a tool that monitors various IRC feeds and saw an edit by an IP editor whose machine generated "reputation" metric was very low, so it caught my eye. I had know idea what or where this thing called Yachad was, and expected it to be a village somewhere. By the time I got there someone had reverted but from a quick look at the article it was clear that it needed work. I brought it into the topic area by tagging/categorizing it and did as much as I had time+interest to do. Others can fix it or perhaps I will one day, who knows. As for J-Street, an edit summary came up on my watchlist that said "Controversy: Changed description of Code Pink from "anti-Israel" to "anti-war" per WP:NPOV. To imply that being against the occupation is being anti-Israel (as the quite biases sources do) is not acceptable". I checked it and removed a BLP violation. I didn't even look at the rest of the article. So, for Yachad or J Street, these are simply 2 examples of the millions of things I haven't done in Misplaced Pages everyday since I signed up. You could have cited my recent edits at Hans Hofmann or Hinchinbrook Island as examples where I have left information unsourced. Far worse than that, if you are looking for inconsistency and policy violations, with Hinchinbrook Island, I actually added unsourced information (which I suppose is potentially contentious to the handful of people who care) because I happen to know it's true (=COI), the horror. I make no claims of consistency. A piece of advice someone gave me a very long time ago, "don't expect rationality". It has served me well for many years.

Bear in mind, and this might interest you, that my sampling of the I-P topic area (and some other problematic but less active topic areas) is deliberately randomized to a large extent. I do this in 3 main ways

• 1) by frequently amending my watchlist, adding and removing articles
• 2) by switching the hide minor edits option on and off on a randomish basis
• 3) by deliberately using the "Hide bot edits from the watchlist" option so that everytime there is a bot edit, the article does not appear in my watchlist, thus hiding all of the non-bot edits to the article that came before it since the last time it appeared on my watchlist. Those non-bot edits before the bot edit may be terrible policy violations by editors I personally regard as highly problematic or good edits, but I want the probability of my seeing them to be randomized by bot edits thereby randomizing and depersonalizing my sampling of edits.

If I'm working on a specific article over an extended period of time it's different. I read the entire article and check everyone's edits over the past x hours keeping a special eye on IP's.

As a general point, so you understand where I'm coming from, in the world of wiki, I'm not interesting in individuals (a very Western way of looking at things I might add) or ambiguous, non-deterministic, non-repeatable procedures based on wooly policies that say what might or could be "good practice" under certain poorly constrained data dependent conditions according to different people at different times...depending on what mood they're in etc. When it comes to delete or fix decisions, I'm much more interested in and favour edits that, as a matter of fact, measurably increase the degree to which an article complies with the core mandatory policies no matter whether that entails removal or addition of content. You'll note there that there is no mention of the nature of the content, which side of an imagined pro/anti something boundary it falls on because I don't know where that boundary is. I can only see what the content says and what the reliable sources say if anything. Do I go around removing unsourced content (assuming I had time to do such a thing) ? Not often, I tend to try to fix things if I have time or leave them be unless they are really bad but I will defend editors policy based right to do it. Did I say that I am "an enthusiastic" proponent of anything ? No, I said that I support it because it is consistent with policy as I see it. Again, you are modeling and talking about an editor, me in this case, as if they are a human being with feelings. Can you not simply accept that you know nothing about this "reality" you speak of with any degree of confidence that matters to Misplaced Pages and instead just focus on the content and what reliable sources say about the subjects of articles ? Focusing on what you can reliably know and can reliably verify, namely whether content complies with policy, and acting in accord with your interpretation of policy is simpler.You are focusing on editors and you're coming into conflict because you are focusing on editors. You are talking to them as if you understand this "reality" of "basic human nature" you refer to, as if you can reliably identify patterns and model people. You can't, you will get it wrong and it has and will continue to result in conflict. Regarding AE, people who get blocked there are often the editors who try to make a model of other editors, edit according to that model and consequently get into conflict with this thing they have modeled. Imagine what might happen if, when it comes to content, you just treated Nableezy as a Turing Award winning content generation and management machine rather than tried to model him as a person with all of the complexity that entails. He's given you a clue by saying ""comment on the content, not the contributor". If you can do that with me, I will respond in kind, and we will not have problems." Why not give it a try ? You have nothing to lose.

Please don't take anything I have said as a criticism. I'm just offering an alternative view. That's all. My aim is to present you with a different perspective that I think might help reduce conflict. Above all, remember that people are idiots, all of us, and give people a break. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs), know that I have no problem with criticism per se. Criticism that's sincere and constructive is welcome, even if it's directed at me personally. It's when it serves ulterior motives like wanting to antagonize or aggravate me that I object to it and lose all respect for the critic. I regard you as an intelligent contributor – maybe slightly more foul-mouthed than I'd consider tasteful, but then I'm something of a prude when it comes to language – and I didn't find anything in your last message even mildly offensive. You're free to think I'm losing my way. I think the opposite is true: I have a much clearer picture of what's going on here now than I did several months ago.

A couple of points in your message, however, did strike me as somewhat naively misguided. If it's a problem for me to share with you what they are, you have only to say so and I'll delete them, or you can even do so yourself.

1. "I'm not defending a side here."

This has been a persistent position of yours for as long as I can remember. If one Googles site:wikipedia.org "sean.hoyland" "i don't care", 129 results appear as of this morning. Not all the instances that come up are of you, of course, but just the same, it's become a hackneyed mantra of yours and one that I personally am roll-eyes tired of hearing already. While it's true you may genuinely believe you are not defending a side, ultimately it is actions and not rhetoric that determine whether that's in fact true or not. And when it comes to actions...that's where there are problems. I don't fault you for taking sides, by the way. When it comes to human interactions, it's in our nature to feel closer to some than to others. I just wish the people who do take sides wouldn't deny it when it's plain for everyone else to see.

This incident is the third example I can think of where your decision to side with a particular editor has seriously undermined your claim to neutrality. The first was at Talk:Golan Heights back in May. By the time you involved yourself in that now-archived discussion, the tide was turning against Nableezy (talk · contribs) and another editor who's now banned from the topic area. I think this is a fair, objective assessment of the situation. Three exceedingly reliable sources had been cited as proof that the map User:Nableezy was trying to merge with the infobox could not be considered NPOV. Your first message in the discussion seemed therefore like a timely crutch extended to a limping marcher just so he could trudge along for a few miles more before finally collapsing. You did propose a truly NPOV alternative shortly thereafter (by which time Nableezy had managed to get himself banned), but that first comment has always stuck with me as peculiar, and I guess it was the first crack in your halo of impartiality.

The second incident was at your Talk page last month. The two times you chose to intervene in my dialog with Nableezy were on the latter's behalf, and both seemingly just when my interlocutor was effectively down for the count. I guess I can understand why you'd want to take his side that time, since that whole business did start out as a disagreement between you and me over what constitutes a personal attack. But it felt to me like you and Nableezy had signed a mutual defense pact, with each coming to the other's aid just at the moment when the other's vulnerabilities had been exposed and a decisive crush was imminent.

That makes this the third incident. I don't know the corresponding expression in English, but here we call people who shirk their duties and try to disappear into the crowd when they're called on for help "small heads." They don't do anything wrong in the formal sense; it's really that they don't do anything when everyone else around them is contributing that earns them that disparaging appellation. That is the case here. No guideline or policy was violated, I give you that. But is that really the point? Again, if this were an IP account or a new user, we'd simply revert them, and maybe leave them a message on their Talk page that their editing could be considered biased and nonconstructive and that they should try to find sources for content that isn't sourced in order to improve and expand articles and not whittle them down to bare stubs. But Nableezy's been a Misplaced Pages editor since 2008. He shouldn't need to be told that.

And the thing is, I doubt if Nableezy's case is at all improved by having you stick up for him. He does a pretty decent job defending himself. You, on the other hand, are made to look like the parent of a neighborhood bully (only speaking figuratively) standing in front of your son and taking the heat for him when all the other parents on the block're outside your house complaining about all the property your son's damaged.

2. "They are all what people call 'pro-Israel'"

Like many of the other observations here, that is of course a subjective analysis. And what does it mean to be pro-Israel? If someone supports Israel's right to exist, doesn't that make them "pro-Israel"? You've chosen to associate a group of editors among whom you've identified a pattern of problematic editing with a label that I accept as applying to me, so I'd like some clarification in that regard. And this has come up before. I doubt if any of the "pro-Israel" editors are actually anti-Palestinian. So what practical function does labeling anyone pro-Israel serve? If one were to want to make a case that an editor is anti- this or anti- the other, that would be more meaningful. And here's the kicker: I find that the majority of the disruptive editing in the I/P topic area comes not from the "pro-Israel" editors but from the anti-Israel ones – from editors whose raison d'etre for being on Misplaced Pages is to flood the Project with POV contributions that make Israel look like an aggressor and remove NPOV contributions that militate against that agenda.

Beyond that, you made plenty of valid points in your argument, which I'm not responding to simply because this reply is long enough as it is.—Biosketch (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The hell, Biosketch? I was going to be miffed that you looked at my edits but if you are doing it while having a drink it doesn't hurt my feelings. Thanks again for your copyedit awhile back. If I could just find a free image I would go for GA on the article. Hope life is treating you well. Cptnono (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

One way or another, everything with you boils down to GA in the end, doesn't it. Actually, since those days when we'd back-and-forthed about it with Gatoclass (talk · contribs), I've become a strong proponent of including Background sections in my own new articles, which I guess you can take credit for. Anyway, what image exactly would be appropriate for that article? I doubt if one of the victim would pass muster. Maybe one of the square and location of the incident. And what's all the fuss about looking through people's edit history, unless they've something to hide? It's never bothered me.—Biosketch (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually think editors should look at each other's edit histories and was only teasing. I think editors who are continuously a problem should be watched. There is a difference between targeting an editor to harass them and checking in on an editor to make sure the project's standards are being met. But I recently got an interaction ban so maybe don't take my advice on volunteering to assist the project :) (if I would have been less of a jerk about it it would have been fine though so that means something). And just so there is no confusion on if the statement is in reference to anyone: It is in reference to several editors who I am not banned from responding to, mentioning, and yada yada yada.

I've done a few GAs. I have reviewed many. It is just a good benchmark to always aim for. I have three images in mind for that particular article but am still undecided. One of them has an ethical issue (the girl getting groped) on top of a FUR being required. I might toy with some other options sooner or later. A simple picture of the square would be useful so that is a good idea.Cptnono (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

RE:DYK for Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa

I have replied there; ALT1 is fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad you concur. There're also a few changes to the article itself I'd like to suggest. I'm about to leave the house now, though, so I'll only be able to get to them tomorrow. My apologies for the delay.—Biosketch (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I will assist with what I can, but I am just the nominator for that article; the author, Misconceptions2, may know a bit more. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Biosketch, is it possible that you could leave a tick at the nomination so people know it is okay? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Should be ok now.—Biosketch (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

An interesting report, but could this be added to an article?

Hi Biosketch, I found an interesting report that provides some statistics on patents, scientific research and other things between Israel and twenty two Arab countries, for example like this: "Israel registered 16,805 patents and 836 Arabs as a whole". The best part of it that this research was written by a Palestinian scientist, and it was published in quite a few Arabic RS. I believe wikipedia readers would be interested to read about this research, but I am a little bit busy in a real life, and have a few other things to do on wikipedia. So maybe you could think, if there's something that could be done with this report? Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ma hamatsav, Mbz1 (talk · contribs)? Thanks for the suggestion. A while back I was actually gonna propose collaborating on an article about Naama Shafir, but there was too much commotion going on around you that I was reluctant to involve myself with. Now the commotion appears to have settled, but in the meantime the list of articles demanding my attention has mutated out of control. Add to that the fact that I've started teaching a summer course for which no one ever prepared a curriculum before, and the reality is that I need to seriously reduce my Misplaced Pages mileage for a while.

Tell me, though, what's this business about "Green Flash" that has everyone swooning?—Biosketch (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Green flash is an optical phenomena of a setting, or rising sun or moon, or Venus. Once I saw a green flash over Fata Morgana (mirage) of the sun glitter. Jules Verne described seeing green flash as this:

"...it will be ' green,' but a most wonderful green, a green which no artist could ever obtain on his palette, a green which neither the varied tints of vegetation nor the shades of the most limpid sea could ever produce the like ! If there be green in Paradise, it cannot but be of this shade, which most surely is the true green of Hope !

the incomparable tint of liquid jade"

Brits like green flashes. Once I got email from a British newspaper. They asked for permission to publish my image for their story about green flash that was observed by hundreds of people. I did try to explain them that it probably was not a green flash (green flashes are too small to attract an attention of hundreds), but rather a meteor that exploded while entering the atmosphere, but it was no use. They did publish my image with their story. They sent me this newspaper, and it was sooo funny.

BTW have you seen my new article yet?

Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Nahal Zin fuel leak

On 21 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nahal Zin fuel leak, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a ruptured fuel pipeline leaked 1.5 million liters of jet fuel into the Zin Stream in southern Israel in June 2011? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Somepeople

Some people just wont admit that they are not beneficial for the impartiality of Misplaced Pages. I'm sure you've met some of these people recently. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Mike Cahill (director)

On 11 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mike Cahill (director), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Mike Cahill, director and screenwriter of Another Earth (2011), was National Geographic's youngest field producer, editor and cinematographer? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template talk:Did you know/Mike Cahill (director).You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Jewish religous terrorism

Please show me where I have used the word terror or terrorist in this wikipedia entry itself. I believe that I have not done so. I have simply added to a section that already exists. If you want to change the existing text then do not direct your remarks to me. If you want to discuss the need for extra references to show that the groups listed are widely regarded as terrorist then you should make that clear on the discussion page before you posit a revert. I am happy to join you in doing so, but you need to do that for all entries not just the ones that I have added. In short I am surprised by your need to point out WP:TERRORIST. to me. In particular you need to show just where I used the phrase terrorist organisation in the entry itself. I am not aware that I did so. If I have not done so then I would appreciate your acceptance of that being added to my talk page. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear you're happy to join me. I have nothing against you personally, but the edits to the article need to comply with WP:TERRORIST because the name of the article is "Jewish religious terrorism." If the article were named "Jewish religious militancy," I wouldn't be insisting on compliance with WP:TERRORIST. But because of the name of the article, the implication is that any individual or organization added to the article is terroristic, and that means WP:TERRORIST applies. If you don't think the organizations you added to the article meet the criteria for terrorist organizations, then remove them from the article. If you do think they meed the criteria, then establish it per WP:TERRORIST, especially with WP:INTEXT as required.—Biosketch (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

ding-dong

YES! But I can't remember (my WP side of my brain is filled with all the many trolls and otherwise impossible to work with editors I have encountered over the years) can you remind me who this is? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This is what first came to mind. The thematic overlap is striking.—Biosketch (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Elinor Joseph

On 22 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elinor Joseph, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 2010 Elinor Joseph became the first Arab woman to serve in a combat role in the Israel Defense Forces? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elinor Joseph.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks

Hello! "2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks" is merely our description of the event, not a formal or generally accepted name. In such cases, the MoS calls for us to word the lead in normal English, not to force the inclusion of the article's title (which carries no special significance).

Quoth MOS:BOLDTITLE: "If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface."

In this instance, as in most, forcing the article's title into the lead results in awkward redundancy:

The 2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks were a series of attacks carried out by Palestinian militants on August 18, 2011 in southern Israel near the Egyptian border.

In a single sentence, we're stating that the "2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks" were attacks carried out in 2011 at an Israeli border.

The entirety of WP:SBE addresses this issue. In particular, see the "January 31, 2007 Boston bomb scare" example, for which it's explained that the practice "gives undue weight to the chosen title, implying that it is an official term, commonly-accepted name, or the only acceptable title, when it is actually just a description and the event or topic is given many different names in common usage."

Thank you! —David Levy 06:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

My inclination after reading your comment is to self-revert, since you appear to feel more strongly about this than I do. But regarding MOS:BOLDTITLE, it's talking about the main text and not about the lead. What the guideline is saying is that the title shouldn't be bolded after the lead. Do you interpret it differently?—Biosketch (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do.  :)

MOS:BOLDTITLE is part of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (lead section) page, which pertains specifically to the lead section. The lead section is part of the main text, not a separate entity. The quoted statement (under the heading "Format of the first sentence") is worded that way to avoid implying that a title absent from the lead should be included elsewhere in the main text to compensate or that it shouldn't be included in an infobox (not part of the main text) embedded within the lead section. —David Levy 07:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty, I've partial-self-rved, even though I disagree in principle. The lead should draw the reader's attention to what the article's focus is. In this case the name agreed upon as the title for the article is a decent summary of its contents, wherefore highlighting it in the lead draws the reader in immediately.—Biosketch (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but the Manual of Style entry is based upon consensus to the contrary.

I appreciate the partial self-reversion, but for the reasons explained above, the wording itself is more problematic than the bolding. (The sentence really is quite awkwardly and redundantly structured, and it still implies that 2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks "is an official term, commonly-accepted name, or the only acceptable title.")

Please see the note directly above the lead, which is standard text used in numerous articles with this title format. —David Levy 07:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Double account ?

Did you ever consider editing Misplaced Pages once by your account, and another as you IP? Any way, i thought you might need this;

1RR on all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict

WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES

All articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict are currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a 2008 Arbitration case, and supplemented by community consensus in November 2010. The current restrictions are:

• All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.
  • Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty
  • Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
• After being warned, any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process may be blocked up to one year, topic-banned, further revert-restricted, or otherwise restricted from editing.
• Reports of editors violating any of these restrictions should be made to either the Arbitration enforcement or Edit warring noticeboards.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert.

Thanks!

		The Special Barnstar
		Thanks for your help in getting Royal Commission on Opium to DYK status. Yunshui (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Thanks for the interesting article.—Biosketch (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK nom for Operation Eagle

Hi Biosketch, I have reviewed your nomination for Operation Eagle at Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Eagle and I have an issue with the references. Could you see my comments at the discussion page and comment there? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Eagle

On 31 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Operation Eagle, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Operation Eagle is an Egyptian military campaign aimed at confronting Islamic insurgents and criminal gangs in the Sinai Peninsula? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Eagle.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks

Thanks for your lovely comment. There's difference between emotions and irritation, same as the difference between Hebrews and Jews that you're mixing up.  Looks like a duck to me. Happy editing, and keep your advice :p ~ AdvertAdam 09:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Keep playing with your rubber ducky.—Biosketch (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Your kind comments

Cute, but this is a request that has nothing to do with my edits. If you feel my edits violate any policy, I absolutely encourage you to file a report about me. Until then, you might want to take it easy on your displays of battleground behavior. You don't win yourself points for digging up stale non-violation edits of mine in defense of an editor who is telling people to "fuck off" and who gets a kick of "yelling at Arabs". -asad (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• NA-Class biography pages
• NA-Class biography (musicians) pages
• NA-importance biography (musicians) pages
• Musicians work group articles
• NA-Class Canada-related pages
• NA-importance Canada-related pages
• NA-Class Toronto pages
• NA-importance Toronto pages
• NA-Class Canadian music pages
• NA-importance Canadian music pages
• WikiProject Canadian music articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages