Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:11, 28 December 2011

• I'd prefer to keep exchanges from fragmenting. If I left you a message, please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
• If you leave me a message, I'll answer on my talk page and notify you (by Whisperback). Thanks.

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Khirbet Qeiyafa Vandalisation

http://en.wikipedia.org/Khirbet_Qeiyafa

Examples of manipulative editing

1. "Excavations were carried out by archaeologists Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor of the Hebrew University beginning in 2007, who dated the site to 1050-970 BC by pottery styles and two burned olive pits tested for carbon-14 at Oxford University. The theory that Khirbet Qeiyafa was a Judean city inhabited by 500-600 people during the reign of David and Solomon has been challenged by Israel Finkelstein. Based on pottery finds at Qeiyafa and Gath, archaeologists believe the sites belonged to two distinct ethnic groups. "

Although this sites are inaccessible, nowhere the findings of Haifa university scientists are mentioned, while Haifa university was solely responsible to examine the site and gave their verdicts regarding this issues. In fact anonymous criticism of officially established facts were written, while ALL FACTS WRITTEN BY EXCAVATION TEAM WERE SIMPLY REMOVED.

2. "Other readings are possible, and the official publication presented many possible reconstructions of the letters without attempting a translation. The inscription is written left to right in a script which is probably Early Alphabetic/Proto Phoenician, though Rollston and another expert consider that it might be written vertically. Early Alphabetic differs from old Hebrew script and its immediate ancestor. Rollston also disputes the claim that the language is Hebrew, arguing that the words alleged to be indicative of Hebrew either appear in other languages or don't actually appear in the inscription. One expert believes it is mostly a list of names. Hebrew University archaeologist Amihai Mazar said the inscription was very important, as it is the longest Proto-Canaanite text ever found.

Who is Rollston and who is the another expert???

All my editions were erased within minutes

Judea and Samaria

Hi, I noticed you've weighed in on Misplaced Pages talk:WESTBANK. So sad to see so many editors siding with the view that Israel's position on anything Israel-related is fringe and undue... in any case, does it not seem to you like a forced quasi-consensus? Is there anything that can be done? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a little daunting but one camp seems to have strong-armed the settlement pages to disparage Israel even more excessively than usual. The discussions have become drawn out and we're waiting for a decision at ArbCom. It looks like they'll decline taking the case but I'm still holding out they'll make a statement on the Naming Guideline. If you want to make a statement there, go ahead. My comment has links to all the other discussions. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#ARBPIA_3 Aside from that we need a show of good editors who see the POV push and are willing to speak up on it - within WP's guidelines for good faith and civility, which can only be helpful. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the links, I'll look at that and reply when I have the time to do it in a thorough manner. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Waving at you from behind bars but seriously – thanks for all the help. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I hope it's not really so bad. Take some time editing other things and slip into a mode that'll show admins the ban can be lifted safely. We're pulling for you from this side. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	isn't it just plain insane sometimes? :-) Poliocretes (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you sir. I hadn't thought Misplaced Pages could be so full of intrigue :-) --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Whisper

Hello. You have a new message at Wgfinley's talk page.

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Much Love :) un☯mi 10:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Would that I could always live up to the standard. Thank you and much love in return. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Now this...

Just wanted to bring this to your attention. I'm beginning to think that this is the work of Nableezy or one of his pals, since apparently an indef topic ban wasn't enough... I'm really sorry to keep messaging you about these matters, but in case I get wrongfully blocked, I will have absolutely no means of self defense. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Good to see it's winding down and you're being cleared of the charge. Also that Nableezy jumped in to defend you. Like I said before, this is a good opportunity to enjoy editing here and develop collaborative skills in areas that are free of tensions. Good to hear from you and best wishes.--MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

AE

WP:AE#MichaelNetzer. nableezy - 23:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

MichaelNetzer, would you agree to self-ban from the article for a defined period and not involve yourself in the etymological dispute that's erupted there and elsewhere in relation to "Abode of Peace"? Personally, I don't think AE was the appropriate venue for the complaint against you, even if I can appreciate the filer's frustration; asking for a high level of page protection to forestall further edit warring would have been a better idea, in my opinion, because AE is meant for long-term abuse and in our case typically involves behavior across more than one article in the topic area. But I'm suggesting this to you because you've impressed me as a mature and intelligent contributor, and it would be unfortunate were you to be topic-banned over this business of "Abode of Peace."—Biosketch (talk) 08:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern. There is a principle behind my actions that seeks to honor Misplaced Pages and what it stands for. I can't abide by information and good behavior being trampled in the way they have been here. My fate, and all of ours, is in good hands. Whatever arbitrators decide will be alright. Thanks again. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Caution

The AE page is not a battleground. Please keep comments about a separate ongoing case in the related discussion. Do not take it to another case. Also keep in mind standards of civility when commenting on cases.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The AE page has not become a battleground by my doing, if you haven't noticed. It has been that way long before I started posting there. You seem to have a narrow view of what's going on and your approach with me is borderline disrespectful. AE arbitrates cases based on behavior. The behavior by the same editor in the separate case is very relevant to the one you mention because my comment is about a behavior pattern. I appreciate you'd like to help but I don't see how your assuming an one-sided judge's mantle can be helpful, in light of your comment to the other editor about me. I should remove your misleading and non-athoratative "caution" box from this page but I don't like playing such games. The incivility directed at me on AE makes my comment sound tame by comparison. Please try to be a more considerate of the facts and a little more respectful if you'd like to help. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

While editor behavior is legitimate, your comment seemed to be nothing more than a vindictive response to Nableezy's case against you. I am trying to prevent the situation from getting completely out of hand in your interest as well as those of other editors. As for my comment to Nableezy, I was hoping to prevent him from doing what I know he would have done without any comment from me.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with vindictiveness about my case. I have been commenting on the same thing with Nableezy at AE long before there was a case against me. I think you're aware of that so it's a little odd that you say such a thing. I make these comments because I edit in the same space and we inadvertently have interactions that have been combative and not by my doing. Or at least not by my initiation of combative tone. I'm gravely serious about his behavior and others in his camp and I don't think positions such as you take in this case are helpful towards the problem. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know things wouldn't be this way if there wasn't such aggressiveness from their side. You seem to come to premature conclusions without checking facts. Or you might not be interested in all the facts, I don't know. I mentioned this about your statement on my case. Take it to heart and try not to say things that are false, and frankly, a little presumptuous. If you can understand my concerns I'd also ask you to remove the "caution box" from this thread. The text is alright but the box gives it an air of authority that's misleading. I'd like you to do it voluntarily, if you will. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, TDA. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know, I found your concerns about the caution template and my comment to Nableezy reasonable. Your comments on the AE case were, all the same, quite inappropriate and I believe you let your personal frustration over Nableezy's case against you impact your behavior. It is better to stay cool in these situations.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not at all frustrated over Nableezy's case against me. I know what I've done, and others, and I have no real frustration over it. A need to help change it, maybe, but no personal frustration that I can sense. Everything around us impacts our behavior. It's almost impossible to remain human and not be affected by it. But in this case, it's only about a concern for him and for what the encyclopedia stands for, that motivated those comments. I think you're still jumping ahead of yourself a little. But that's alright I suppose. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

AE Result

Per this AE Report I am delivering the following warning:

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you continue with the behavior on Jerusalem, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

I know we have previously dialogued on this matter on my talk page. I feel some of your actions could be perceived as disruptive, I would encourage you to try to work with other editors to build consensus. Making changes because there isn't a consensus reached can be useful at times, that's not usually the case on articles in this topic space. Please use due care in the future to avoid sanction. --WGFinley (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)