Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:38, 27 November 2006

24-hr block for 3RR violation on Palestine

Rama's arrow 20:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ian, I unblocked you as it appeared you did not violate the three-revert rule on Palestine. However, let this be a word of caution that another revert on Palestine within the next twenty-four hours will be a violation of the three-revert rule (as your reversions were not of simple vandalism). Additionally, I'd like to also remind you that misuse of VandalProof can result in your permission to use it to be revoked. Perhaps you can try to discuss your position regarding the article on Talk:Palestine. -- tariqabjotu 21:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message regarding the Palestine article. The IP editor 212.65.214.31 deleted tables and other material sourced to two notable journal articles (The Journal of Biblical Literature and Palestine Exploration Quarterly) and to the The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. As the Arbitration Committee has ruled many times wholesale deletion of sourced material of this quality is simple vandalism and perpetrators should be banned. I note also that both of the other edits by this editor today have also been reverted as vandalism. The WP:V-compliant material I mentioned has now been removed from the article again and in its place we have material lifted from a 1973 trade book published by Bantam (a non-fact checking source) and authored by Irgun propaganda chief Shmuel Katz. I've quoted WP:V to Amoruso several times already today: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources.... English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly... In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves." to no effect. I don't doubt you will agree that trade books should not be used in place of journal articles and reference works from academic publishers. --Ian Pitchford 22:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Dishonest unprotection requests

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bad faith behavior by Shamir1 and Amoruso (continued). --Zero 03:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Lehi

It looks like the claim that half of Lehi's victims were Jewish is already included in the section titled Evolution and tactics of the organization. So what's the need to insert it at the top of the article? Taxico 22:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

AMA Request

Hello Ian Pitchford, I'm Royalguard11 from the AMA. I have accepted your case regarding the article Palestinian exodus. I'm not really up to date on what the dispute is, but from your summary it seems to revolve around a certain author being sourced. Is there anything else that I have missed? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian political violence

I think you have it the other way around: it is you who has removed considerable material sourced to Morris & the Israli MFA, and susbstituted for them the editroail comment "Contrary to this view however..." (And as an aside, the material you added after that editorial does not contradict the previous sentence.) Isarig 20:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I mean that accusing me of removing sourced material, when what I did was revert an edit of yours that involved massive removal of sourced material is a bad fiath accusation. I have no problem with including material from Morris, but not as a replacement for sourced material from other sources, and not with a misleading and editorializing comment that says "Contrary to this view however" Isarig 20:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid further violations of WP:AGF and W:CIVIL like your last edit on my Talk page. I will not tolerate those. I have explained to you why I reverted your edits - if you'd like to add the sourced material back in, without your personal editorializing, I have no problem with it. Isarig 21:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've given you my justification - your edit included editorializing and removed sourced material. You may not like my justifcation, but don't lie about me not giving you one. If you want to edit in a constructive manner, rather than pushing your POV to the exclusion of others, go right ahead. Isarig 21:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the phrase "the Egyptian authorities initiated terrorist infiltration" contradicts the phrase "Egypt waged a terror war against Israel". There may be disagreement betwen Morris and Meir-Levi on when this terrorist war started (1949 vs. 1955), but this is not a contradiction. It is not up to you to put words in Morris's mouth and claim he wrote this to contradict other claims - present both opinions, without editorialzing commentry, and let the reader decide which is more credible. Now that we've moved on to actual discussion related to the content of edits, please continue it on the article's Talk page. Isarig 21:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I most explicitly do not agree that there is a contradiction. See above, where I wrote "I don't think the phrase "the Egyptian authorities initiated terrorist infiltration" contradicts the phrase "Egypt waged a terror war against Israel". " I have highlighted the words that indicate that I don't think there is a contradiction, as you appear to have missed them when your read my response. Please stop trolling on my Talk page. Take any further content discussions to the relevant article's Talk page. Subsequent trolling on my user page will be summarily deleted with no further response. Isarig 21:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)