| Revision as of 02:17, 20 February 2009 view sourceCerejota (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,178 edits →Sorry: Oh Noes! you stalking me!--~~~~← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:31, 30 December 2024 view source Eatlandlords (talk | contribs)21 edits →advice for article creation: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <!-- {{Contentious topics/aware|a-i|blp|ap}} --> | |||
| {{archive box collapsible|auto=long}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| | algo = old(10d) | |||
| | archive = User talk:Nableezy/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| | counter = 58 | |||
| | maxarchivesize = 50K | |||
| | archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| | minthreadsleft = 2 | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Archives|collapsed=yes|image=none|search=yes}} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == ] updates == | |||
| == Eyes off the screen, ears pricked. == | |||
| You are receiving this message because you are on ] for ]. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is {{tqq|The interaction of named parties in the ] topic area and examination of the ] process that led to ] ] to ]}}. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made: | |||
| . Cheers] (]) 15:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| First, '''the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days''', until '''23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)'''. Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on ], providing a reason with ] as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective. | |||
| ==Those damn Wikipedians== | |||
| If you're thinking about my comment on the article talk, I wasn't talking about a single editor in particular but I'd noticed a few that attacked the whole "other side". And I'd seen it go both ways. | |||
| Second, the ] '''has been extended by a week''', and will now close at '''23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)'''. For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| But to answer your more general question, I think there are really two issues: civility and intransigence. I think intransigence in these articles is largely the result of an inability to recognize that editors simply have different perspectives. Most editors apply different standards to material they like to material they don't. Just like most editors rush to find and include material they like. Both are wrong but not the result of bad faith, just misguided intent. I think everyone thinks they're in the middle. You know I mostly edit Canadian political articles. And in Canada there are three main political parties, the NDP, the Liberals and the Conservatives. Traditionally they've been seen as left-wing, centrists and right-wing respectively. But all the time left-wing editors will try and make the NDP article say there are "centre-left" and right-wing editors will try to make the Conservative article say "centre-right". If they had their way it would make the articles collectively say that the Canadian political spectrum extends from centre-left all the way to centre-right. So I think we always need to recognize that maybe the centre isn't objectively where we are and also that other editors don't realize the same thing about themselves. | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:HouseBlaster@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Update_list&oldid=1260342644 --> | |||
| == Action requested on Alison Weir page == | |||
| So I think it is always best to engage other editors and respect that they might be very different from you. If they ask questions, I answer them, even if I think they are bad questions. Sometimes editors like that make good Devil's Advocates. And we can always agree to disagree. You can ask for third opinions or RfCs, etc. On an article like ours there are always lots of other opinions so a single editor can only stall so much on their own. But as long as they dont' rise to the level of ] we have to deal with them. | |||
| Nableezy, if you are a "Confirmed-extended" editor as I assume, would you be kind enough to take a look at my requested edit of a paragraph in the protected-extended entry "Alison Weir" and take action on it? It just sits there...thanks.... kenfree ] (]) 02:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| For civility, I do find it hard. In the real world I'm not always afraid to tell someone if I think something bad about their behaviour or maybe just walk away. But we do have to work together. John will probably be back at the article once his block expires. We're just stuck with each other. I try my best to be civil. I guess it is like talking to a boss or prof. or parent. You have to give treat them with respect even if they haven't fully earned it. I keep negative comments to a minimum. I don't mind saying I disagree with an editor. Maybe I could say I don't see how one proposal is consistent with another. It is less helpful to call someone a hypocrite. And even less to call them a vandal or they are pushing an agenda, etc. | |||
| == advice for article creation == | |||
| I think you're largely right that the persistent editors "win" in the end. I think that happens in large part because the "good" editors are often too dismissive and don't seek to really build consensus. So whoever is editing the article in a month or two can come along and pretty much ignore whatever is we've left them. It would be a lot more durable if it was backed by a real consensus and not just a thin majority. Nishidani mentioned a while ago that this fighting isn't all that different from ]. I think it would be a shame if our article ended up like that one. But I think we all have a certain responsibility to make that happen. | |||
| hi i’d love to speak to you about creating an article please. it’s on a controversial conflict so this is why i’d like to get it right. thanks ] (]) 17:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| That's why I was upset when our compromise failed. It isn't just that it failed but that it wasn't really considered. I think most editors just looked at it and said "that's not my preference" and didn't bother thinking about compromise. I told TB that he lost out by sticking to the "pro-Israeli" version which had no chance of success. But I think the editors who stuck with the other version also lost out -- they just won't realize it for another month. | |||
| I didn't always know this but I've come to believe it after having been around here for a while. Somebody said "thanks Gandhi" or something about my "Why we can't have nice things" comment on the article talk but I think they were missing the point. I don't think we should work together because it is a nice thing but because Misplaced Pages has equality principles that force us to. Even if Misplaced Pages would be better without all those damn Wikipedians. And besides, Gandhi really ] either. | |||
| Just my thoughts. I know others would disagree. --] (]) 23:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, I don't think that anyone would accuse you of being the worst editor on the article talk. Although I guess it isn't saying much with that article. | |||
| :Although starting a post with "Fuck that" isn't ususally a good sign. =) | |||
| :Actually Doright's post is a good example of what I was saying before. Sh/e could have brought up that having a target audience does not mean a source can't be RS. That's a legitimate point. I'll be Doright felt just like some of us felt when some editors said certain Arab sources were invalid. But s/he maybe went too far saying it is a double standard and definitely went too far with the anti-semitism comment. --] (]) 10:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, it definitely went too far. I was only saying maybe if he'd just called it a double standard. If he hadn't aimed it right at Severino I might have just excused it as letting off steam. | |||
| ::Coincidentally my watch list shows Doright made the last edit to the talk page with the summary "Nableezy wrong again". I'm going to have to see what that's about. --] (]) 01:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == secedit.js == | |||
| I just tried it, seems to work fine :) thanks for the kind reminder! Btw, I've replied to your message ]. Cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 20:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Population density of Gaza == | |||
| I am quite happy to engage in healthy conversation with you and do so with the utmost respect. I do think that the article should stick to the facts. The population density of the Gaza Strip is less than that of ]. Making claims that Gaza is one of the most densely populated territories in the world is very misleading. I understand why the population density is relevant to the article on the conflict but implying that Gaza is any more densely populated than the territories into which Hamas is firing rockets is simply wrong. Both peoples are at high risk in this conflict that targets what are actually no more than equally and averagely populated urban areas. The article on the Gaza conflict has actually made me very proud of Misplaced Pages. I think that it is a remarkably fair and balanced article under the circumstances and given Misplaced Pages's open editing policy. I believe that we can agree on a formula for this article that expresses the risk to civilians in a factually correct and emotionally detached way. One that avoids quoting the oft-repeated myth that Gaza has an unusually high population density because as urban sprawls go, it doesn't.] (]) 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree both have a place in the article, but I think the comparison is wrong. With the way you constructed the sentence you are comparing a relatively wide territory to a couple of cities, I think a more valid comparison would be the total density of the population within the range of Hamas rockets. Many of the rockets fall into the Negev desert with a very low population density. But the fact is numerous sources have remarked on the high density in Gaza, the HRW source I cited says "one of the highest in the world." If we have some sources remarking on the density of the area that Hamas has the ability to target then by all means add it, but I think the comparison you put in is not valid. ] (]) 23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :And I appreciate the respect and am more than willing to reciprocate. Peace and happiness, let me know what you think of what I wrote above. ] (]) 23:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Chicago isn't a territory. But, "density wise", 10,000 people per/sq m is quite a lot. But we must consider the area of attack. From what I know, Hamas is largely situated in Gaza City, which has a population density of 18,000+ per/sq mile if my math is correct. Surely that enormous number of people, in combination with Hamas' willingness to situate civilians near potential targets to inflate casualties, is enough to warrant an inclusion, IMHO. Cheers! ] (]) 05:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| We ''are'' getting somewhere and it's been a level-headed intelligent discussion. Let's sleep on it again and wait for some more opinions. Shalom, Salaam. ] (]) 23:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I think so too, it has been a pleasure discussing this with you, no dramatics about how my support of a phrasing is antisemitic as others have done in the past. You have been reasonable and used rationality in this discussion, and I commend you on that. My biggest concern is that if we have any type of ranking what we will end up seeing is an edit war with each 'side' trying to push their numbers in. I think the word 'high' should cover all arguments while being sufficiently vague to not upset too many people. Peace, ] (]) 23:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| We're actually in agreement. Others seem to have their own agenda and battles that have nothing to do with the issue at hand and are preventing us from wrapping this up. ] (]) 22:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You have to understand one thing, so many other editors have used garbage arguments against certain things in the article to try to take it out that there is an almost instinctual resistance by some editors, me included. We have had people say that BBC Arabic is not reliable to give an Arabic name to something, that those who oppose a certain phrasing are antisemitic, one editor even called me a Hamas operative pretty much for disagreeing with him (I have tried to figure out what I said to trigger that but I cannot see what it was). So when somebody comes in and tries to change things around, even if their motives are pure and their reasoning rational, they sometimes get drowned out. The problem you have had with your argument is that others have drowned out the rationality by saying things like HRW is not a RS or that this is a piece of propaganda or whatever. So people who are not specifically looking for a rational argument just glaze over yours and associate it with the rest. I was guilty of that too, when you first brought this up and other people jumped in to say that HRW is not reliable I got pissed and originally was like fuck that, I aint letting this happen. But when I actually processed your objections and saw them reasonable I modified my position, and really I did that because of JGGardiner's comments (he has consistently been a voice of reason in this article, and I cannot really tell where his sympathies lie). I think the best way to handle this is to just relax and let your arguments speak for themselves, I think people will see that a paragraph that most can agree on is better than one which only one 'side' supports. It is better because this is after all an encyclopedia which is supposed to be neutral, and it is better because it makes it less likely to be challenged in the future. But all lot of editors have been working on this article from the very start, and we have seen the arguments made and it has in the past sometimes made some of more unreasonable than we would otherwise be. And it defintely is on both sides, I dont mean to make this a rant against pro-Israeli editors, some of the arguments used to add stuff on the 'pro-Palestinian' side have been just as awful. But to sum up, I think we will get something most can agree on with a little patience. I think most of the editors are actually reasonable and will agree to something reasonable. Peace, ] (]) 23:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == re == | |||
| No objection. Thank you for notifying me. ] (]) 19:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Yeah== | |||
| Well of course you're always right. Every Wikipedian is. I saw Agada said he had another "valid point" last night. I wanted to say that all of my points are valid too. But I understand how you feel. Saying it isn't sourced is just grasping at straws in my opinion. Although I don't know what it feels like to be robbed at gunpoint. I hope you haven't had too many of those experiences. I guess Chicago is tough place. | |||
| But yeah, I think you could compromise on this one and still get to say basically the same thing. I think the important thing is that people said aerial bombardment into cities would kill lots of civilians. Back when it still looked like it might all be from the air. Or even a little further saying that it meant that each individual attack would be disproportionate to any given target. Although this is probably not the time to be inserting that too. | |||
| And the best thing about it is that you get points for the next argument. You can say you conceded on the last thing. --] (]) 00:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It would be too easy to say something about the hot air coming from down there so I'll just bite my tongue. Actually Vancouver is the one temperate part of Canada. Our weather is just like Seattle, mostly rain. You could ask Tundrabuggy about the cold -- he's been all the way up to ]. | |||
| :But I support your Caribbean proposal. We actually]. Personally I'd be happier if we took over Jerusalem. It looks warm enough. And I doubt anyone else would be interested in a dusty little town like that. --] (]) 01:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for your ugh. Three years here and that's the first time I've been chastized. This is quite the minefield, huh? And I thought the french fries/chips debate was rough. --] (]) 07:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, ] won and got the article. ] is just a POV fork. I'd like to call it "deep-fried potato massacre" but, like I said, that page has enough tension already. --] (]) 21:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Dealing with density== | |||
| It's a funny coincidence. I was scrolling up the article talk page and I noticed that Untwirl mentioned that there is actually a ]. It would probably be helpful to read since that's what we're all working with in that section, right? I was going to post that in the article talk but I was already accused of attacks once today. --] (]) 07:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Dealing with facts== | |||
| Please review sources, No Jihad watch. I personally prefer Non-violence explanation of "Jihad" concept See . is also very nice source. Hope all is well with you. ] (]) 07:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, you were right. Copy-paste accident. I fixed the sources. ] (]) 08:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| Yers I did read it, but perhaps because I know Carter's position well, didn't think to include it in the list. I'd appreciate anything else you may come across. Best ] (]) 13:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks (2)== | |||
| Thanks for the nice thoughts on my talk page. And, for what it's worth, I don't think you smell. But maybe I'm just used to it ]. --] (]) 09:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Population density of the Gaza Strip== | |||
| Hi Nableezy. Regarding the ] section and talk page discussion and proposal to change ''"The Gaza strip is one of the most densely populated places on earth"'' to something like ''"Gaza is densely populated"''. I wanted to tell you why this "compromise" goes against my understanding of what we are doing here. There are reliable sources, plenty of them, that support the information as it is. I wonder whether some editors want this removed or changed for political reasons, because they think the accurate (and verifiable and reliably sourced) information will reflect negatively on Israel. Accuracy is my primary concern, so I can't support what seems a ]. If 5+5=10, that is what it is. A tireless editor arguing over and over that 5+5=8, then proposing we "compromise" and say 5+5=9 will not sway me. Thanks for reading. ] (]) 09:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Sharing pain :) == | |||
| I'm tired as shit from people debating over and over about statements that is ''exactly extracted'' from the well-known organizations like the UN, AI or the ICRC. You've debated in the talk pages much more than me and I'm sure you're even much more frustrated. I hope our efforts, while they are a bit separated, contribute to a much fairer article after all. Good luck, you're doing a great job over here :-). --] (]) 23:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Gaza compromise== | |||
| I don't think that an adequate compromise is so bad. It isn't the size of your edit but how you use it, right? | |||
| We don't get the commercials for those things in Canada but I've seen them on American channels. But its not like we have anything to compensate for up here. Although I think they do back East in ]. --] (]) 09:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Well that article mostly compares heavy users with those that have never tried it. So I think it is too late to put that geneie back in the bottle. But if you are worried you should just go over to the ] article and take it out. --] (]) 19:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==A good Arab is a relaxed Arab== | |||
| I thought of you when I saw this of course (scroll down near the bottom). | |||
| Now our recent conversation feels like it had a purpose. --] (]) 10:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Good to be back == | |||
| Hi, good to be back. I was away for some time (long planned trip) and I am also struggling with deadlines for papers I have to submit (I'm writing a doctoral dissertation). Yet I have been keeping an eye from afar, and must say the article has considerably improved. So you and the other editors did a good job. | |||
| Since, as I said, I am still trying to hold my deadlines, I am not sure that - for at least a few weeks - I'll be as active as I was. But I'll try.--] (]) 15:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Latest Debates == | |||
| Speaking of jokes, Don't you feel that the latest debates on the ] article resemble :-D ? --] (]) 21:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :ya khaber isswid. i want to move on to other things, but some of these people keep bringing up the same stuff over and over. ] (]) 21:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Exactly. The other thing is that I've noticed a very powerful trend where people copy and paste CAMERA criticisms of reputable organizations like Amnesty, ICRC, UN (yes, even the UN!) and others whenever you bring any of their reports. They just don't understand that criticizing those organizations don't have a place here. I think you noticed that I've almost replied the same reply more than 20 times to different people: "You're attacking a WP:RS source with a WP:OR thesis". But people just keep bringing the same criticisms over and over and over. Good things in life don't come easily anyway :). --] (]) 23:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Look at , Don't you notice something ;-) ? --] (]) 18:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Damn, i figured i have been discussing more than most, but didnt think it will be like, especially when you compare the talk to the article. ] (]) 19:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Frankly, you've been a super gate-keeper against editors who systematically remove well-sourced material and add POV twists. I just hope it's one or two weeks and then things will be quiet afterwards; here, and most importantly be quiet for the Palestinians themselves. Things will settle down soon I hope. I really wish I can be able to see a pre-76 borders Palestinian state in my life (I'm 21 years old now). Reading the now 30 humanitarian reports is just unbearable; this situation is horrible .. I just keep thinking, how about those who are in this catastrophe condition itself .. damn .. --] (]) 20:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Recent message== | |||
| That is actually the first time I looked at that section of the discussion page so it is too much to take in right before bed. My initial thoughts are that the other editor has obviously crossed the line a few times which I didn't realize until now. I think his concern is that the MoH data obviously shows Israel in a poor light. I think your original proposal could be worked nicely with the MoH figures being mentioned first. Wording on the children has to be handled with care since that is a soft spot for people that instantly jumps out as potentially attempting POV. It is a reported number and it is notable though so that's simply the way it is, though. Unrelegating the data in the following "(with the remainder...)" line from the parenthesis should fix that. A little bit more data on the IDF claim on Gazan dead might balance out the paragraph, too. Which figure is mentioned first isn't that big of a concern (to me at least) as long as the balance is right.] (]) 08:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Nice! Even with all the talk of the horrible corruption, it is still fine town. Take it over LA or several other of the bigger cities in the US.] (]) 21:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Shukran == | |||
| I appreciate your comments on brewcrewer's talk page. | |||
| You know brewcrewer better than I do, can you tell me why you think brewcrewer followed me to an article where I am having a current content/personal dispute with another editor (Anonmoos), who he then asked about my username when he could have asked me if his motive is of curiosity rather than extending a petty conversation? Do you think brewcrewer is trying to exasperate the dispute? The article is of a Yemeni former president, what is the likelihood of it being a coincidence that brewcrewer started editing an article at the same time I started editing? I am asking you because I am not sure if brewcrewer will give me straight answers and I think you can give me better advice as to what to do. --] (]) 06:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :No problem, I saw that on your talk page and I got pretty pissed when I looked at the edit summaries. I wouldnt be sure to say brew followed you, he may have some interest, or he may have even have followed somebody else. I would say the likelist thing is that he has the admin noticeboard watched and saw the thread about the copyvios and then went to the article, at least that makes sense based off the timing. I think he is basically a decent guy, though he has very strong feelings on I/A issues, as do both of us. The best way to handle it is to start things right, if it goes downhill then try to stay away from the muck, though I have had trouble with this myself. I think it was out of curiosity that he asked, because a couple of people have brought it up as trying to prove some bias in your edits, but I think he realized the name is perfectly acceptable and would be no different from somebody saying the same thing with Israel instead. He and I have not agreed a single time on an issue related to the Gaza article, and I even said his edit on a talkpage was bullshit once, and when he complained about it I said it again. Since then, I have kept my cool a lil bit better than before, and he has been decent with me. We have to separate what somebody thinks about a subject with what kind of person that somebody is. I dont mind if the most hardcore pro-Zionist shows up at a talk page, as long as he is rational and reasonable I will listen to him and try to work with him. While I have disagreed pretty vehemently with brewcrewer in the past, he hasnt shown himself to be a dick so I am not with him. Honestly, and I have told you this before, I think you sometimes need to calm down when writing here, you are making a great contribution, specifically with the work in making images out of the al jazeera videos, that it would be a shame if you got into trouble because tempers were flaring. Even if you have every reason to think somebody is following you, or is just a dick, or whatever, you should make an extra effort to avoid confrontation. I havent done that with specifically one editor who called me antisemite without any justification, though I probably should. But as far as brewcrewer goes, I would say chill, see what he says, and try to either answer his points or, if he is correct with proper sources and his proposals are backed up by policies, then work with him to find an acceptable solution. He defintely has very strong views, as strong as either of us have. But that doesn't mean he cannot be reasonable as well. Good luck, and I will read up on the subject to see if I can help out with the article as well. Unfortunately I am only well read in modern Egyptian history and a portion of the I/A conflict, and a lil on the House of Saud, so I dont know much about the subject now to help. Salam, ] (]) 06:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I avoided editing the article ever since brewcrewer jumped in, I even refrained from reverting his ]. I can't help but be under the impression that he is trying to team up with Anonmoos against me, but if you think I should give him the benefit of the doubt then I guess I will continue editing the article. Though if a content disputes erupts between he and I in which he wants to write paragraphs and paragraphs on the controversial allegation (aiding Anonmoos against me), this would be wikistalking and you are a witness. As for the related conflict, User Anonmoos' mission seems to be show the evils of Arab Muslims against Arab Jews, so that is why he was so adamant in restoring plagiarized information from the Haaretz article on the controversial allegation. It is his interest to tell the story of Zakriah Hadad (non-notable Yemeni Jew) and to pass it off as the story of Abdul Rahman Al-Eryani (notable, former president). I made a reasonable compromise: mention the allegation but within a reasonable amount but his refusal to compromise is exactly why we have come to this point. I agree I wasn't civil with him from the beginning, but it is really hard to be civil with someone when you know his motives. Furthermore, how can I be civil with someone who says his 'Arabic motto' is المتبرجة خير من الإرهابي المنتحر I mean of all Arabic words and phrases he could have chosen for his Arabic motto, he chose to include the words terrorist bomber. Who is he trying to educate? Am I the only finding this offensive? You're Arab, do you find this offensive? But I will try to avoid any conflict with him even if continues to berate me for my transliteration skills. Apparently, he thinks the only Arabic dialects that exist are the ones he is familiar with. Anyway, thanks for getting involved. How come when I get involved in your conflicts you get pissed so should I be pissed at you? I am kidding. :D I welcome your involvement, thanks again. --] (]) 07:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::There are 2 points here, the copyvio which there can be no dispute as to not including a copyright violation, but the other is whether or not the information should be included. And how much weight it should be given. But as it looks right not, if a RS puts forth this information it can be included. If it is just an editorial then there is a stronger case for not including it, but if it put as a fact then it can be included. The other issue would be weight. If this is the only thing that brings this up in a large number of sources it shouldnt take up a large portion of the article. And if there are any RSs that refute this they should also be given a place. I will look into it further, honestly I would stay away and look for sources that refute the information. Salam, ] (]) 07:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::About the motto, fuck it, who cares what he wants to say. You have seen what people think of my user page so I can't really criticize another users. ] (]) 08:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Salam, | |||
| ::::There is a Yemenonline news article that refutes the Haaretz article and it was used for the Wiki article . My compromise was rather than write paragraphs and paragraphs on the controversial allegation from a biased source, we write 2 paragraphs, one for the Haaretz allegation and one for the YemenOnline rebuttal. This was out of question for Anonmoos who rather we plagiarize/violate copyright just so we can keep that content. | |||
| ::::What I mean by 'biased news source' is that Haaretz does (naturally) convey a pro-Jewish and pro-Israeli perspective so they don't have any qualms about publishing a controversial, unverified claim of Jewish descent about a notable person in a country that they are hostile with. The claim that the Yemeni former president was born Jewish is not of notability in Yemen (I don't even think any Yemeni has heard of this except through the Haaretz article), and it seems that the Iryani family in Yemen refutes this claim. It also seems that the Haaretz author is relying only on the statements of people living in Israel who claim to be related to Iryani, not even bothering to investigate in Iryani's home country. I suggested that we summarize the allegation rather than to detail the allegation for the reasons I listed. It seems that this compromise was out of the question for Anonmoos. If he really had a problem with the wording of the alternative text, he could have added what he thought was appropriate and not restored the plagiarized text. Anyway, an admin stepped in to put an end to Anonmoos' reverting. So far the article contains the alternative that I advocated. I will just have to see if anonmoos (and possibly brewcrewer) will continue with the content dispute. Don't believe the lies that anonmoos told you, I never said Haaretz was a disreputable tabloid. --] (]) 22:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Salam and Shukran :) == | |||
| Peace man, hope you had a good sleep. Please don't be cranky on me. Salam and Shukran ] (]) 20:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I am trying not to, but you keep putting disputed things into the article without consensus. Please get consensus before putting this stuff in. ] (]) 20:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nableezy, I think somehow you misrepresented Hamas political head quote about long term solution of I/P conflict and lost "no two states" both quote and ref. Do you want to discuss those changes on talk page? Edit diff will be appreciated. Salam and Shukran again. ] (]) 15:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have said a thousand times that the 2 state solution has nothing to do with this, you want to bring it up go ahead. ] (]) 15:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::10x ] (]) 16:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You seem to revert the edit again. Did I misunderstand your agreement? ] (]) 18:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, I do not agree that two state solution is relevant, do you want to also put that Israel is against the one state solution and is unwilling to move from that position? This stuff doesnt matter to the article, it goes beyond the basic information that is needed, such information belongs in the Hamas article where it is relevant, here it is not. But if you want to bring it up on the talk page feel free. ] (]) 18:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::And dont take that as an indication that I support the one state solution, or for that matter do not take it as an indication that I support the two state solution. ] (]) 18:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Automatic revert tools are for vandalism == | |||
| Hi Nebleezy. I notice you were using automatic revert tools on things that are not vandalism. You removed my internal link to the Hamas charter, my adding of the historic date of the charter, both of which are directly relevant, and you removed my direct quote from the BBC article (restoring an inaccurate paraphrasing.) I clearly did not engage in vandalism and my linking to the relevant article is clearly on topic. --] (]) 19:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Im not, didnt call yours vandalism and in fact I kept a large part of the change. I just dont think that we need to use "uncompromisingly" as a direct quote from bbc, i think it is sufficient to say it seeks its destruction. I kept the rest of your edit, and I was in fact the one who first put that reference in. Also, I think we need to say the destruction of the "state of" Israel rather than just Israel. But I am not using any reversion tools, you can see I didnt actually remove your original edit, just reworked a sentence, added "the state of" and removed "uncompromisingly". Didnt mean anything personal by it, but was there a problem with my rationale? I wont revert again, but just wondering why you object to the change. ] (]) 19:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I should have kept the link tho, my bad on that. ] (]) 19:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Tamia== | |||
| So Steve Nash never did anything for you then? | |||
| You know Hamas might not like the part of the French version that she sang cause it talks about us as Christians who carry the cross and the sword. --] (]) 20:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I don't know, that looks like a stunt double at the end. But still, they're pretty proud of Steve Nash over in Victoria. Probably just after Nelly Furtado. But ahead of Raffi I'd think. --] (]) 20:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Sorry == | |||
| My sincere apologies for the rather unsettling response at Israeli/Gaza conflict talk. I've become rather frustrated at this continual war of attrition without a reasonable end in sight. Feel free to report me, but I thought I'd let you know before. ; ) Cheers...I guess. ] (]) 02:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :im not one for reporting people, though i find it curious you think this is something to apologize for but calling me an antisemite multiple times is not. maybe if you did that we could be cordial, but ah well, i dont really give a shit. ] (]) 02:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::All righty then. ] (]) 02:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::And still no apology, i guess it wasnt meant to be. i think ill go cry now. ] (]) 02:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Apologize for what? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned2 --> | |||
| :::::uhhh, calling me an antisemite multiple times, and refusing to strike it even when multiple editors said you were both off-base and out of line, instead choosing to defend your actions, and then calling me that again at the arbitration enforcement? but dont trouble yourself, i kind of like not having to give a fuck about anything you say. ] (]) 05:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Uh? We already went through this at the noticeboard, and I haven't called you an anti-****** since the incident. Any other times are either inferences or misinterpretation. I apologized for calling you an anti-semite online, whether I believe it in my own head is totally my business. I'm trying to avoid combat with you but when you constantly bring up this incident and refer to everything I write as "retarded" and "stupid" don't expect a friendly chat. Let's just call a truce and go our own ways for now. ] (]) 07:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I must have missed an apology for saying it in a public forum. I saw an apology for the offense caused, but not for actually saying it. All I ever wanted from you was to strike your accusations and apologize, cant strike them anymore, but if you did apologize then fine. I will no longer bring it up. As far as retarded goes, when you purposefully misrepresent what I did to make it seem as though I have committed some terrible offense, like you did multiple times recently saying I compared the Holocaust to this conflict, I will call that retarded as you know perfectly well I did no such thing. And when you do it after I tell why I did no such thing and yet you still say it again, I will call that retarded as well. I dont care that you have an opposite opinion on apparently almost everything then I do, I do however care when you misrepresent what I have said. You dont do that you will not have a problem with me. If you do, then you will. ] (]) 07:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::and it is indeed your own business whether or not you think i am an antisemite, i dont give a shit. just as it is my business whether or not i believe the sincerity of this apology or any other personal thinking i may or may not have as to whether or not you are a racist or a bigot or any other thing. as long as neither you or i make our own personal feelings public we should not have a problem. ] (]) 07:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::and i havent been 'hounding' you, an/i is in my watchlist, as is cerejota's talk and anywhere else you may have seen my username. ] (]) 07:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh Noes! you stalking me! :P--] (]) 02:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Images discussion== | |||
| I wanted to clarify here instead of the talk page to make sure it didn't get lost in the hodgepodge and to not stoke the flames of another debate with others. I do not think one injured and one dead is poor balancing image wise. My concern was the potential to have half a dozen images of Palestinians which would be too much in that seciton just to make a point. As it stands, we could replace one of them but then we have to deal with finding free images so no worries for now since it is acceptable. And just to reiterate, the casualties edit will be the best one throughout the history of the article. Thank you for rocking it.] (]) 18:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Carriage return== | |||
| Thanks for that, I will experiment with it! ] (]) 03:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:31, 30 December 2024
Palestine-Israel articles 5 updates
You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA
. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:
First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.
Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Action requested on Alison Weir page
Nableezy, if you are a "Confirmed-extended" editor as I assume, would you be kind enough to take a look at my requested edit of a paragraph in the protected-extended entry "Alison Weir" and take action on it? It just sits there...thanks.... kenfree Kenfree (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
advice for article creation
hi i’d love to speak to you about creating an article please. it’s on a controversial conflict so this is why i’d like to get it right. thanks Eatlandlords (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)