Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:54, 25 February 2008

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

• notes

Stuff I'm reading:

Eleland

I am sorry if I have placed this note in the wrong spot. I m very inexperienced with Misplaced Pages. I was enthralled by Misplaced Pages. Initially. That is until I met Eleland. I noticed that you had some interesting discussions with Eleland. Eleland engineered a small article which I contributed some information to be deleted. He organised a "kangaroo court" made duplicitous unfounded claims and then set up a false consensus.

The Article was on Ed O'Loughlin Fairfax publishing MidEast correspondent. The said individual has a unfortunate habit of mixing reporting and commentary. He was amongst the candidates for this year's HR.com dishonest reporter award - despite being in the Australia only catchment area - so you can imagine the quality of his journalism.

Anyway Eleland did a great job of protecting him and got the article deleted.

So I studied Eleland a little.

I've looked at over 100 of his posts on the Arab Israel conflict. More than 95 were directly anti-Israel. His modus has been generally to unfairly rubbish the references of the pro-Israel side. In this way he has undermined many many articles.

Personally I don't care what his opinion is, but when he uses his editorial power and influence at Misplaced Pages to falsely invalidate, delete, manipulate etc. I think there is a problem.

Misplaced Pages is, I am afraid, beginning to read like Eleland wrote the script.

Who is Eleland? What power does he actually have?

Can anything be done?

Adon Emmet

If you post a reply here I will contact here or even by e-mail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.88.235 (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've had my share of clashes with Eleland but it seems that we've managed to de-escalate the situation before it got too heated. I suggest you create a username and then i'd be happy in guiding you to a better understand the policies and guidlines. cheers. Jaakobou 21:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It is Adon Emet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.88.235 (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR

It is not a breach, as the first edit was not a revert. As for making threats to report me, you are the one at serious risk of being reported to WP:ANI for being a long-term POV pusher and TE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

reply given: . Jaakobou 11:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest you go over WP:NPOV and reconsider all the edits you have ever made to Misplaced Pages. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Having given it a bit more thought, I have re-worded the article to include the Jewish death. Thoughts? пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

i've made a minor addition after your edit. if you intend on preventing bad blood, i request you strike-through parts of your comment above from 11:27, 28 December 2007 and avoid similar accusations in the future. Jaakobou 11:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

regarding your idle threats

i answered you on my talk page. Tiamut 13:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:V

WP:V says "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source". This means that you must provide reliable sources for content you add to wikipedia. No, its not optional. I have said this to you again and again. Why do you keep ignoring this fundamental policy by re-inserting unsourced content? The above policy applies to all content, not just content about living persons. However, it applies more strictly to content about living persons.

The content you re-insert is a BLP vio. How? Because it is talking about living persons. For example you accuse Walid Shoebat of defining the word Jihad to mean "the struggle to impose Allah's will over the earth, resulting in holy war against the non-Muslim world in order to bring it under the rule of Islam." This is a contentious claim. You need a source for this claim.

Again read over WP:V and WP:BLP and you should understand why you need to provide sources for all content related to living people.Bless sins (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins,

walid is in the movie explaining the term jihad. please watch the film and feel free to raise your concerns afterwards if you still have them. Jaakobou 23:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable and published source that says what you claim Walid is explaining?Bless sins (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

just watch the movie, this is getting boring real fast. Jaakobou 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here to entertain you, but only tell you to follow wikipedia policies. It doesn't matter if you've watched the movie, or you made it. You need sources for all content, particularly contentious content about living persons.Bless sins (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR for House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

You have reverted text 3 times in less than 24 hours, and you have removed the reference link 3 times for Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. You have violated 3RR. See WP:3RR. Please quickly self-revert to Eleland's version to avoid being blocked. You can be blocked for less than 4 reversions in 24 hours. This is a courtesy warning requested by the text of the WP:3RR article for newbies to 3RR. But it looks like I am not required to give you this courtesy warning since from looking at your talk page you are well aware of the 3RR rule.--Timeshifter (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

you've made an error, please re-examine the explanation of the policy and the edits i have made. Jaakobou 17:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been reported

You have been reported for breaching WP:3rr on House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You can find the report here. Bless sins (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Copying from WP:AN3: "Blocked for eighty-four hours, for edit-warring across multiple articles. I see a pattern of edit-warring behavior – at House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian, Second Intifada, Islam: What the West Needs to Know, and, to a lesser degree, at other articles – that simply needs to stop." -- tariqabjotu 21:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment regarding block reasoning:

Following this (static version) WP:3RR complaint by User:Bless_sins.

I admit of being involved in a high volume of edits on a number of articles and also admit to what could be construed as an edit war together with User:Eleland on House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

However, inspection into my '"edit warring on a number of articles"' reasoning stated by User:Tariqabjotu is superficial and incorrect as well:

1. Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian - My recent conflict with Tiamut, was by no means an edit war. He had a misunderstanding regarding the history of the region and we resolved it (I believe) quite quickly when I added the reference/source to my correction of the error-ed text ("Palestinim, Am Behivatsrut," by Kimmerling, Baruch, and Joel S. Migdal - Keter Publishing, ISBN: 965-07-0797-2).
2. Second Intifada - There was a multiple user conflict, which consisted of as many as 6-7 participants. After an edit war was already ensued between two very different versions - I've engaged in the article with a major attempt to resolve the disputes . After resolving two of a the many disputes the discussions devolved into reverts once the issue of "intifada (uprising)" was a bit stuck but I have again reopened, a second discussion attempt on that issue and it seemed to be moving quite reasonably. I don't believe that my attempts to resolve the disputes on said page should be portrayed as an edit war and stand against me on other article disputes.
3. Islam: What the West Needs to Know - In this article, for some reason, User:Bless_sins (same editor who opened the 3RR) claims that it is a BLP violation to re-write what a participant in the film stated and to support his BLP theory he removes the entire synopsis section. I don't see my objection to this as an edit-war at all.

Considering this overview of the disputes and my efforts to resolve them, and considering that Palestinian-Israeli articles are filled with high emotions , incivility , pov accusations , and pov violations .

I believe, just as the first admin who inspected the 3RR notice believed , that if 3RR rules are to be applied to me regarding this dispute (where I have reverted 3 exactly times), then they should be applied evenly.

Lastly, if the descision is made to block anyone, and because I was given 84 hours. An inspection into my block log shows that apart from one 3RR mishap in July, my 3RR blocks were all rescinded. Jaakobou 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to clear some things up. On the article, House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I never said your editing was illegitimate. It was wrong in the sense it violated WP:3rr. Whether you were following WP:NPOV, or eleland, (or both or neither), I can't say.

You are, however, wrong in inserting unsourced material about living persons in Islam: What the West Needs to Know. I've asked you numerous times to source your edits.Bless sins (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"is a BLP vio. How? Because it is talking about living persons...you accuse Walid Shoebat" - User:Bless sins, 02:58, 30 December 2007

Walid Shoebat is featured in the film giving commentaries... even for a moment, assuming "i accused him" of something he had not said in the film (watch starting minute 31), it does not justify a complete blanking of the film's synopsis.

p.s. it is not a sign of good faith now that your friend, Eleland, is repeating your justification after you've reached 3 reverts.

p.p.s. further comments should be made on the article's talk page, not here. Jaakobou 04:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

SALTing

To answer your question, salting the earth is done to ensure that once a crop has been uprooted or destroyed, nothing else can grow there. Hence WP:SALT, the wikipedia practice of not only deleting a page but protecting the page in its deleted form so that a new article cannot be started. Reggie Perrin (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the input. Jaakobou 07:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Saeb Erekat

This edit was not vandalism. Even if you disagree with it, please refrain from characterizing good-faith edits as vandalism. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Stifle,

1. i believe the user should have asked guidance from his assigned mentors rather than address someone who's not aware/watching his conduct history.
2. repeated removal of well established and very well referenced information from articles, without any edit summary or discussion, after all the discussions and edits already made (including two of his mentors) is disruptive vandalism.

-- Jaakobou 10:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Well established," in this case, means that you edit-warred it in until nobody could be bothered to waste their time fighting you over it. And your "very well referenced" information includes references which do not name or discuss Saeb Erekat. PR should have used an edit summary, but his was a legitimate action, unlike your prolonged highly tendentious editing. <eleland/talkedits> 18:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You (and others) might be amused to peruse this, where you'll discover that Jaakobou has managed to drive off every other interested editor (eight in total) throughout the whole 16 months of TalkPage discussion about this article!

You'll already know that none of his claims are referenced atall - only blogs and the perpetrators of the killings (of which there were 497 according to the official International figure) have called Erekat a liar. His career is long and really rather distinguished under the very difficult circumstances. There is a huge amount of interesting material that could go into this article, but this poisonous edit-war has driven off every other editor interested in improving the project.

Another thing you might find astounding is that Jaakobou has only just come back from a 3.5 day block for edit-warring (across a range of other articles) and immediately (2nd edit) set about the exact same activity, on an article where he's done so much damage for so long! PR 19:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Mass blanking at Palestinian Fedayeen

I have asked you on the talk page there to restore the over 17,000 bytes of sourced, attributed and in-line cited material you deleted. I am deadly serious Jaakobou. I will report you to WP:ANI for a pattern of disruptive editing if you fail to heed this request. You used the same tactic at Second Intifada, mass blanking over your objections to one sentence in the introduction. This is not good faith editing and I will not tolerate it. Tiamut 18:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

dear Tiamut,

i explained the main issue with your use of sources to "rev up" the "resistance" narrative and explained where the problem lyes. instead of addressing the issue, you've went on with a similar direction. removing sources and revving up the "sharon is a killer" (strike 15:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)) plot-line. you may start an ANI case, accusing me of mass blanking... but it doesn't change the facts that this is (a) a content based dispute. and (b) that you've made a huge number of edits in 2 days while ignoring my talk page raised issue. Jaakobou 18:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jaakobou,

I have reported you to WP:ANI. While you claim that your edits on the talk page raise real or specific issues with the edits I made, they in fact, do not. I have tried to respond to any specific concerns you have raised, but I do not understand how the material you blanked is related to the one source you seem to have a problem with. It is not my job to read the sources for you or review the content I posted in detail for you. You have to read it and raise specific concerns or make edits to the material accordingly. You cannot mass blank two days of work that is based on reliable scholarly sources and claim that you are justified in doing so based on your vague assertions that my edits are POV. That amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and it's not fair to those of us trying to improve articles. Tiamut 18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Solomon / Shalom / Peace

Hey Jaakobou, I noticed that a little while ago you removed the claim that "Solomon" or "Sulaymin" are cognate with "Shalom" or "Salaam" meaning "peace". You said that whoever wrote that must have been unfamiliar with old Hebrew. The American Heritage Dictionary thinks that Solomon = S-L-M = peace, and so does Aryeh Kaplan, () who I'm pretty sure is familiar with Old Hebrew! <eleland/talkedits> 00:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

i wasn't aware that americans are suddenly an authority on hebrew and it's structure. the root S-L-M means whole, the extra meaning of peace is not the original one, and it most certainly was not the meaning of bible day names who are all (almost all) refer to god in some manner... shlomo (solomon), means the wholeness of god or god is complete, or god made me complete with this child... it has nothing to do with peace and anyone who writes that it is, is making an error, even if they are supposedly a serious scholar. the root S-L-M is older than the hebrew language and it's been used for example in jerusalem at its creation -- i just now went over , and to be frank, i'm shocked at how much room is given to the peace interpretation of the "Some say it means" compared to the Midrash one.

p.s. the root can mean peace, but not in a biblical name. Jaakobou 09:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, Aryeh Kaplan is obviously well aware of Hebrew and its structure, being best known for his English translation of the Torah. I'm really not going to take this on your authority alone... have you any references? <eleland/talkedits> 16:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

i looked a bit for references on the web and couldn't find a proper one (just yet). after that, i went over the biblical text - per samuel 2, chapter 12 verses 13-25 (first mention of solomon in the biblical text) bible - going over the context, i can now understand why someone would attribute the term "peace" to the name - however, i don't believe this to be the correct meaning of the hebrew text (there is no implication for such an interpretation), and plan on calling a friend of mine (tomorrow) to help me out finding the midrash related text (i don't have the related books). i'll keep you posted. Jaakobou 22:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. where does arieh kaplan say this root means peace? Jaakobou 22:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In the commentary attached to his English translation of the Bahir, on page 130; the details are all in the citations on Solomon, and if the Google Books link given above isn't working for you (it decides what you're allowed to see based on what you've already read) I'll transcribe the relevant portion. <eleland/talkedits> 22:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for repeating the input in the link, I missed it in your first comment. Going over the extra input, and discussing it also with a "talmid chaham" (smart student) friend of mine, I can now completely understand where the Peace translation comes from... apparently, there is a "source" attribution by scholars to the 'chronicles' mythology text... this text is believed to have been written some 100-200 years after Solomon died and in it David is saying that god told him he'll give Solomon peace and that should be his name... a less religious scholar than Aryeh Kaplan, would go by the "original" text (from the actual period) in Samuel 2 where it is told that David lost a previous son because of his sins (and despite not eating anything) and afterwards attests to the greatness of god by naming his son Shlomoh... anyways, even though i still believe the orthodox peace interpretation to be incorrect, i am faced with a serious referenced perspective. I won't contest this interpretation in the future. cheers. Jaakobou 13:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

You should know about this. Arrow740 (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your e-mail

A few notes from your e-mail - I choose to reply in public rather than hide on messenger.

• "I have noticed that recently you have constantly been lashing out against my edits and assuming that I'm a bad editor doing harm on purpose"
  • I have been "lashing out" against your edits since I came into contact with you. You know full well that you are a "bad" editor and that not only are you one of the biggest POV-pushers around, you are guilty of being probably the worst violator of WP:TE that I have come across. The evidence I put on WP:ANI (multiple instances of blocked for breaking WP:3RR, of reverting "vandalism" of others , accusing others of censorship and violations of WP:UNDUE (constant reinsertion of a massive criticism section at Gideon Levy)) is only part of what I hold against you.
• "I believe you are a sensible editor involved in much more on wikipedia than the Israeli-Arab conflict, therefore more neutral than many of the other editors involved"
  • How two faced are you? You constantly accuse me of having "POV issues" and telling me to adhere to WP:NPOV. Then coming to me in private and saying that I am a "sensible" and "neutral" editor?!? What is up with you?
• "I can probably explain my overall position to you by instant messaging"
  • I know your overall position. You are an unashamed anti-Palestinian POV pusher. I might describe you as pro-Israel, but that is an insult to good Zionist editors who do not let their personal opinions affect their work. Your entire purpose on Misplaced Pages is to denigrate Palestinians. Whilst on a very few occasions you may well have a point (I also believe the Muhammad al-Durrah "killing" was most likely staged), you take it way too far and I personally do not believe that you can ever be a productive editor on controversial Middle Eastern topics. Yes, there are also unashamed anti-Israeli POV pushers on here. However, on occasions where someone has come in to a disputed article with an actual WP:NPOV stance, you will still push for a more pro-Israel slant, whereas the Palestinian POV pushers tend to leave it at that. I would suggest the only way to redeem yourself is to leave such topics well alone and work on something such as getting rid of all the redlinks at List of kibbutzim or something similar.

пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

sent you a reply. Jaakobou 12:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Detwinkled

Due to persistant misuse of the tool; - I've removed twinkle from your monobook and protected it for two weeks. When you are able to readd it, please be more careful with the tool. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

i'm not sure why this de-twinkle was implemented (the large amount of diffs say very little) and would appreciate some explanation. Jaakobou 13:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't be using automated reversion tools in content dispute - all those diffs I point to above are you using the tool whilst in a content dispute. When you decide to revert another user in the future, please do it manually and give a fell explanation for doing so in the edit summary. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware that the tool cannot be used for regular reverts (when a a full manual explanation is given). If this is supported by some manual of use (that I've missed), I'd be more than happy to correct this error and not use the tool.

I'd appreciate some further discussion/explanation on my use of the tool for reverting vandalism, such as the cases on saeb erekat, islam: what the west needs to know, and operation rainbow. Jaakobou 14:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If I were you I would leave vandalism on those articles to people who do not have a strong POV, since the definition of vandalism has been stretched in the past with these subjects. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why someone shouldn't use automated tools in a content dispute if they provide a full manual edit summary, and I'd appreciate an explanation and link to a guideline or instruction on that, since I occasionally use automated tools myself. However, the third diff given above (re "Stalemate") appears to be a revert of a good-faith edit referred to as "vandalism" in the edit summary. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If "( do not change this)" in the body of the article is not vandalism, then I apologize. Jaakobou 14:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I've opened a WP:AN query regarding this question - here. Jaakobou 14:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism, it was misguided, but not vandalism. He added some numbers that he didn't want people to change. Yeah, it should probably have been reverted, but it shouldn't have been labelled as vandalism. We don't use twinkle in edit wars for one key reason, it lowers the decorum. Users are asked to make manual revert in edit wars, this was not the case here. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree: "do not change this" was not vandalism. It was apparently added in an attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Reverting the "do not change this" part of the edit was the right thing to do, but calling it "vandalism" was not. What if "do not change this" was vandalism? That's not the only thing you reverted. You also reverted "Stalemate" -- the thing the user asked not to be changed -- and labelled it "vandalsm" too. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I can agree on the "labeled that vandalism too" perspective.. that's already in the content dispute realm (I objected to the content change also). Any suggestions for how to handle similar issues if they reoccur? Jaakobou 15:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bascially, if it's not obvious vandalism, then you should revert it manually (e.g. go to the previous revision, click edit and put an explanation as to why you're reverting). In a content dispute, you should also do this and it's always good practice to post on the talk page giving the reasons for the reversion. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's a content dispute, I suggest not reverting, but discussing on the talk page until a consensus is reached. If it's vandalism on a page in which you're involved in excessively heated content disputes, I suggest leaving the vandalism for someone else to revert, as someone else suggested, (maybe even discussing it on the talk page or bringing it to someone's attention), or else reverting it manually, not using TW on those pages per Ryan's explanation above. Using automated tools tends to put one in a frame of mind not conducive to the most courteous interaction with other people. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Palestine-Israel conflict

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

A case has opened in the WP:Mediation Cabal and a user has listed you as an involved party, related to edits/comments at Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The case is located at Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-09 Israeli-Palestinian conflict‎, please feel free to comment on the article talk page. Thank you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. I felt like it was time to open a mediation case, since in spite of all the contention, dissent and new proceedings curently going on, as well as edit-protections on several entries, there are actually very few active mediation efforts for any articles right now. so this is a step in hopefully a right direction. by the way, did you know that a single MedCab case can cover a few articles at once? so this seems like possibly an appropriate way to go. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. An uninvolved administrator, after issuing a warning, may impose sanctions including blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. The Committee shall convene a working group, composed of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, and task it with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations for resolving the pervasive problem of intractable disputes centered around national, ethnic, and cultural areas of conflict. The group shall be appointed within two weeks from the closure of this case, and shall present its recommendations to the Committee no later than six months from the date of its inception. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Middle East Textbooks Invite

WikiProject Middle East Textbooks is looking for editors to create, expand, and maintain complete, accurate, and neutral articles on school textbooks used throughout the Middle East, with a focus on textbook controversies and textbook analyses. You can start by simply adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Middle East Textbooks.

Mediation page

Hi. I created a new section for you to use at the Gilad Shalit mediation. i noticed that no one had asnswered you for several hours. hope that is useful. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Question?

Hi Jaakobou. I didn't really understand the latest question you left on my talk page. Can you elaborate at Talk:Palestinian fedayeen so that I can address your concern? Thanks. Tiamut 17:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:(

Yeah, sorry, my ISP is kind of the suck. - Revolving Bugbear 22:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Occupation terminology

Hi. Just wanted to let you know I've tried to describe and analyze what I understand of you views, at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 16:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply. I've responded, w/at least one point of potential disagreement. If you don't mind, perhaps you could ask Durova for her opinion, too. Please reply at your convenience. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 16:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, you haven't replied to my proposed (partial) resolution to the discussion. Since it would seem favorable to your view, I would appreciate the courtesy of your input. Thanks. HG | Talk 09:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Now trying a different tack. Pls look at page and reply. Thanks. HG | Talk 19:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

mediation page note

Hi. i posted a question for you at the mediation page for the Gilad Shalit article. Appreciate it if you could please take a look at it when you have a chance. please feel free to write to me anytime, whether there ot my talk page. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

medcab

Thanks for participating in the medcab case. As I understand it, you wish to use the word "hostage" in the lead. How can we allow for Pedro's wishes? Specifically, how can we word the intro so that Pedro's wishes are also incorporated? Xavexgoem (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. I've been told by a few people that pausing the case might not have been too fair. I felt that with Pedro's absence, it would probably be better; but I'm not so sure, so if this wasn't fair to you, please tell me. And voice general complaints, too; I'm available on e-mail, too. I am new to medcab, so I appreciate any feedback. Thanks! :) Xavexgoem (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian Mujahideen

I have no interest in getting further involved in the discussion surrounding Bosnian Mujahideen. My continuous involvement in dispute resolution such as WP:3O and WP:RFC have given me the insight that as soon as reason is shunned and instead of a proper reaction, the question is rephrased, it is the right time to leave. As a piece of constructive feedback, from a fellow editor, I suggest you look back over your attempts to resolve the dispute and see why they failed. This is usually very insightful, and can help a lot when solving future problems.

To do a bit of problem analysis for you, the core problem here (important parts underlined) is that every single attempt to reach a broad consensus on a high level, such as a dispute surrounding a rename or definition, cannot be solved based on sources, as every solution will undoubtedly violate WP:SYNTH. It is simply impossible to reach a consensus in this manner, because the sources do not agree with each other, and there are sources for both sides, without any being more authoritative (e.g. a UN resolution clause) than the other (random authors). The reliability or availability of sources has nothing to do with this. User:Krator (t c) 08:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at Palestinian people

This comment is fully unacceptable. Talk pages are a public forum and anyone has the right to respond to any comment or question posed there. If you want to have a one-on-one discussion, bring it to my talk page. But if it has to do with article content and you are posting on the article talk page, be prepared for other editors to comment or question, as is their right. You do not have the right to tell other good-faith editors that they are not welcome to participate. Tiamut 13:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I can fully understand your comment being that you've not witnessed the body of diffs. However, Nishidani has been following me around jumping into conversations contributing very little to the discussions while making uncivil commentary. If he decides to join the conversation with an attempt to resolve disputes, I would welcome and salute his input, but that hasn't been the case recently.

Speaking in general, I'm not sure how off topic bad faith remarks and assumptions help the discourse. I'm also not sure protecting such comments is beneficial. The wind will eventually swing both ways and I think both of us prefer a communal editing platform rather than a battleground with barely involved editors making off topic character based commentaries. Jaakobou 16:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I did not find Nishidani's comments at the Talk:Palestinian people to be either uncivil or unconstructive, though I cannot speak for other comments elsewhere since I have not seen the diffs you are referring to. In any case, the point remains that your focus on me, and getting an answer only from me on the article talk page, was inappropriate. I am not alone in my opposition to the changes you are trying to introduce. If my opinion is the only one you are interested in hearing, that is hardly an example of "communal editing", which you profess to prefer. As I said earlier, if you ever do want to discuss something with me alone, you are welcome to do so on my talk page. That would send a clear sign to other editors that their comments are not required. Thanks and happy editing. Tiamut 17:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to hear content based responses, not rhetorics about a supposed consensus among editors on the same side of the discussions. Jaakobou 17:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Talking in terms of 'sides' is counterproductive here. Relata refero (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Jaakobou 13:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Back off the wagon?

Jaakobou, you seem to have gone back to your old ways — mass POV editing across multiple articles, accompanied by manipulation of the talk page discussion and the use of WP:AGF and WP:CIV objections to distract and silence people.

• Claiming that Zionism is 1000s of years old when all scholarship says it's a late 19th century movement
• Shoveling more mud on Saeb Erekat against massive consensus
• Diluting important factual information with silliness
• etc

Please, cut it out. You barely avoided sanction in the recent ArbCom, solely because the scope expanded to the point where singling you out would have seemed biased. <eleland/talkedits> 05:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Read and heed — Rlevse • Talk • 21:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, the fact that you filed a very weak WP:AE case, that only inflames things. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

1) My personal observation... (of the Eleland WP:AE post)

• 25 diffs from 3 weeks after the Arbcom. (i.e. more than one per day)
• Some/most of the comments are 'concerning': 'civility is at borderline on most of these cited diffs'.
• The diffs presented multiple 'soft' violations of the new 'Decorum' and 'Editorial process'
• The diffs were directed -- during conflict -- at editors, not content.

Chosen samples:

• "political leaders of a faction you identify with"
• "a ]... makes you look rather desperate"
• "your personal crackpot interpretation of the RSes"
• "because you don't like them."
• "looks a lot like just shouting "antisemite!" because something personally troubles you."
• "quote that you're so very, very fond of."
• "achieved via serial POV-pushing" (directed at a single editor)

2) Summary of personal observation:

Site culture is so soft on disruptive editors that it not only ignores it's own (admittedly new) rules, and promotes mimicry of incivility and bad behavior but those who give a true effort to uphold proper conduct get burned by the kitchen. All that was needed in this case was a single person who's being supportive of a "faction he identifies with" ** (Eleland Jan 16), while "losing" a content dispute because of " he doesn't like" ** (Eleland Jan 27) to use a "highly clever" idiom ("the pot calling the kettle black" ) to distract - - from the problem and summarily close the case.

** Comment: This is just an example of the overbearing poor conduct I was reporting, not an actual attempt to attack 'Ryan Postlethwaite'. Albeit, he actually is a clear part in the disputes.

3) I'm thinking that similar comments should not be a regularity,

Continued paraphrasing of or copying the style of these diffs into talk pages would be a breach of the Dispute resolution principals and I have no intention of adopting this uncivil mannerism.

4) So, I feel this case was not so weak; and that the "the pot" testimony -- by an admin who's been involved in the content disputes -- should not have been accepted on sight.

5) I intend on bringing forth similar cases if editors repeatedly ignore the 'Decorum' and 'Editorial process' principals.

With respect, Jaakobou 14:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC) added diff to "pot" phrase 06:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Saeb Erekat

Hi Jaakobou. Do you think we should go for an RfC or third opinion about the Jenin massacre? It might be a good idea to get some more outside input to the matter. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To be frank, I feel you owe me an apology after injecting a bad faith personal commentary into an AE notice. Regardless, I just changed the phrasing and added sources, please go over the changes, and if you still find major issues, let me know and we can consider the value of an RfC (I don't reject the suggestion, just think we should re-evaluate beforehand). Jaakobou 19:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit

Please refrain from editing controversial material regarding the medcab case when no outcome has been reached. It is simply good courtesy not to make edits while such a disagreement and discussion occurs. The hostage will remain there for now. But if there are more reverts then ill report this page to the Admin notice board and request the page be locked on whatever version its on. Seddon69 (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69, I feel your assessment of the editing situation is jumping to conclusions at a great fault. Please go over the mediation case again and note that apart from a single uninvolved IP, there is no edit war going on.

Cheers. Jaakobou 00:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Given your previous edit summary was as follows "Unacceptable to keep "wrong version" for two more weeks while you're offline." and your reversion was to maintain your version i simply stated it as a warning. Then to back this up i felt that any further editing regarding the terminology being used needed to be stopped until the dispute had been resolved. Seddon69 (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC) It is generally a good idea not to revert things which are of contention whether or not you agree with them. Seddon69 (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You missed the part where Pedro Gonnet changed the version during mediation and I let it stay because we were mediating. To reinsert "his" version once he took off and impose "the wrong version" while mediation was on a "two week standby" is ownership behavior and unacceptable... esp. considering the evidence presented by both sides. I trust you are working with nothing but good intentions but for now, I suggest you go over the medcab materials and keep an eye out for interesting developments... if there are any.

With respect, Jaakobou 00:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You reinserted the phrasing with 6 citations and rewrote a section which threw a good deal of context out from under it, and deemed it a "fix" in the edit summary. You are making points, and putting the mediators in the awkward position of having to call you on that. I suggest you revert to the edit w/ hostage (pick your best citations), and completely revert the international law section.

As for "interesting developments": This is a two-editor issue. Pedro has been slow, I admit, and I wish he had submitted his evidence in full sooner (with your recommendation to filter out the abduction event), but he had to go temporarily. You have the option of leaving the case, but I will not close it while the requester is away. I won't be making any more comments on your talk page regarding this dispute.

Thank you. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the 'law' section changes; I definitely believe that I've "fix"ed the first paragraph English-wise and content-wise. There is absolutely no reason to revert this edit where the previous version says "It is possible that those making these demands do not hold Shalit. If he is actually being held against his will..." when (1) Hamas is holding him, (2) against his will (3) making ransom demands. "It is also possible that he is a captive." is also a mistake, since he clearly is a captive, probably in Gaza, and a hostage of the situation. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy and my edit corrected and improved the article, even if considering that the mediation about where to use 'hostage' (lead and/or body) is not officially closed. Jaakobou 06:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree that if the some1 changes it it wont be reverted? I just want to keep any conflict to a minimum. I have requested the same on the talk page so this isnt just directed at you, this is to everyone. Seddon69 (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We can agree to edit responsibly. Jaakobou 05:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Lil archiving help

{{helpme}}

I'd be interested in archiving a subsection, but the material might be linked somewhere. Is there a way to make a "what links here" type of check on a subsection? Jaakobou 14:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. I tried entering #section_title (using an actual title, of course) into the form and it just cut if off and returned the same list. Sorry. Hersfold 22:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It certainly won't get you exhaustive results, but you can use Google to search for all instances where the written out link appears, using a search like "site:en.wikipedia.org "verifiability#sources"" . Unfortunately, so often these types of links are piped, which this Google search won't find.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

non-free images

You can't post non-free images in the userspace, even if you uploaded them yourself. It's a copyright issue. Can you please undo the reversion? Thanks. - Revolving Bugbear 00:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Very well, fixed. Jaakobou 00:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) - Revolving Bugbear 00:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination

H there, I've nominated the article for you. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Jaakobou 00:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian people

Jaakobou, I have asked all editors a number of times not to make changes to the introduction that significantly change the meaning of the text therein without proposing and discussing those changes on the talk page first so as to garner consensus. Twice now, you have ignored that request and added material about the Palestinian population in Jordan without supporting sources I might add. Would you mind not doing that again? Thanks. Tiamut 10:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, and I mean that without cynicism; I'm not going to post each and every article change I have in mind on the talk page first. I understand what you're trying to do and fully appreciate the effort; I'm even more than willing to discuss most of the edits beforehand and support that idea when other editors want to make conclusive changes. But, there's got to be a limit on time waste somewhere and the WP:OWN levels on I-P articles (not you) are just ridiculous... I can 100% promise to not continue mass edit an article once a number of clear concerns are raised and discussion is requested (remember that old ANI?). Jaakobou 12:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your reasoned response. However, I do not understand the relevance of your link to the ANI report I filed against you for wholesale reverting at Palestinian fedayeen, which led to the opening of the Arbcomm case. In any case, I have responded to your comments at the talk page at Palestinian people, explaining my addition of a source for the population of Palestinians in Jordan. I hope you will accept that that was a good-faith edit, designed to source previously unsourced information. Thanks. Tiamut 13:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly accept that you're working in good faith even if an edit here and there -- esp. awarding barnstars for bad behavior -- bugs me. I'm certainly trying to work cooperatively with you -- believing that no one will ignore each other's reasoned notes -- and I hope our dispute resolutions are only going to improve. Jaakobou 13:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear dear Jaakobou ... :) I did not award Eleland a barnstar for "bad behaviour". As I wrote to him in the award itself, it was a way of recognizing his largesse by admitting that he was wrong to stoop to the use of personal attacks. Further, as I wrote in my subsequent comment to him, I had been meaning to give him one for his editing contributions in general for some time now. In any case, I can see why you might interpret it the way you did. I appreciate the polite demeanor you have adopted in your dealings with other editors, and I look forward to your response to my comment on the talk page at Palestinian people. Thanks again for your thoughts. Tiamut 14:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Re alleged soapboxing at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict

This is a larger version of a comment I edited down from that talk page, since it was really about issues with your personal conduct on talk pages, and thus offtopic for that venue. It was proximately caused by , but this is a long-term pattern on your part.

Jaakobou, the problem here is that your definition of what constitutes "soapboxing" is both overbroad and inconsistent. 6SJ7 expressed the view that concern over the West Bank barrier is overblown, and that furthermore it is an meant to prevent terrorist infiltration which is presumably a good thing. Nishidani expressed the view that the separation wall has separated Palestinian towns from their farmland as part of a land grab to create "facts on the ground." Both views can be found in reliable sources - as the ICJ put it,

the contentions of Palestine and other participants that the construction of the wall is “an attempt to annex the territory contrary to international law” and “a violation of the legal principle prohibiting the acquisition of territory by the use of force” and that “the de facto annexation of land interferes with the territorial sovereignty and consequently with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination”. Israel, for its part, has argued that the wall’s sole purpose is to enable it effectively to combat terrorist attacks launched from the West Bank, and that Israel has repeatedly stated that the Barrier is a temporary measure.

The ICJ, of course, ultimately found that "the construction of the wall and its associated régime create a “fait accompli” on the ground that could well become permanent," and noted that "There have also been serious repercussions for agricultural production, and increasing difficulties for the population concerned regarding access to health services, educational establishments and primary sources of water." In other words, Nishidani's "soapboxing" is well supported by the highest-grade reliable sources available. I'm not sure that 6SJ7's views have the same weight of support, but that's fine. The issue here is that you consider Nishidani to be soapboxing disruptively, while 6SJ7s expressions of his views pass without comment.

I don't want to make assumptions about you personally, and your political views. But frankly, I suspect that you're personally accustomed to hearing views like "the wall is a land grab," "Arabs have a legitimate claim to a homeland in Eretz Israel," or even "some Arabs can rightfully be called 'Palestinians'" treated as extremist or discredited. However, this is a pretty big planet, and (as Israeli partisans never tire of reminding us) the world doesn't see eye-to-eye with the Israeli right on this stuff. None of those claims are considered extremist or even terribly controversial in the broader world. You're welcome to believe whatever you want, and personal POV is certainly no disqualifier from editing Misplaced Pages. But constantly objecting to expressions of the worldwide majority POV on Israeli-Palestinian issues is tiresome. <eleland/talkedits> 10:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)