Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:12, 13 April 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:

Copyright problems with Image:Tunnels uncovered in Rafah.jpg

Image:Tunnels uncovered in Rafah.jpg

Regarding File:Tunnels uncovered in Rafah.jpg, it was removed due to copyright violation as a result of this. You'll have to request the owner of the image to release it under GFDL per Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Contributing#Copyrights. There used to be a way to submit a verified e-mail or correspondence (scanned) to a designated agent, where they would review it and accept the image based upon that, but it seems that it no longer exists. Hope this helps. seicer | talk | contribs 02:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Favor Regarding Second Intifada Article

Hi, Jaakobou. Sorry to ask this of you, but... A number of editors of the Second Intifada article are attempting to push the Palestinian POV by asserting that the Second Intifada was an "uprising" not only by name but also by nature. The discussion has been going here, here, and here. I appear to be the last hold-out against making this POV edit, and I could really use some help. Thanks. ← Michael Safyan 03:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously a problem, but I'm fairly certain that discussion with the usual suspects, recently working on a team mentality will do anything other than waste my time. I suggest you open the discussion to outside perspectives and follow dispute resolution process with less involved editors to give their input on the issue.

Feel free to notify me when a mediation of the sorts is open and I will try to leave a serious comment there.

Cheers. Jaakobou 14:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, can you respond to this RfC for me, please? Thanks. ← Michael Safyan 22:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Tibetan thanka

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:17th century Central Tibeten thanka of Guhyasamaja Akshobhyavajra, Rubin Museum of Art2.png, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 09:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Mockery

I asked you last week to remove your "joke" regarding Tiamut's notice above and you deleted my comment. I informed you at the time I would take it further, but as I wished to avoid confrontation I delayed doing so in hopes you would do the right thing and take it down yourself. Since you've declined to do so, I have made good on my word and taken this up at AN/I. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the boxes from your user and talk pages because it's obvious that you're poking Tiamut with a stick here. Not only is it disgraceful disparagement of another user, but you have already been approached regarding this and decided to shake it off. Before continuing on, please consider whether any comments or actions you make will be working towards or against a healthy and productive colloborative environment. If the answer isn't the right one, don't click "Save page" and move on. east.718 at 17:18, March 14, 2008

east718,

I was quite sad with my upcoming exams and that I wouldn't be able to edit Misplaced Pages, and Tiamut's box gave me inspiration for describing my feelings. Both Gatoclass and Nishidani have a history of trolling around me looking to make a fuss and unless Tiamut complains to me personaly, I can't take these derogatory personal attack "complaints" from two editors who soapbox against Israel frequently and also tried to reduce the death toll of the 1929 Hebron Massacre as anything but trolling. With all due respect, I'm reverting your removal back until such time as Tiamut comes to me and makes the request that I change my page for her. Jaakobou 18:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not restore the contentious bit again, or the consequences will be severe. Thanks. El_C 19:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, even though Tiamut has not addressed me and Gatoclass made his own assumption -- that my user-box offended her -- without being approached by her also. I take this comment to apologize to Tiamut who may have been offended by my use part of her phrasing to her time off wikipedia.

I've rephrased the text and removed the word 'mourning' which I'm sure was the reason Gatoclass took offense. Jaakobou 19:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Last chance. Anything up there even remotely resembling the notice it is copied from, will earn you a significant block. And I'm off to note it on the arbitration enforcement broad. In case you haven't noticed (and inexpl;icably, it appears you haven't), we are taking a very tough stand against bood blood at the Israeli-Palestinian disputes, in all areas. Thanks again. El_C 19:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi, Jaakobou and I have been chatting about this. I've just become aware of the problem. He's shown me a draft that looks unobjectionable. The basic idea of a notice about exam delays is a pretty standard thing and the image is really something special: he put huge amounts of time into restoring it and getting it featured. I had taken a stab on restoration of that photograph before he tried it and his crop is brilliant. There were some subtle problems at high resolution, particularly with the faces, and he actually stitched together two different archival files to make this work. He has every reason to be proud of the result. The word choice was an afterthought and not well chosen, I agree. Let's do our best to create a more positive atmosphere--there's a whole lot more to this site than the Israeli-Palestinian disputes and Jaakobou's been doing quite well at broadening his horizons lately. With respect toward all concerned, Durova 20:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What? I'm not following that. Again, anything that will even remotely resemble in appearance the notice which was originally copied, will be viewed most severely. El_C 20:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Even after the offending words are removed? Really, that's carrying things a bit far. We're talking about a simple exams notice that posts an editor's recently featured picture. Jaakobou has accommodated feedback and offered an apology. What would be the basis for objection--the shade of the border color? If somebody tried to block him for that I'd post the unblock request myself. If there's something I'm not understanding, please explain. Durova 20:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not going far. It should not resemble to the original notice, because it comes across as mocking it, by placing the mourning of people on par with Exams. That I need to explain something that obvious, is, not a good sign. El_C 20:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If I had been aware of the notice before he posted it I would have advised him to leave out those words, which of course were in very poor taste. The userbox format itself is standard and unremarkable. All the same, I've asked him to change it. Maybe if you had seen the background on that photo restoration you'd view this from a different perspective: there really were many days of back and forth, interim feedback versions, etc. It was a labor of love. And Jaakobou did some fine work with the Tibetan thangka also, which passed WP:FPC last night. It's been a positive experience and a good branching out--a way to unwrap from engagement in the Israeli-Palestinian disputes. I trust that the image and his university obligations were the main focus of the notice, and the sarcasm was a hasty afterthought. It isn't easy to broaden editing horizons and contribute featured content after arbitration. I think it would be appropriate to accept his apology in good faith, rather than taking the hardline approach. Durova 21:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I, as an uninvolved admin, am following up a notice on the administrators' noticeboard — one which I have since archived and branched off to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Obviously, continuing to restore a similarly-formatted notice works against any such apology, whatever it may be. El_C 21:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To the extent that I could be called anything other than neutral, it's that I helped raise Palestinian costumes to good article and restored two historic photographs of Palestinian culture to featured pictures (Image:Coffeepalestine1.jpg and Image:Bedouinwomanb.jpg). El C, in light of your avowal of uninvolvement, do you have any comment about the following edits? Durova 23:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at this time, no. El_C 23:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just seeing this for the very first time now. I'm not sure how to express my feelings. Anger and disgust come to mind. I would say disappointment, but given Jaakobou's editing history here, and his tendency towards tendentious editing and commentary, I'm rather unsuprised. I'm sorry Jaakobou, but you have totally squandered my personal trust and at this stage, I'm not ready to forgive and forget, particularly since you seem to be downplaying how insensitive your mock-up was.

I should note that I posted the original notice on 2 March to notify people of why I had been absent and that I wouldn't be responding to inquiries here. When I returned on 4 March to make a few edits, I changed the notice to reflect that, and also modified it to include Israel to because of the killings at the Yeshiva. It was then I noticed that Jaakobou had left this message on my talk page on March 3, alerting me to his having re-opened a dormant discussion at Palestinian fedayeen and asking me to join the discussion there. I thought at that time that it was little insensitive for him to do that, but decided it would be better to assume good faith (i.e. assume that he didn't see the original notice or didn't understand that it meant I would not be editing).

In this context, to see what he did after that is really very offensive to me. I also find Durova's excuse-making for his behaviour to be somewhat inappropriate. Mentoring doesn't mean becoming an editor's advocate when he does something that is clearly wrong. The caption he placed under the picture shows he wasn't interested in highlighting the work he did on the picture, but was rather exploiting the opportunity to take a stab at the format of the template I created. I support El C's calls for some kind of sanction here. His attacks on Gatoclass and Nishidani when they raised the subject with him politely and his "apology", lacking in seriousness above only compound the initial wrongs further. They are indicative of the juvenile and offensive behaviour regularly engaged in by this user who is the constant subject (and source) of complaints. Indeed, his actions at Palestinian fedayeen months ago were what prompted the Arbcomm to be opened in the first place and he was lucky to evade a topic ban or block then. I'm sorry if this statement is harsh, but I really am disgusted. The death of any human being is simply not something to be mocked. Tiamut 02:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, I am very sorry to have contributed to your grief. It's easy to lose perspective when communicating over the Internet. We don't see human faces, or hear each other's voices, and sometimes something that seems minor or an afterthought to the person who posts it really doesn't look minor to other people. When I step back I realize what I posted was really out of line, and it was in an ambiguous context that made it look worse. It was one of those what were you thinking? lapses where I don't know which is worse: explaining or not explaining. So if you really don't want to know then you can decide whether to accept my regrets without reading any further. If you do want to know, here goes: I'm a student behind on my sleep, and I was proud of getting my first featured picture, and I wanted to go and focus on my upcoming exams and let people know about those two things. And (probably because I'm young and sleep deprived) I made a lapse of judgment using a userbox I should never have used. My stupid action gave off a similar line to I've mourned too and nobody holds my hand, which isn't a very good place to be coming from, but it's the kind of ill-considered afterthought that tired young people sometimes post on the Internet and was never my intent. I'm not excusing it, But I hope it helps somewhat to know that it wasn't done maliciously. I'm sorry; it won't happen again. Jaakobou 11:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I accept your apology. I do ask that you honestly reflect upon any (sub)conscious underlying hostility you may hold towards me and work to keep such feelings in check in the future. I say this partly because it should not have taken a week and the input of multiple editors for you to have realized that you were wrong, and partly because this is not the first time I have felt singled out by you. It is nevertheless big of you to admit your mistake. Thanks. Tiamut 18:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the memory lapse, but when (other than now) have exactly made you feel singled out? Jaakobou 19:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well as per this section on your talk page stemming from these sections at Talk:Palestinian people#Communal editing and Talk:Palestinian people#Communal editing, 2nd try. Do you need other examples? Tiamut 21:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize that you felt singled out by my mis-phrased comment to Nishidani, but it was you who made the revert on my edit and therefore, I requested content based replies (not derogatory insinuations) from editors interested in resolving the dispute, not from editors (Nishidani) interested solely in advocacy for their own perspective.

I hope this explains that situation, are there any others that we need to get out of the way to start a new? Jaakobou 21:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s. since you brought it up, I felt you were very insensitive at the time to Nishidani's attacks on my people. Jaakobou 21:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, the issue was not that response to Nishidani alone. It was how you twice created a section entitled "Communal editing" beginning with my name in bold to discuss edits. It's not as though I was not discussing with you. I was, extensively, throughout. I encourage you to reflect on your approach there and your single-minded focus on my feedback when other editors were also interested and readily available to explain why the edit was appropriate. As for Nishidani's comments about your people, I'm not sure what you are referring to exactly. I don't recall anything strange about his comments, but if I missed something and that offended you, I'm sorry too. Please, all I'm asking is for you to reflect upon how your behaviour might be interpreted negatively by others or be coming from a place unrelated to or incompatible with the building of a healthy, collaborative working environment. And I will try to too. Okay? Tiamut 22:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we're using this opportunity to clear things up. I only bolden editor's names because it helps the legibility and helps sorting out who said what and to whom; I do this with everyone and hope you have no reservations from me continuing on doing so; it's certainly not intended to "single people out" and helps me follow the large number of conversations I get involved in.

With respect, Jaakobou 22:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, you have not taken my advice

Jaakobou, your comment here is one long rant that that leads me to believe that you are incapable of engaging in self-reflection on how to create a healthier working environment at I-P articles. It's not only one large soapboxing rant (e.g The Arab world, Islam inspired cultural structure is the main cause of the Arab-Palestinian 91 year racist terror campaign against the Jewish-Palestinians), it's also littered with bad faith assumptions and thinly veiled personal attacks (e.g. If you want to mention the Palestinian narratives for why "it's ok" to kill innocent pizza eating Jews (and Arabs)... Please stop making vitriolic comments about your fellow editors. If I see one more such comment, I'll be taking you to WP:AE to call for a topic-ban to be instituted, since it seems you lack the ability to discuss topics related to the I-P conflict in way that is respectful of the views of others which impedes the efforts of others towards article improvement and conflict resolution. Tiamut 15:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut,

This is a clear case of the pot and the kettle and seems like a blatant threat to silence any pro-Israel perspective; A collaborative environment is one that includes both perspectives and does not silence a mainstream perspective in favor for the militant victim-hood narrative.

You're being extremely insensitive to people who lost friends and family to these terrorist attacks by "collaboratively" requesting the "NPOV" word 'struggle' be used to describe attacks on civilians (both Jews ands Arabs); and collaborative atmosphere requires the end to the de-legitimization of Israeli civilian (Jewish, Arab and other) soapboxing.

Also, Nickhh made a personal attack on me, both changing the meaning of my words and taking a shot at my alleged lack of knowledge and in response I suggested to give him citation examples.

Your quotes here are also taken out of proper context as they were themselves in response to soapboxing.

Collaborative efforts are at the top of my priorities, but this does not mean that the Israeli perspective is to be eliminated from the conversation for the sake of 'peace/victory'. Jaakobou 16:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC) toning down phrasing. Jaakobou 16:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have taken this issue to WP:AE. In your response above, you continue to make bad faith accusations that have no basis in reality. My proposed edits to Second Intifada are based on a discussion of the reliable sources and WP:NPOV. I have taken great pains to make sure that both Israeli and Palestinian POVs are represented. It is not "extremely insensitive" of me to suggest that we replace the word "war" with the word " struggle" to describe how Palestinians perceive the Second Intifada, nor does it mean that I am in any way attempting to de-legitimize Israeli civilian deaths. It is quite clear to me that you are unable to assume good faith and edit collaboratively with those who don't share your views since you base your "analysis" of my edits and proposals not on their merit (or lack thereof), but rather on my identity as a Palestinian woman. Enough is enough. Tiamut 16:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume good faith, but also see that you've missed the problem. Jaakobou 16:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My response to your comments on my talk page is here and it responds to your comment above as well. WP:AGF does have a limit Jaakobou and unfortunately, for the time being, you have squandered mine. Tiamut 19:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not kid anyone, you've not applied AGF ever since I requested you stop POVing the Palestinian Fedayeen article and you ignored my talk page concerns. Jaakobou 19:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? Is that what you think? Well, you're entitled to your opinion Jaakobou. Tiamut 19:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a denial. Jaakobou 19:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point. Tiamut 19:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, you don't see anything other than your own POV and bad faith assumptions when someone disagrees with them. Jaakobou 19:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I meant but thanks for assuming bad faith. I meant that there is no point since my interactions with you from that time up until this week have been largely pleasant and polite from my end, as evidenced throughout your talk page. I also doubt very much that you would believe me if I denied that, since it seems that you are still upset about my reporting you to WP:ANI for your disruptive mass blankings there, even as I repeatedly attempted to respond to the concerns you raised on talk. You also continue to ignore that it was your actions there that were in fact the problem, likely because the Arbcomm did nothing to sanction you for that and the other complaints raised against you there there, preferring instead to give a broad general warning to everyone. That's what I mean by there is no point. Tiamut 20:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You've responded to nothing, dismissing my POV concerns, continued editing and tried to have me blocked. Just as you are doing now. Jaakobou 21:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s. at the time, ANI/ARBCOM should have sanctioned you for WP:OWN and ignoring talk page. Jaakobou 21:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I can understand how you might have come to perceive the situation that way, but I don't think that's an accurate description. I have always responded to your posts and I have held off editing pages to respond to the concerns of both you and other editors (most recently, holding off making a change to the lead of Second Intifada for three months). I have only reported you to WP:ANI once before for mass reversions at Palestinian fedayeen where I noticed that the relevant discussion has since been archived. As you can see there, I spent ample time responding to your concerns, just as a I have at Second Intifada. I understand that because you have not always been successful in making the changes you would have liked to see made that you would feel as though my responses were not responsive. But I should note that both 3Os you opened counselled against the changes you were trying to introduce too, so it's not just me who was "unresponsive". Again, I hope that whatever happens as a result of this latest incident that you will try to engage in some self-reflection of your own and think about the comments other editors and admins are making and ask yourself (as should we all) if what you are writing helps or hinders the project. Thanks. Tiamut 22:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've yet to make official complains about our recent discourse and I felt you were trying to work with me after (not before) the Arbcom was over. If you wish for me to resolve things collaboratively, you'll stop trying to ban people with opposing views and work within the dispute resolution process.

p.s. I did not feel that your "struggle" and "new" version suggestions were by any means helpful, let alone all the commentaries by your fellow 'uprising' supporters. Jaakobou 22:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

7-day ban from Israel-Palestine related pages

Jaakobou, your recent talk page conduct has been disruptive. In accordance with the discretionary sanctions, you are banned for 7 days from Israel-Palestine related pages. Addhoc (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made a retraction request on your page being that,

1. you are an involved admin that should not take discretionary sanctions on this case, and that
2. I've not been given the chance to post my full response to the situation.

With respect, Jaakobou 14:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I agree with Addhoc here. If we go with such a strict definition of uninvolved administrator we'd have no admins left to enforce anything. A week off from this set of articles is reasonable. Moreschi (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

With a few days having passed and in light of this latest arbitration enforcement effort, I hope both you and Durova take note that, notwithstanding my early closing of the last thread, I remain vehemently opposed to the unfounded, careless claim by both of you that I'm an involved admin. I'll continue to act as an uninvolved admin in this area, without restriction. El_C 11:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

El_C,

1. It is my belief that creating political Israel-Palestine related articles (even if by translation), to be a sign of involvement enough so that admin/editor who does this should not insist he is uninvolved.
2. That said, it's not intended as a knock on any supposed bias, but rather the impropriety of the appearance of a possible COI.
3. Regardless, getting accustomed to numerous wiki-admins ignoring the concept of "appearance of possible impropriety", refusing to take a step back as if that's a direct knock on their integrity, I'll continue contributing quality material in hope to one day see abusive anti-Israel soapboxing editors get some attention rather than mostly, the people who have the displeasure to repeatedly face their advocacy/personal attacks. This is a personal feeling -- rather than a statistics -- based on all the stones I've had to swallow along the way, keeping civil and avoiding advocacy as much as possible regardless.
4. On a personal note, I'm clearly not the person to enforce your involvement/uninvolvement on Israel-Palestinian related conflicts and I can't see the point of this statement of yours other than to say "In Your Face!".

Anyways, I hope there's no more hard feelings -- about my general appearance of belief regarding wikipedia admins; and wish you to have a great weekend, Jaakobou 18:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The definition given is "an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict". Translating isn't participating in a content dispute. PhilKnight (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What can I say? I see you try to disqualify the next admin trying to attend to arbitration enforcement with you, in a wholly unrelated case, the very next day? I don't do In Your Faces, but it seems like a good time as any to bring it up (I am sorry you can't see any other point to this).

I think both sides have often been able to keep articles in perpetual dispute by rules lawyering and taking an overly formalist approach:

1. Myself, creating a central page and an article to help an arbitration enforcement case I'm actively dealing with, is one example.

2. Claiming Addhoc is involved for adding a few refs is a more extreme, blatant example. And it works to the detriment of the project.

3. Almost all key editors in both the Israeli and Palestinian side see me as neutral, which is why I'm confident in taking non-robot solutions.

4. I'm just about the only admin enforcing this area who knows my way around, yet is not affiliated with either group.

So, I think it's shortsighted on the part of both of you to try and discard me like that (the offense was rather extreme in nature, and before I showed up you ignored others who tried to explain it to you, including one admin — it seems like it took a stern warning from me for you to finally grasp it). I have no hard feeling towards you, at least, but I do feel like you were treating myself (and others before my arrival) unfairly. El_C 19:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

El_C, you've missed my two points entirely. To clarify,

1. Main point: "appearance of possible impropriety" is not meant to knock on any admin's bias/quality and it's certainly not an insult/unfair treatment - there's plenty of court cases where Judges recuse from cases for the off chance of that appearance. Best I'm aware this is called "appearance ethics" under law. Since wiki doesn't share my concerns regarding editorial belief in the system, I am forced to accept it and leave it be. However, this doesn't change my perspective on what would be basis for more proper/ethical bureaucracy.
2. Secondary point: I've been forced to swallow some pretty big stones (sample); and there's a need for abusive anti-Israel soapboxing editors to get some attention rather than mostly, the people who have the displeasure to repeatedly face their advocacy/personal attacks.
3. Side point, recently anti-Israel editors have taken the custom of ownership and gaming (on Israeli-Palestinian conflict for example) and also the handing out of barstars for abusive behavior; First Tiamut hands out barnstars to both Eleland and Nishidani immediately after making very blatant insults at me, and now Tiamut is receiving this "insult-barnstar" (notice direct knock at IronDuke's "favouritve lady") from NSH001.

p.s. I don't feel wikipedia is handling my efforts -- to remain civil despite barrages of personal attacks and avoidance from responding to soapboxing -- fairly either, and these warped "group presentations" by COI editors (who repeatedly promote each other's poor conduct) are just a sad, and very common display. Jaakobou 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to address the specifics at this time, but to respond to the broader "under law" argument: thankfully, Misplaced Pages is not court of law, where letter of the law technicalities supersede its spirit and substance (i.e. actual fairness and evenhandedness). El_C 19:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's culture is based around the spirit of rules, and your approach is to defend your actions in a formal legalistic manner. Generally speaking, if you are banned or blocked, launching into attacks of your opponents, and indicating how they have insulted you to justify your conduct, is a bad move. It just gives the impression that if the block or ban is undone, then your troublesome conduct is going to continue. Also, reminding editors that you have done work on featured images doesn't counter balance holding a grudge against the editors on the other side of this dispute. If you have problems with specific editors, then try to provide diffs. I appreciate that in some cases of a low level of incivility over a long period this isn't always easy. However, you should emphasize that, in general, you are prepared to assume good faith to editors on the other side of this dispute. In particular, you should avoid statements which imply that you can no longer extend good faith to any editors on the opposite side. In situations where the behavior of specific editors is problematic, you should emphasize a willingness to resolve the problem though user conduct dispute resolution. A productive course of action is to acknowledge that your conduct wasn't perfect, and to emphasize that you want to establish consensus on how articles can be improved. For example, if you had politely requested to be allowed to participate in the informal mediation case, that would have been reasonable. PhilKnight (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-18 Second Intifada

Just notifying you, that as you have been involved in the discussion regarding the Second Intifada article, which is now the subject of a MedCab case, I'm notifying you of this as you may wish to partake in this case to discuss a resolution to this dispute. Feel free to leave a comment on my talk page. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD

No, it's an AfD for multiple articles, but one has to be listed as the first/main one, and that just happens to be Hatuel (she was the first one I came across when I was going through various categories to add stuff to the Category:Years in Israel categories. пﮟოьεԻ 57 00:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Latrell Sprewell

Sorry, didn't mean to revert your edit on that page. I was actually restoring the original version before the anons messed it up. Feel free to restore your information if you want, but I just figured that the original sentence should be kept as well. Bash Kash (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

user page mess

{{helpme}}

I have a small template to link to my featured contribution but in the past couple days the (3) stars+links suddenly became huge without any change in my own code... probably a more global code change.

I could use a bit of help on fixing the issue. Jaakobou 19:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you wanted to profile them a bit more, here it is. Mion (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Fixed it for you. The Helpful One 19:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

for the barnstar! --The Helpful One 19:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Israeli-Palestine

Regardless of whether or not your information is true or false, the fact of the matter is, there has been no consensus on this point. Given the severe disputes with this article, this is how the process is going to work. There has already been one resolved content dispute using this (User:Michael Safyan's) method. See Talk:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#Consensus. Until there has been a similar agreement at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#Consensus 2, i'm afraid the edit you are trying to make cannot be undertaken. In fact, as a result of your actions, you have broken 3RR, and I've actually gone ahead and asked to have the page protected again. Furthermore, stop with the wikilawyering nonsense. Repeating capitalized abbreviations ad nauseum does nothing to help your argument, and only irritates other editors. Thanks a lot. Suicup (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Both sides should provide a timeline: I would like to see a chronology for this passage. From what I can see, every week or two, a revert war breaks over it, then subsides for a week or two, and so on. I would like to see views from both sides on how it started, however. At a glance, it looks like just something where negative energy finds an outlet (a compromise passage does not appear that out of reach). Thx. El_C 19:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know how to make a compromise with someone who insists 'Land of Israel' never existed outside the bible even when presented with coins and stamps that have 'Eretz Israel' written on them. Go over the talk page evidence by Jaakobou and Itzse and let me know. Jaakobou 02:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a lot of material to go through, that's why I would like a summary. Michael Safyan has told me "no one here has the time or patience" to provide me with one. Hopefully, others will opt for a more helpful attitude. Otherwise, either and/or both sides may find that arbitration enforcement in this article can turn rather arbitrary, fast. I am not prepared to allow that revert war to go on, indefinitely. El_C 07:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Land of Israel moves

With respect to moving Land of Israel to Land of Israel, Bible yesterday, and seeing how this follows your Feb. move of it to The Promised Land (Eretz Yisrael), I ask that you seek a more detail move discussion in the future prior to implementing the move singlehandedly. ‎Thanks. El_C 19:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, I'll try to remember it if/when discussions on the article's talk page go on poorly. Jaakobou 02:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dave Brown's Goya Ariel Sharon.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Dave Brown's Goya Ariel Sharon.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Seraphimblade 23:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Re

If you're prepared to document the claim that I "repeatedly misquote HRW pieces," do so. If you're not, withdraw it. I'm serious here, Jaakobou. I'm not going to tolerate this kind of mudslinging, which you constantly use to obfuscate and distract from issues. Coming off a weeklong topic ban with this kind of dubious accusation is hardly going to encourage admins to tolerate continued disruption. <eleland/talkedits> 04:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I currently don't intend to file anything. However, there was no mistake in both my comment that this is not a first incident (Talal, Sharon), and also in this being another clear incident where you misrepresented a HRW source. Correcting editor's repeated errors (such as this incident) is not disruptive to the project, to the contrary even. Jaakobou 06:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I just noticed your comment that you accuse me of making a "lamebrained attempt to portray every Arab in the Jenin region as a terrorist." , this comment is a not in the least bit amusing personal attack. Jaakobou 06:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Your vague reference "Talal, Sharon" is completely worthless, as is your reference to this latest "incident," since I never claimed that the given HRW source quoted the IDF spokesperson's office. That is your personal misreading of my comments. Again, I am not going to let you get away with vague accusations about my "misrepresentations." If you have something specific, provide it. If you do not, withdraw the accusation. I am not going to allow you to continue editing tendentiously and use unfounded accusations against other editors as a smoke-screen for it. <eleland/talkedits> 07:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) pps; Jaakobou, claiming Jenin = terror seemed to be the only purpose of your remark. I provided a reference whereby Palestinian Red Crescent Society medics from the Jenin area were quoted saying something; you countered with a reference that said nothing about PRCS, but simply that Jenin was known as the "Martyrs' Capital" among Palestinians, as if that invalidated the PRCS testimony. Otherwise, what was the point of that link? You can't go around making outrageous insinuations, then act affronted and cite WP:NPA when you're called on them. <eleland/talkedits> 07:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Both your use of source and your response were improper. End of story. Jaakobou 07:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE

I've ratted on you here. Cheers and good luck, pedro gonnet - talk - 28.03.2008 07:53

A suggestion

Why don't you try to avoid reverts and edit wars all together ? I think you will find your ability to edit wikipedia improving if you will avoid such conflicts. If they revert you - let it be so somene else will jump in if your edit is justified or will not if it is not. edit war will not get you far. and FYI: Zeq (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with how you perceive the BLP violation situation. My ability to edit wikipedia will improve once a few problematic tag-team editors will be recognized as such and their communal activity will be dealt with under the new arbcom final decisions.

btw 1, I fail to see the relevance of the FYI link.

btw 2, thank you for trying to advise me on how to work better on wiki.

cheers, Jaakobou 09:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not refering at all to BLP or any specific article or preceived violation. What I suggested is that you write any addition to any wikipedai article witha goal in mind that it will not be reverted. Write it NPOV. Write it from both side of the argument. If you do a really good job and someone revert you - at that point "the law" is on your side. Zeq (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did and your comment implied otherwise. Jaakobou 15:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No. It is your understanding of my comment. I did not imply since I was making a general suggestion and you responded for a specific case I was not even familiar with. take it easy. Zeq (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just almost blocked for an "edit warring" accusation. Hence, your timing of the general note that I should avoid edit warring was a bit 'poop'. I don't have an edit war problem and I do make an effort to write with neutrality in full consideration. Have a groovy week. Jaakobou 20:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. sorry for my bad timimg as I was not refering to any specific edit. I just saw the discussion with El C and made a geral comment to you about how can edits be better. I also asked El C not to apply admin power as he might be imvolved. He erfused and plaese now see this: User_talk:PhilKnight#El_C. Have a great week as well. Zeq (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP

I'll gladly take a look on the talk page and offer my adivce/opinions. We might not have seen eye to eye with everything, but I certainly appreciate your opinion - you certainly have clue. I hope that maybe we can put our past differences of opinion behind us.

On a side note - I see you've been making some excellent featured contributions. It's great to see and they're certainly great for the project. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks

An editor has nominated Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Time discrepancy

{{helpme}} issue resolved. Jaakobou 12:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed a time discrepancy between the dates presented on my user page and my talk page (scroll to top). Any suggestions on fixing the issue? Jaakobou 12:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Signatures on talk pages are always in UTC, while the clock on your user page appears to be set to UTC+4 (Israeli time?) You can't change the time zone of your signatures, since we all need to be on the same page when it comes to time. You can change the time zone of your clock to UTC, or you could have two clocks, one for UTC and one for local time. <eleland/talkedits> 12:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

nvm <eleland/talkedits> 12:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Purging the cache of the page fixes it. see WP:PURGE. i'll stop bugging you now. <eleland/talkedits> 12:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the right linkage. Jaakobou 12:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Blisodot-logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Blisodot-logo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fixed now. Jaakobou 18:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Saeb-erekat.jpg

An image on a page you are involved in editing, Image:Saeb-erekat.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. If you have obtained proper permission to use the image then it should be forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume you left me a message re: Pallywood?

Please look at the source again. Someone has been inserting the word "pro-Israel" all over that page, and trying to bias it. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Npov#Fairness_of_tone strongly discourages randomly inserting words like that, or tagging "conservative" all over the page. I don't disagree with all of your edits but I do ask that you come to the talk page and list what you want to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maha Pizza (talk • contribs) 13:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Me and ChrisO have a mild understanding that we're at a disagreement on article philosophy (I'm more of an inclusion-ist, he's more of a deletion-ist) but we're not really fighting hard over it, mostly since the article is somewhat reasonable (last time I checked) even if it's missing a lot of less mainstream (and poorly sourced) material.

Currently, I'm not highly involved on Pallywood, mostly because I am preoccupied with a few other troublesome articles/situations (some of them more active, some less) - you can probably notice the "Unresolved scraps: Pallywood intro" part where I've decided that it's not worth the trouble as long as there's not enough sources to support my stance and it comes down to two different philosophies with pro's and con's on each.

On topic, there's nothing wrong with the words "conservative" (unless maybe if you're a liberal) and with "pro-Israel" either (I don't care much for the watch-dogs descriptive). We can't deny that the vast majority of sources that use the term are indeed in the conservative/pro-Israel camp. However, if you think something violates WP:WEASEL due to over-emphasis, make note of it and follow WP:DR while attempting to make a difference.

Hope that helps some - feel free to catch me again, Jaakobou 14:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I would describe myself as being more of an immediatist, with a large element of precisionism. But I'd just like to say, Jaakobou, that I very much appreciate the calm and cooperative way that you've been approaching this article lately. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, my pleasure. Any chance you'll find some time to get around to my 'footnote' request or should I have a go at it -- and probably get a customary revert from one of my many pals? Jaakobou 20:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm not entirely clear what you mean on the article talk page. Could you clarify for me what it is that you're asking me to do? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, me and the third editor (forgot who it was) were interested in some clarification/wikilink from the "we've seen pictures of a fake burial ceremony" to either a small paragraph mentioning the IDF Drone or an article about it. I figure it's notable enough and that wikipedia readers would be interested in more information on the subject once the man mentions this. We've had a 3O suggestion on how to do this and I was hoping that you will make some attempt at inserting some type of reference.

Hope that clears it up, Jaakobou 20:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I see what you meant on the quotation, as I had been following a different link. I have gone back to the article and looked over the parts to remove where I feel NPOV and WEASEL were violated in trying to "hammer" what are used as vitriolic words in many circles.

I have a complaint with ChrisO in that I feel he is very close to deliberately misconstruing the policies he is quoting at me. In addition, he has been just undoing whatever I did without reading the edits, which means he removed an extremely solid (CNN Transcript) source I had added to the Johnny Sutton article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maha Pizza (talk • contribs) 22:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, for the page, Is this what you were looking for on the palestinian fake funeral? It is currently linked from Battle of Jenin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maha Pizza (talk • contribs) 22:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Saeb Erekat. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this note. Regardless of what I believe to be a WP:DISRUPT situation, I have no intention on edit warring and have opened a WP:MEDCAB case -- 2008-04-08_Saeb_Erekat -- which will, hopefully, resolve the conflict on this article.

Cheers, Jaakobou 14:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

How's this mediation going? Durova 18:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 13 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bli Sodot, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats! --Gatoclass (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Durova 18:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Good page, Jaakobou. Well done.Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou There's a problem with the sentence:

The show's hosts Hani Nachmias, Oshik Levi, Natan Natanzon, and Hanan Goldblat, and several other actors who'd participated on the show such as Shula Hen, Ofra Haza, Galia Isay, and Mati Sari.' A verb is lacking

If only the first four were hosts, then write. 'The show's hosts were Hani, Nachmias, Oshik Levi, Natan Natanzon, and Hanan Goldblatt. Several other actors also participated in/appeared(regularly) on/ the program, such as (better most notably) Shula Hen, Ofra Haza, Galia isay, and Mati Sari'

If all were hosts then, something like. 'The show's hosts were...and several other actors.'

'who'd' is colloquial and should not be used in formal articles.Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)