Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:27, 25 January 2010

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:

		The Israeli Barnstar of National Merit
		Jaakobou, You have worked hard to attempt to improve wikipedia's Israel/Palestine related articles. You have made appropriate additions and changes, added sourced content, and dealt with the POV issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I believe you have at many times tried to promote improvement and NPOV in many wikipedia articles, and have greatly improved many articles. You have had to deal with some issues in the past, have faced at times controversial sanctioning, but when you were wrong, you have learned from your mistakes, and improved your editing, and since, you have become a very good editor. For all you have done, you have won my respect, and are in my opinion very deserving of this barnstar. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Yaakov Bodo

On September 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yaakov Bodo, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 17:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you

Thank you very much for the recognition. This is much appreciated. Jimmy1988 (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Gaza beach explosion (2006)

do you have time to add a short paragraph on the controversy over the Human rights Report to the Marc Garlasco page? It would be useful.Historicist (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Not today but I'll see if I can muster up some time to review the content. I do have some other things I was working on that might take presidency. Is there a discussion going on? Jaakobou 18:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Operation Defensive Shield

I have done more analysis on the edits on Operation Defensive Shield. I have explained things on my talkpage, and to User:Tiamut. Although my concerns on your side are smaller than on other sides. One specific concern: You reverted the IP's unexplained edit, and the IP re-reverted. When you then re-reverted, you started a 'discussion' on the talkpage (diff). Could you try and be more specific in the concerns you have with an edit, inform the editor you reverted on their talkpage where you stated your concerns and opened discussion (I know, you never know with IPs if the same editor will read them, but at least you tried), and maybe even do it after the first revert (though the second revert is not too bad). Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra 12:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take these notes to heart.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 18:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Landau and Haaretz

Thanks for looking it up. Frankly, after so much controvercy I need a couple of days to cool off. I will return to this point in couple of days. Thanks for your attempt to clear things out.--Rm125 (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Stern House

On September 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stern House, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈ Chamal  ¤ 09:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Stalemate on MaD

Done! I've eliminated some comments & questions that aren't especially important, and merged the rest. I was curious, on a personal level, if you've watched the 18 minutes of video released by France 2? ← George 09:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw something on youtube but I can't be certain that this is the original material one for one as there's no reliable source stating this. Will check the talkpage in a sec... Jaakobou 09:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Revert

Man, you need a new keyboard with a working spacebar! So regarding your points:

• Where in the second BBC source does it state that France 2 had a 45 minute of film? I read the source; as far as I can tell it says no such thing.
• Hmm, what second name of the documentary?
• Do you object to moving the (earlier) BBC report to before Rahma's sworn statement? It made sense to me, as that's the order they took place in chronologically.
• What do you object to about my rewrite of the sentence about his sworn statement?
• What do you object to about my rewrite of his statement in the German documentary?

Cheers. ← George 10:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I saw in your edit summary that "the '6minute' bit was noted on the second documentary". I haven't seen it, but the video of Schapira's interview with Rahma is in the first documentary. The original instance of the interview and statement should be used. ← George 10:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, and done. Btw, I don't check my Misplaced Pages email often, so if it's anything urgent feel free to message me on Misplaced Pages to check my email. Cheers. ← George 11:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Haven't gotten it yet. Btw, you haven't enabled to be contacted through it. Jaakobou 11:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, odd, dunno why it didn't go through yet. I've enabled email now anyways, so feel free to message me via that. ← George 11:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I got it. Check for my reply. Jaakobou 11:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, just saw your message. Who is Landes? Regardless, I looked at the link you sent. I essentially agree that the five possibilities listed are the five that I would list. However, this is Misplaced Pages, so not all viewpoints or theories get equal weight just because they exist. As that page itself suggests, we must weigh the different theories - not in terms of plausibility, but in terms of coverage by reliable sources. The five scenarios that page lists were not covered as equal theories. ← George 06:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Levy

that is your 3rd revert, 2 of which are reinserting what a good faith editor (me) has argued is a BLP violation without consensus that it is not. Consensus does not mean you and one other person. nableezy - 02:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hey mate i thought i recognized your username from somewhere, I remember you from deviantart you were one mouthy opinionated deviant :P (I left there since admins were allowing scum) Glad to see you here you have quite a portfolio too, see you aroundEli+ 20:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What source-based research looks like

In response to your unnecessarily aggressive message on my talk page, I suggest you take a look at this. If you rely on conspiracy theorist websites and videos then I'm afraid it's no wonder you appear to be misinformed about the facts of the case. Conspiracy theorists routinely lie, mislead and misrepresent; they use facts selectively and misleadingly to meet support their preconceived ideas about "the truth". Where facts don't exist, they invent them or rely on innuendo; where facts are unclear or ambiguous, they present them as being cast-iron truths with only one possible interpretation. They rely on misdirection, getting you to focus on small details while ignoring the big picture of how improbable their claims are. I suggest you have a look at this article from the Austin Chronicle, which you might find informative. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I still insist that you desist from using the intensified terminology you've recently adopted. Focus on content and not on name calling.

With respect. Jaakobou 02:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

In response to your request, I've posted an olive branch - see . I hope you will respond positively, so that we can all get back to doing more productive things. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little offended with the way your friends responded and need a couple hours to digest this proposal. I will probably agree to withdraw the case, just that I'm not in the right frame of mind and wouldn't want to close things while upset. One of the best advice I got in the day was a link to WP:NAM.

With respect, Jaakobou 11:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little offended with the way you responded, not least some of the claims you've made against me. But I suggest that we each put aside our mutual offendedness and move to a solution. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had a chance to both get some perspective on the case as well as get away from my obligations for a little bit. I will try to be more attentive to your concerns on the page and I'm certain that you will try to uphold your words in regards to the language used.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 11:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had enough, Jaakobou - I will not be responding to your comments on the article talk page in future. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Your revert

You recently reverted my changes to the sentence "According to Abu Rahma's initial sworn statement, he filmed the incident for 27 minutes, alleging that intentional Israeli shooting towards Mohammad al-Durrah and his father continued for a total of 45 minutes." Kindly rejoin the discussion here, and state your reasoning for supporting this version. ← George 01:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The In-Control Wikipedian Barnstar
		I hereby award this barnstar to Jaakobou for keeping cool and in-control while in a dispute. Kudos! BejinhanTalk 06:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Questionable removal

With this edit you removed links and in your edit summary wrote "rework, add a couple and remove one which doesn't belong to media coverage in any way." You removed the link to Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land, a documentary which, according to its article here is a "comparison of U.S. and international media coverage of the crisis in the Middle East." Will you please provide accurate edit summaries and, for now, self-revert this removal? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Heyo RomaC,

I just moved it a couple rows down.

Thanks for the note though. Jaakobou 15:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

for having chimed in at this discussion on the use of Arutz Sheva as a reliable source. I may not always like what they say, but I think its ridiculous to think that we can't cite to it as an RS.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Arafat's sexual orientation

I saw your comments on the Arafat discussion page concerning his sexual orientation and took notice on how the "thought police" immediately dismissed you and your sources out of hand. I added a section about the matter and made additional edits to other sections citing at least four credible sources (exclusive of yours). I was reverted three times by three different "editors" the last of which only used an IP address. All have refused to even discuss the matter, calling it "nonsense" and dismissing the sources as "garbage." I have since found this article Arafat Doctor: Let Us Know Why He Died that alleges he died of a "shameful disease." I see the relentless reverts as a case of "me thinks thou doth protest too much." What your take on it?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick look suggests that it should be toned down a little bit as a starting point. You can't add a source about what the PA does and combine the topic with Arafat unless it is combined in the same source. This is called synthesis and its a bit of promotional in tone. I'd suggest starting out by narrowing it down to a couple of sentences that are supported by multiple reliable sources or at least notable sources - if they are unreliable. I think this issue is notable, as just recently I've heard that his death is comemorated, among other things, by claims that "the Jews poisoned" him. There is room, IMHO to explore who says what and to write this as a short mini-paragraph into some folklore section or maybe a controversy section. Anyways, I'm babbling. I've yet to see the actual sources and it would be good to see if you can convince others on the page that it is a notable issue (Regardless of reliability).

Regards, Jaakobou 23:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jaakobou. An interesting discussion has developed here regarding Araft's sexual orientation and the reliability of Ion Mihai Pacepa's book, Red Horizons. Of particular interest is the comment made by Slp1 (talk). I think that based on his insight, the issue should be included in the article.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please Accept This Humble Apology

I thought that you had written that. My mistake.
--NBahn (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Right on time

A headline too dramatic, but the contents can be helpful. German documentary to debunk al-Dura shooting. Wanted to make sure you won't miss it. Maybe there will be more media coverage on that one. It might also be useful to check out German media. Best, --Sceptic from Ashdod 14:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool Cat barnstar?

I was looking through images of barnstars on Wikimedia commons, when I came across the "cool cat barnstar", uploaded by you. I searched for it on wikipedia, but there didn't seem to be any mentions of it. Could you explain what this barnstar is for? Brambleclawx 23:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would be good for use in the event of someone acting cool during a heated dispute. I initially added it to the barnstar page, but another editor argued that there are already enough barnstars for such an instance and I allowed the conversation to become stale due to other concerns of more pressing matter. I still think it should be noted on the barnstar page and wouldn't mind to leave such a comment if a conversation is made to this issue. On a side note, I wouldn't mind if the barnstar is used for other purposes as well. Contributions to movie animals is a suggestion that comes to mind.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 22:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Lost in translation - copy for you

I don't mean to get personal, but why is the word muqawama offensive (per this) to a Palesitnian who hears it used daily (on television, radio, etc.) by his own people in reference to their own goals and aspirations? I understand fromour past converssations that your Arabic is not very good, but it is a basic word for your people (attached sample video: The main Palestinian leader, Khaled Mashaal of Hamas, uses it 11 times in 5 minutes with the context of destroying Israel). To be honest, as much as I don't want to dissatisfy any editor on wikipedia, I can't avoid it since it is integral to the converstaion. I'll still make an effort though and try to not mention it where it doesn't belong.
Warm regards, Jaakobou 15:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC) more accurate 15:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Its the way you use the word that I find offensive, Jaakobou. You bring it up incessantly, even when it is not relevant to a given discussion. You also tend to use it derisively, as in this comment, where you write: "there's quite a lot of Muslims who are not stooges for the muqawama rhetorics." I'd appreciate it if you would heed my request, and not the use the word when it is not being used by sources we are discussing and when it is not related to article discussions. And my Arabic is fine by the way, certainly any difficulties I have with fusha do not impede my ability to understand what the word muqawama means. I think perhaps it is you that may not understand its broader meaning, limiting as you do to simply the destruction of Israel. Tiamut 15:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd never do something as silly as to limit it to Israel only, that would be quite silly of me when its clear -- even by the video example -- that it has a much wider meaning. I actually disagree with Israeli middle-east expert and journalist Ehud Yaary who limited it to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in one of his articles. Regardless, I'm not fully pleased with my use of the word 'stooges', I'll give you that, and I apologize for it and will make an effort not to use it again. Still, terrorists have used the "muqawama" as an excuse for constant warfare and there's really no way to work around that. You can't say that it is irrelevant if terrorist actions were inspired by "muqawama" rhetorics and iconography. That video of Khaled Mashaal makes it quite clear that the word (used 11 times in 5 minutes) has a deep significance to their rhetorics.

With respect, Jaakobou 16:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you for apologizing. However, my concerns about your limiting its meaning to something inherently and exclusively negative remain. For many people, "resistance" (muqawama) includes legitimate resistance in the form of non-violent actions or the targeting of military installations or personnel engaging in illegal occupation or aggressive/offensive actions. In any case, so as to avoid prolonging this discussion, which has nothing to do with article improvement, let me just say that while you are entitled to your opinion, I'd prefer if you would keep it to yourself when it is not related to article discussions. I'd also like to not hear you use the word muqawama unless it is discussed by sources that are relevant to the articles we are discussing. Thanks. Tiamut 16:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be limiting the word to usage in what is deemed legitimate protest in western cultures. That is, realistically speaking, a plainly false interpretation. Certainly, in my example video, Mashaal is not talking about holding up sings and chanting 'down with Israel'. I'm not going to go into your own offensive use of language (per 'legitimate'/'illegal') since we're trying to be able to collaborate despite opposing perspectives. I'll be sure to make an effort to use the term only when relevant to the discussed issues, that I can promise.

Regards, Jaakobou 16:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding me, and there is little point to continuing this conversation. Thank you for your time and your pledge to avoid using that word when unnecessary. Happy editing. Tiamut 17:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you purposely trying to provoke me? In this edit summary, you use the term "muqawama apologetics," presumably describing my edits which you reverted (including those not related to the "unrest"/"rioting" issue that you raised on talk). Why would you do that when we had an extensive discussion about the offensiveness of your liberal use of the word "muqawama" and you pledged, just above, to use the term only when relevant to the discussed issues? Could you please also self-revert, given that you reverted unrelated changes as well? Thanks. Tiamut 16:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed what seemed like it needed changing (you can bring it on the talkpage). It seemed, to be honest, like you were trying to provoke me to intervene by calling terrorist activities against Israelis 'unrest'. It doesn't get much more misleading/offensive than that.

p.s. my promise to make an effort with the term still stands but use of 'unrest' in reference to militancy makes it relevant.

With respect, Jaakobou 19:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I had already brought it up on the talk page before you made this comment and you still have not addressed me comments there in any substantive fashion. As I said to you in my lastest comment here, I'm not the one being provocative by using WP:WTA irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I also find your explanation for reuse of the word "muqawama" to be unconvincing. "Rioting" doesn't have much to do with "muqawama", per your rather narrow definition of it above. Please stop trying to offend/provoke me and try to focus on keeping your commentary confined to that relevant to article improvement. Tiamut 19:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The term means something different than you say and it would be good if you stop coming to my page to "explain" to me something that you, outwardly, don't understand. I happen to have researched this term and the definition is by no means a narrow one. Your claimed definition of legitimate protesting (above) is not only narrow but is dogmatic. Being provocative by repeatedly excusing violence against civilians as 'unrest' or other excuses (or by posting irrelevant wiki-policy links) is not productive in any means to this project. Attacking me for making you(?!) uncomfortable every time you come up with a unique (and faulty) interpretation for things within the Arab-Israeli conflict is just mind boggling. Please stop pushing the attacking Jews is legitimate "unrest" angle and then I won't feel provoked.

With respect, Jaakobou 21:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my edits, as anyone who reviews the diffs can see. I strongly suggest you strike the last sentence in your last comment. Nowhere have I ever said or implied that "attacking Jews is legitimate "unrest"". That is your own novel and incorrect interpretation of my edits and comments. Tiamut 22:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if playing the antisemitism card is grounds for a block but i do know it is serious slander. The above discussion concerns the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is weaselly to 1) selectively term only Israelis-as-victims suddenly as Jews; then 2) suggest another editor is pushing a position that "attacking Jews is legitimate". I won't abide the "Criticize Israel = Jew hater" technique, friend, and I assure you that there are many editors here who come from good Jewish homes and who regard such political playing of the antisemitism card as highly offensive. I have to second Tiamut's request that you strike your comment. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

AE comment

Would you care to strike out your comment about my edit to the Lieberman page being a violation of my topic ban as it has been demonstrated that it was not? nableezy - 17:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Nableezy,

You do have some point that you missed an official violation of the shortened sanction by 57 minutes. It still feels, however, as though you still misunderstand what the "sanction" is about and that you continue to violate its spirit. Being incivil to 4 different editors on the Israel talkpage, myself included, wasn't a good start and the revert to make Lieberman look like a radical left me with a feeling that you're not 'there' yet.

With respect, Jaakobou 17:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Your life, I gave you an opportunity to correct a blatant error. If you choose not to it only says more about you than it does about me. Bye, nableezy - 17:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And another

I hear you. I personally think it is a bad sign to make a revert like that within an hour of a ban being lifted. I'm assuming nothing will happen at AE. There is a possibility that there have been enough requests for enforcement to drive the point home.Cptnono (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:BAN

Please review that policy, including the section on editing on behalf of banned users and the section on enforcement by reverting edits. That you think it is appropriate to retain NoCal100's latest sock's cmts is noted, but policy explicitly disallows you from doing so. nableezy - 23:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Heyo Nableezy,

I don't have too much sympathy for banned editors, whoever they may be. However, I'm not sure where that link suggests that non-admins should remove banned editors' comments from talkpages. Could you please clarify where you're getting that from the policy?

Warm regards, Jaakobou 10:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw it as the principle on this. Maybe Nableezy should reconsider removing or striking out comments altogether. Make a note on the page "so and so are banned". Consensus is not a vote and it isn't like people can't read the comments through the strike through. Leave it alone.Cptnono (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy,

The principle here is treating even banned editors with dignity. The policy doesn't say what you claimed and, in fact, it says that your action -- regardless of community standing -- serves as a provocation. You should not be striking other people's comments.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 18:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It says Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. I did not even remove the comments, which I could have, I just struck them out. Please do not play these games with me, I do not have the patience. nableezy - 19:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best if you avoid removing comments. You've been recently under community scrutiny over such activity and it is best if you learn from your errors rather than repeat them.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 07:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring on my talk page

If I remove a comment from my talk page, it is because I do not chose to have it there. Please do not restore it. 17:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RolandR (talk • contribs)

Oh, I didn't edit war. There was an edit-conflict when I added something to my initial comment (see here:).

Cheers, Jaakobou 22:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I apologise for my accusation.RolandR (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)