| Revision as of 09:28, 4 July 2013 editNo More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,461 edits →Nonsensical sockpuppet edit being edit warred into the article without discussion or explanation← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:42, 4 July 2013 edit undoNishidani (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users99,504 edits →Nonsensical sockpuppet edit being edit warred into the article without discussion or explanationNext edit → | ||
| Line 141: | Line 141: | ||
| :::::As any twit can see, if he has the will to read, there is no POV pushing involved. That does not disculpate the sock's behaviour. But the edits flagged textual problems no one noticed, and, with my attention drawn to them, I emended according to simple commonsense. That is a completely different kettle of fish to what Brewcrewer or Marokwitz or others did, automatically restoring material without reading it (since they left in the egregious grammatical errors).] (]) 08:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | :::::As any twit can see, if he has the will to read, there is no POV pushing involved. That does not disculpate the sock's behaviour. But the edits flagged textual problems no one noticed, and, with my attention drawn to them, I emended according to simple commonsense. That is a completely different kettle of fish to what Brewcrewer or Marokwitz or others did, automatically restoring material without reading it (since they left in the egregious grammatical errors).] (]) 08:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::I stopped reading at the point you tried to make it seem pro-I socks are worse than pro-P socks. Was there anything important after that? I'm assuming it was more of the same soapboxing and trolling. ] (]) 09:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | :::::::I stopped reading at the point you tried to make it seem pro-I socks are worse than pro-P socks. Was there anything important after that? I'm assuming it was more of the same soapboxing and trolling. ] (]) 09:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::Stop the disruptive whining and whingeing about editors, which disturbs the talk page whose function is to resolve content differences. Make your report to AE, as promised for years.] (]) 11:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Let us clear the air here == | == Let us clear the air here == | ||
Revision as of 11:42, 4 July 2013
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Six-Day War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 | Six-Day War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Former good article nominee | |||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion met
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on June 5, 2004, June 5, 2005, June 5, 2006, June 5, 2011, and June 10, 2012. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Six-Day War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
I edited part of the section about the events leading to war
The article was missing an important confrontation that occurred on April 7, 1967 between Israel and Syria, so I added it. -- Wiki Khalil (talk) October 13 2012
Tractors, provocations in the DMZ
Ykantor. Looking at this edit I had the vague sense you might be conflating two distinct periods. The tractor episodes I always associate in my mind with the mid 1950s, not with the 1965-66 period. I checked Maoz, and what you cite on p.110 is correct, but that summarizes what he writes of more extensively on pp.102-104. On p.104 he writes:
While in the 1960s 'there is no evidence of a deliberate Israeli effort to encroach into the DMZs, the IDF did regard these areas as a Syrian soft spot and capitalized on this sensitivity to provoke a Syrian response. In this respect, Raban and Elazar emulated to a large extent Dayan's "deterioration" policy of late 1955.'
In other words, the tractor business relates to 1955 etc., whereas the Israeli provocations a decade later were of a different kind and order. To conflate these would be WP:OR.Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I appreciate that you check me, since it is important for me to be as reliable as possible. In this case, you can click the 1st source and read it yourself. It talks about the sixties, rather than the fifties. as I said. Ykantor (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I reciprocate your sentiment (though I try not to 'check' (i.e. create obstacles editors) while 'checking' edits). My point was Maoz is used to introduce Israeli provocations 1965-6, and this is then followed by details from Rabil (pp.19-16). Maoz's point was that the tractor business was, per Dayan, characteristic of the mid-fifties, (p.110) and says evidence for deliberate Israeli encroachment into the DMZ is lacking for the 1960s. Your second source Rabil mentions the tractor business, relates it first to the 50s, but then says two such incidents occurred in December 1962, and August 1963. That means (a) there is a source conflict between Maoz and Rabil on this detail over what actually took place and (b) Rabil cites two incidents in 62 and 63, two years before the 1965-6 period the text is discussing concerning Israeli provocations. My impression is that you cannot write of provocations for 1965-6 by illustrating it with details that in either Maoz or Rabil, took place in the mid fifties and perhaps 1962-3. It's called WP:OR. I appreciate that you can edit in material for both sides in a conflict,-this is rare. While I generally edit to ensure a proper representation of Palestinians and their history I am also under an obligation, as here, to ensure Israel is not misrepresented. Nishidani (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Zeev Maoz himself , in his book Paradoxes of War: On the Art of National Self Entrapment , Zeev Maoz - 1990, p. 124,125 talks about years 1964 to 1966.
- I reciprocate your sentiment (though I try not to 'check' (i.e. create obstacles editors) while 'checking' edits). My point was Maoz is used to introduce Israeli provocations 1965-6, and this is then followed by details from Rabil (pp.19-16). Maoz's point was that the tractor business was, per Dayan, characteristic of the mid-fifties, (p.110) and says evidence for deliberate Israeli encroachment into the DMZ is lacking for the 1960s. Your second source Rabil mentions the tractor business, relates it first to the 50s, but then says two such incidents occurred in December 1962, and August 1963. That means (a) there is a source conflict between Maoz and Rabil on this detail over what actually took place and (b) Rabil cites two incidents in 62 and 63, two years before the 1965-6 period the text is discussing concerning Israeli provocations. My impression is that you cannot write of provocations for 1965-6 by illustrating it with details that in either Maoz or Rabil, took place in the mid fifties and perhaps 1962-3. It's called WP:OR. I appreciate that you can edit in material for both sides in a conflict,-this is rare. While I generally edit to ensure a proper representation of Palestinians and their history I am also under an obligation, as here, to ensure Israel is not misrepresented. Nishidani (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Concerning edit for both side, it is OK in my opinion. Facts are facts, does not matter whether it present one of the sides in a good or bad light. We have to live with that. The problem arise when it is a conclusion or interpretation. e.g. who started the 1948 civil war ? In my opinion, the Arabs has started (although that was not their intention). I guess that in your opinion it was an escalation where it does not matter who shot first. you see, that is a problem.
- Generally speaking, what for we need all those wars? At the 1st reliable Census at 1922 , there were about 1.2 million people in Palestine. At 1947 the number had increased to 1.8 million . Nowadays, there are about 12 million between the sea and the Jordan, and the Negev (about half of the country) is still nearly empty. (numbers from my memory only). There is sufficient space for all of us. Could not we live together without those wars? I can understand an Arab person who says: this my country and the Jews are foreigners. On the other hand, Jews had nowhere to go ( That is a sad chapter in History), and Israel is the only place , Jews were dreaming about, during thousands of years. . Each side should have accept reality and give up some of it's dreams. Ykantor (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, but having a piece of land registered in your own name expropriated because your DNA is not the one apparently given to the Chosen People, and all their collateral descendents or people who can convert to Judaism, from India to Peru (Incas!) and Ethiopia, and Russian Eurasia(300,000 non Jewish Russians) according to hearsay some 3400 years ago, makes happy coexistence a pipedream, one even without the blessing of marijuana. I'm fine with one eretz Israel/Palestine, as long as civil property law is applied without distinction, impartially to everyone who's born there. That will happen in about 2050, barring a really catastrophic. Patience.
- To get back to the text. I don't think you construed my argument correctly. There is a contradiction in your edit caused by a conflict in the data in your two sources, which makes out that events related to 1955, 1962 and 1963 occurred in 1965, 1966. Have another look. Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- My writing "On the other hand, Jews had nowhere to go ( That is a sad chapter in History), and Israel is the only place , Jews were dreaming about, during thousands of years." is relevant to the period before 1948.
- Sorry,but I do not find any contradiction. The tractors provocations happens during roughly all the sixties ( there is no dealing with the fifties in this section). My 2 initial sources were Rabil and Murray & Viot.( and not Maoz). Rabil mentions the 2 incidents at 1962, 1963. Murray & Viot mentions vaguely the whole period between 1948 to 1967. Maoz talks about 1964 to 1966. None of them deny tractors incidents in other years. To my knowledge it happened all over the sixties.
- BTW, IT was not always Israel who provoked first (albeit with tractors). Rabil says (p. 15) "UN officialls found fault with the policies of both Israel and Syria and often accused the 2 countries of destabilizing the Israeli-Syrian borders. Rabil explains that internal Syrian considerations, were the motivation behind Syrian actions at the Israeli border. Ykantor (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I give up. I've done my best to preserve Israeli historical objectivity in the face of an edit which, in my view, gives an inappropriately anti-Israel slant by confusing dates and statements. I'm very particular about the logic and evidentiary basis of statements and I can tell you, the paragraph as constituted does not report what the sources say, but conflates them, and distorts the facts regarding Israel. I personally consider there's not a shadow of doubt Israel's behaviour at that time worked to provoke war, as so often, ('act crazy, and scare the Arabs' was the cabinet catchcry in the 1950s,'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother', Moshe Dayan) but that's not the point. The point is getting the order of facts and incidents correctly described per sources. I may be wrong. Plenty of people watch this page, and if they wish to reexamine this, they'll either confirm your impression, or back mine. Let's see.Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am sorry that I left such an impression (concerning the tractors provocations), since that really happened ( together with some "provocation" of Israeli boats in Tiberias lake that came close to the Syrian side and were shot by the Syrians.)
- Well, I give up. I've done my best to preserve Israeli historical objectivity in the face of an edit which, in my view, gives an inappropriately anti-Israel slant by confusing dates and statements. I'm very particular about the logic and evidentiary basis of statements and I can tell you, the paragraph as constituted does not report what the sources say, but conflates them, and distorts the facts regarding Israel. I personally consider there's not a shadow of doubt Israel's behaviour at that time worked to provoke war, as so often, ('act crazy, and scare the Arabs' was the cabinet catchcry in the 1950s,'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother', Moshe Dayan) but that's not the point. The point is getting the order of facts and incidents correctly described per sources. I may be wrong. Plenty of people watch this page, and if they wish to reexamine this, they'll either confirm your impression, or back mine. Let's see.Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- BTW, IT was not always Israel who provoked first (albeit with tractors). Rabil says (p. 15) "UN officialls found fault with the policies of both Israel and Syria and often accused the 2 countries of destabilizing the Israeli-Syrian borders. Rabil explains that internal Syrian considerations, were the motivation behind Syrian actions at the Israeli border. Ykantor (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- concerning your "Israel's behaviour at that time worked to provoke war" , it is not a black & white image but a gray one. e.g. About 10 days before the 6 days war started, Ben Gurion blamed Rabin, the chief of staff, that he caused the war , by heating up the Syrian border. The prime minister, Eshkol, was definitely against war, but he was a weak defense minister (too) that gave the army too much power. Most of the generals wanted a war, but in my opinion, Rabin himself did not want ( although he heated the Syrian border). The government and Rabin, remembered the 1956 war, in which the U.S have forced Israel to retreat. They realized that in a case of successful war, it might happen again, and if IDF will fail, then it could be the end of Israel (Unlike the Arab states, who can "afford" to fail). So, when the situation got worse (end of May 1967) Eshkol stopped the eager generals from stating the war, since he was afraid of the American response. Eventually the government decided for a war, only after the U.S. president Johnson, realized that the U.S cannot fulfill it's signed promise to open the Tiran straights. ( BTW Johnson was crossed when he learned that Israel attacked first, and put an embargo on arms supplies to Israel).
- It is difficult to believe , but the people in Israel where extremely worried before the war. People were very gloomy, some rich people left overseas, some U.S. / European relatives offered their Israeli family to send them the at least the kids. The Jewish Rabbi's has marked the edges of huge temporary cemeteries ( actually all the public parks were converted). Israeli farmers who happened to have an Arab worker, heard that those workers has already decided among themselves, who will "inherit" which farm. If you find it interesting, I have more to say. Ykantor (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
MiG-21 defection
I think in the section about Israeli preperation for the war there should be a mention about the 1966 defection of a Iraqi MiG-21. This has helped the Israeli find out about the weaknesses of this aircraft and has in large parts help the Israeli win the war.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/migtheft.html
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3405913,00.html
http://www.iaf.org.il/1478-23715-en/IAF.aspx
http://novatus.heck.in/israel-stealing-a-soviet-mig-21-fighter.xhtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.168.230 (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Recent edit and reversion.
- Please explain your rationale for censoring the perfectly accurate term "civilian". Also your attempt to include Israeli responsibilty for the war must be balanced by equally valid counter claims which can be sourced. I would expect a form of words to be negotiated which accepts that "blame" is far more subtle and must shared among all parties. Irondome (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- The cited source for this statement says: "By the fall of 1966 and spring of 1967, things seemed to be getting out of hand. Israeli-initiated encroachments into the demilitarized zones (DMZ) along the Syrian border became more frequent and intense. Israeli leaders made repeated statements to the effect that the Syrian regime was directly responsible for the border clashes and that Israel may act directly against the Syrian regime"
- Your edit deleted the reliably sourced information about the Israeli initiated encroachments into the DMZ and added unsourced information. Our WP:NPOV policy says we accurately reflect what has been written in RS, this is the basis for my edits. I would be interested to learn what is the basis for your edits. Dlv999 (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oddly, you fail to address your apparent suppression of the term "civilian" which you removed. What is the basis for this removal? I shall be using Oren, who is a perfectly RS. That is my source for civilian. I know you have issues with Oren, but still I shall use him and his original sources. RS are one thing, the choice of sources, thus reflecting POV, is quite another. The basis of my edits is to restore a level playing field based on, if necessary, reasoned, sustained discussion on the varying RS in terms of events and narrative which can be presented in this article. I would appreciate that you do not question my GOOD FAITH here. That is a ground rule if we are to continue. I am not disputing yours, rather your method of source selection based on many other factors, of which we are all to some extent "guilty" of. There is a difference. Irondome (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- In the field, there are differing opinions on whether Oren is RS. But perhaps we can close this with having both "civilian" and "israeli-initiated" in the text? --Dailycare (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- You added a claim without a source. Removing your unsourced claim is not "suppression". If you give a proper citation for the claim you will find it will not be removed. Oren's reliability has been disputed, but that is something we can discuss. If you add claims without citation they should be removed without discussion. I didn't question your good faith, I simply stated the facts that you deleted material sourced to academic citation and added unsourced claims. Whether you think you are doing the right thing (ie acting in good faith or not) is largely irrelevant at this stage. The point is your edit is inconsistent with core policy of the encyclopaedia. Dlv999 (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Very good. Irondome (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Anyway, why do you think they were civilians? Israel wouldn't send civilians into the DMZ knowing they would be shot at. Everyone knows the "farmers" were soldiers. This is well enough documented and I will add such documentation when I am not 10,000 km from my library, unless someone else does first. Zero 14:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Very good. Irondome (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oddly, you fail to address your apparent suppression of the term "civilian" which you removed. What is the basis for this removal? I shall be using Oren, who is a perfectly RS. That is my source for civilian. I know you have issues with Oren, but still I shall use him and his original sources. RS are one thing, the choice of sources, thus reflecting POV, is quite another. The basis of my edits is to restore a level playing field based on, if necessary, reasoned, sustained discussion on the varying RS in terms of events and narrative which can be presented in this article. I would appreciate that you do not question my GOOD FAITH here. That is a ground rule if we are to continue. I am not disputing yours, rather your method of source selection based on many other factors, of which we are all to some extent "guilty" of. There is a difference. Irondome (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Nonsensical sockpuppet edit being edit warred into the article without discussion or explanation
Could the two experienced editors who are meatpuppeting for banned user AHJ please explain why they are warring non-sensical material added by a banned user into this article?
...Egypt blocking the Straits of Tiran, deploying his troops near Israel's border,....
The addition doesn't make sense. Is Egypt a person? I take a very dim view of experienced editors warring banned editor's material into articles without even taking the most cursory evaluation of the material to asses its suitability for inclusion. Dlv999 (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- I second this request. (a)A precedent is being established that a repeat-offender/sockpuppet might now come in under a new name, make substantial edits that have the appearance of substance, with the assurance that, when caught out, his edits will be saved by other editors who share, if less egregiously, his POV.
- (b)It is possible that a sockpuppet's work might in theory contain useful material, that closely evaluated, could be redeployed. But, surely, to avoid the kind of meatpuppetry which occurred, this can only be allowed by reverting the material and transferring it to the talk page. There are several problematical things here, for editors who know the subject, rather than reflex sympathizing with one of the historical parties: changing 'Damascus' for Syria ostensibly to avoid reduplication is wrong, for example, because in the rhetoric of threats at the time. Damascus was identified as a specific target, not only broadly Syria, and the sockpuppet's edit blurred this distinction.Nishidani (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- So if I showed you directly restoring material introduced by a sockpuppet with an edit summary of "I'm not banned. The edits were reasonable, and one judges these on their merits" that would make you a...? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- That edit is also reverting an edit by a sockpuppet of a banned user. nableezy - 17:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'd really really like to see him say he knew that when he made his edit, but unfortunately I think we'll just be left with your attempt to... what exactly were you trying to achieve? Something honest and full of integrity, I'm sure. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just showing that your nonsense is just that. Nish, a bit of advice, just refuse to allow him to engage you on anything other than the content of an article. Dont respond, dont even acknowledge any comment that doesnt directly address the content of the article. I think youll find that certain people get their rocks off from wasting your time. Dont let them. nableezy - 18:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- No. The poor blighter has wasted years trying to document his ancient threat to mug up evidence I'm a Jew-intimidating, antisemitic editor that AE should permaban from wikipedia. He burns the midnight oil, pours over my edits as screened on his spread sheet, and ever time I edit, tries to find an incongruency. Well, for once, in all these years, he found a minor contradiction, more in nuance than anything. Even, (present company excepted) dickheads occasionally get things right. And the only honest thing to do, since there is an incongruency in my edit summary there, and my suggestion here, is to correct the dyscrasy. Of course, that he'll spend up large, shout chums champers at the bar or office and boast to anyone who will listen about the huge humiliation, after years he toiled to screw me, that he wrought on one, Nishidani, is no skin off my nose. People whose lives are passed in the dull nose-grind of tracking enemies of their favourite country deserve a light break now and then. He needs a small victory, esp. after that diehard à la Willis battle to defend a blatant sock went up in smoke. Never let pride or antipathy get in the way of the correct call.Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, the reason I noticed your edit is because of your friend Sean.hoyland. You see, Sean goes around telling any pro-Israel editor he sees restoring material added by a sock (which he and Nableezy obsessively remove even if it's constructive well sourced material) that they are dishonest or aiding dishonesty or whatever because socks are bad and we shouldn't help them. At first I believed him. Then I noticed he never says anything to you or Zero when you do it. Then you had the audacity to say that (only pro-Israel of course) editors are POV pushing meatpuppets for doing something you argue is fine when you do it, and as usual I was compelled to point out the intellectual dishonesty. That Nableezy tried to pretend it was ok because you were reverting a sock was just icing on the cake. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I didnt pretend about anything. Youre allowed to restore whatever edit you want to take responsibility for. His edit was okay for that reason. Now you can continue trying to waste peoples time, thats fine with me. But thats really all youre doing, isnt it? As I said, nonsense. nableezy - 06:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, the reason I noticed your edit is because of your friend Sean.hoyland. You see, Sean goes around telling any pro-Israel editor he sees restoring material added by a sock (which he and Nableezy obsessively remove even if it's constructive well sourced material) that they are dishonest or aiding dishonesty or whatever because socks are bad and we shouldn't help them. At first I believed him. Then I noticed he never says anything to you or Zero when you do it. Then you had the audacity to say that (only pro-Israel of course) editors are POV pushing meatpuppets for doing something you argue is fine when you do it, and as usual I was compelled to point out the intellectual dishonesty. That Nableezy tried to pretend it was ok because you were reverting a sock was just icing on the cake. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- No. The poor blighter has wasted years trying to document his ancient threat to mug up evidence I'm a Jew-intimidating, antisemitic editor that AE should permaban from wikipedia. He burns the midnight oil, pours over my edits as screened on his spread sheet, and ever time I edit, tries to find an incongruency. Well, for once, in all these years, he found a minor contradiction, more in nuance than anything. Even, (present company excepted) dickheads occasionally get things right. And the only honest thing to do, since there is an incongruency in my edit summary there, and my suggestion here, is to correct the dyscrasy. Of course, that he'll spend up large, shout chums champers at the bar or office and boast to anyone who will listen about the huge humiliation, after years he toiled to screw me, that he wrought on one, Nishidani, is no skin off my nose. People whose lives are passed in the dull nose-grind of tracking enemies of their favourite country deserve a light break now and then. He needs a small victory, esp. after that diehard à la Willis battle to defend a blatant sock went up in smoke. Never let pride or antipathy get in the way of the correct call.Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just showing that your nonsense is just that. Nish, a bit of advice, just refuse to allow him to engage you on anything other than the content of an article. Dont respond, dont even acknowledge any comment that doesnt directly address the content of the article. I think youll find that certain people get their rocks off from wasting your time. Dont let them. nableezy - 18:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'd really really like to see him say he knew that when he made his edit, but unfortunately I think we'll just be left with your attempt to... what exactly were you trying to achieve? Something honest and full of integrity, I'm sure. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- NMMGG. You reall should pull your socks up. This continual barrage about 'your friends', 'they' as if editors who oppose the constant intrusion of sockpuppets, and national meatpuppets were themselves some mirror version of the same faceless lot who every other week drift into the I/P area, is, apart from being absurd, boring.
- Just a lesson on language, to close. 'When he (Sean) sees you . . do it' (restore a sock's edits) he never says anything.' The 'When ..do' construction is frequentative, it means 'on every occasion' implying (a) Sean Hoyland watches every edit on every page that I (or Zero) make, and that (b) I am in the habit of restoring sock edits. If you have evidence that, other than the one instance you cite, I do this habitually, provide it. If you don't, shut up and take your fantasies to some audience that loves just-so stories, but, like you, rarely contributes productively to wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's a well known fact amongst wikipedia editors in this topic area that when you start with the English lessons, someone hit a nerve. FYI. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- That edit is also reverting an edit by a sockpuppet of a banned user. nableezy - 17:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- I should add that (a) no precedent should be made of this (b) the lead was strongly POV in Israel's favour before the sock added his note, and requires correction. Israel didn't win in 6 days. It won in 5 hours by preemptively striking three countries, and the C.I.A. two days earlier had informed the President that it would be a pushover. When you shoot first, it usually is.Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- For the record, my apparent meatpuppeting once for a sock amounts to this, on a page I look closely at, and where the only contribution NMMGG has made has been to remove the list of attacks made on Palestinians to a separate page, while retaining the list (it is a list) of every obscure Rabbi and politician who, on one of two occasions, made a public criticism of price tag vandalism or terror. I.e. he left the page devoid of its main content, while keeping in the 'Israeli reactions' section that is WP:Undue and intended to show how horrified the authorities are about what they never trouble to stop.
- You left out the context of my edit. User:Precision123, the kind of occasional drop-in POV editor (the low profile chaps who just turn up at 'the right time') just slips in now again in his rare editing to introduce irrelevant material on an I/P page and then quietly erases key RS material he dislikes i.e. a POV pusher. He began the push. One of the rare pro-Palestinian socks User:Upper lima 65 comes in to make several edits, mostly correcting for NPOV and spelling errors (reprehensible but not POV pushing). User:Beta Jones Mercury comes out of the woodwork, announced a sockpuppet was to be reverted, while patently being, as was proved almost immediately a sockpuppet, and joined another curious newbie (User:GoGoBot2, possibly a sock, certainly a POV-pusher, who reintroduces irrelevant material on spurious grounds. In their reverts none of these troubled to read the edits. Just like Brewcrewer here, they automatically revert, bringing back hopelessly stupid errors I didn't know until he was reverted that he was a sock. I followed the edits: He removed the following irrelevancies, corrected POV phrasing or poor English:
- (1)which does not ordinarily condemn attacks on Islamic sites by Muslims. (totally irrelevant material. I could stack the page with numerous cites of Rabbis cited for condemning one attack on a mosque, while they advocate, or their followers appear to engage in that activity, or they never protest against the weekly assaults on non-mosque property. I don't)
- (2)Zar explained (='gave the reason why'.POV) that this is a legitimate struggle = stated that these actions represent a legitimate struggle
- (3) radical right-winged Israeli activists = radical right-winged Israeli activists
- (4) inserted
- (5) the destruction of trees do not belong not in the same cateogry (sic) = the destruction of trees do not belong in the same cateogry (category).
- (6)The vast majority of Yesha rabbis and, according to Shin Bet officials, settlers reject it and/or have expressed their reservations of it = According to Harretz (sic), Shin Bet officials believe that the vast majority of settlers reject price tag attacks. (The article did not mention the Yesha. Improper attribution, since fixed)
- As any twit can see, if he has the will to read, there is no POV pushing involved. That does not disculpate the sock's behaviour. But the edits flagged textual problems no one noticed, and, with my attention drawn to them, I emended according to simple commonsense. That is a completely different kettle of fish to what Brewcrewer or Marokwitz or others did, automatically restoring material without reading it (since they left in the egregious grammatical errors).Nishidani (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I stopped reading at the point you tried to make it seem pro-I socks are worse than pro-P socks. Was there anything important after that? I'm assuming it was more of the same soapboxing and trolling. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- You left out the context of my edit. User:Precision123, the kind of occasional drop-in POV editor (the low profile chaps who just turn up at 'the right time') just slips in now again in his rare editing to introduce irrelevant material on an I/P page and then quietly erases key RS material he dislikes i.e. a POV pusher. He began the push. One of the rare pro-Palestinian socks User:Upper lima 65 comes in to make several edits, mostly correcting for NPOV and spelling errors (reprehensible but not POV pushing). User:Beta Jones Mercury comes out of the woodwork, announced a sockpuppet was to be reverted, while patently being, as was proved almost immediately a sockpuppet, and joined another curious newbie (User:GoGoBot2, possibly a sock, certainly a POV-pusher, who reintroduces irrelevant material on spurious grounds. In their reverts none of these troubled to read the edits. Just like Brewcrewer here, they automatically revert, bringing back hopelessly stupid errors I didn't know until he was reverted that he was a sock. I followed the edits: He removed the following irrelevancies, corrected POV phrasing or poor English:
- For the record, my apparent meatpuppeting once for a sock amounts to this, on a page I look closely at, and where the only contribution NMMGG has made has been to remove the list of attacks made on Palestinians to a separate page, while retaining the list (it is a list) of every obscure Rabbi and politician who, on one of two occasions, made a public criticism of price tag vandalism or terror. I.e. he left the page devoid of its main content, while keeping in the 'Israeli reactions' section that is WP:Undue and intended to show how horrified the authorities are about what they never trouble to stop.
- Stop the disruptive whining and whingeing about editors, which disturbs the talk page whose function is to resolve content differences. Make your report to AE, as promised for years.Nishidani (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- So if I showed you directly restoring material introduced by a sockpuppet with an edit summary of "I'm not banned. The edits were reasonable, and one judges these on their merits" that would make you a...? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Let us clear the air here
- Hello to all the regular Editors who have obviously worked for years on this excellent article.
I need to say a few things, as the posts on the previous section appear to be attacking me. I may be reading it incorrectly, but that is my impression at this point.
- I have never attempted to get involved with this area of WP, but I thought I would give it a shot, as I have an interest. A non-POV interest. Do not make too much of my username, although I do admire "weapons systems" that paradoxically are designed to kill no one.
- I sense that you appear to think that I am a "sockpuppet" or a "meatpuppet", whatever that actually is. (It conjures up unpleasant imagery). I am an Ed with about 13 months experience, and in my modest way, I have contributed to the project. I am still on a steep learning-curve re the technical side of WP, and I have difficulty in putting sources onto my mainspace Eds. I am actually oddly scared of doing it. However, my grasp of RS and other permissible or unpermissible usage of mainspace is rather good.
- I reverted an edit earlier which appeared to me to be -while well sourced- had no place in the lede, which should be as concise as possible. My logic was that the material is duplicated in the article main body, and it merely cluttered the lede. I therefore undid it, with a perfectly clear explaination in Ed reasons. If this edit somehow screwed something up, I apologise. Nor am I aware of the history of that materials' insertion and history. I only put T6DW on my watchlist 3 days ago, or just under that.
- It is small wonder that many Eds choose not to contribute to controversial subjects, including I/P and Falkland Islands dispute, not to mention India/Pakistan. I came here in good faith, and will continue to contribute according to the tips given me above in the previous topic. It will be based on reliable sources and a NPOV bias.
- Other purely article - related issues, including the "civilian" tag, can be discussed when I get my shit together and provide sources.
- I would like to contribute. I do not edit war. I actually "get" the project. At least 1 of my barnstars is cited to my "diplomacy". Thanks for reading. Cheers.Irondome (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- "The Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Political, Social, and ... - Google ספרים". Books.google.co.il. Retrieved 2013-05-13.
- Bar-On, Mordechai (2004). A Never-Ending Conflict: A Guide To Israeli Military History. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 181. ISBN 0275981584.
- Shlaim, Avi (2012). The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences. Cambridge University Press. p. 106. ISBN 9781107002364.
Nasser responded by taking three successive steps that made war virtually inevitable: he deployed his troops in Sinai near Israel's border on 14 May; expelled the UNEF from the Gaza Strip and Sinai on 19 May; and closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping on 22 May.
- Islamic Group Condemns Attack on Mosque, But A Double-Standard Emerges
- Former good article nominees
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Syria articles
- High-importance Syria articles
- WikiProject Syria articles
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- High-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- Top-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- B-Class Arab world articles
- High-importance Arab world articles
- WikiProject Arab world articles
- B-Class Jewish history-related articles
- Mid-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- B-Class Egypt articles
- Mid-importance Egypt articles
- WikiProject Egypt articles
- B-Class Jordan articles
- High-importance Jordan articles
- WikiProject Jordan articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles
- B-Class Lebanon articles
- Mid-importance Lebanon articles
- WikiProject Lebanon articles
- Selected anniversaries (June 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2006)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2011)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2012)