Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:51, 27 April 2009

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)

Note regarding Arbcom evidence

Hi Jaakobou.

Among the many falsehoods you state here, "User:MeteorMaker then falsely claimed that their sanction was removed" was the one you could have avoided the easiest with basic fact checking. I give you two options: strike that accusation immediately, or add clarification where in the diff you provided you see that.

MeteorMaker (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Heyo MeteorMaker,

I'm thinking that the text doesn't require further clarification at this point in time. I'd offer some advice but I'm feeling that, presently, we're not on good enough terms that you'd consider my notes in good faith.

p.s. I've taken the liberty of rephrasing the thread's title as it seemed a bit counter-productive.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 14:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation that you have asserted the false information deliberately. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Avigdor Lieberman

I explained my changes on the talk page as you requested. Repeatedly blanket reverting a series of changes without contributing anything to the discussion is disruptive.

As for your assertion that the "virulent racist" quote violates BLP, it does not because the allegations are sourced and represent a majority view.

Factsontheground (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Factsontheground,

Sourcing of a commentary doesn't automatically mean that it's use in a biography doesn't violate WP:BLP. Many figures in history had someone say something ridiculous/cruel/incorrect about them but it doesn't mean that we're going to have these quotes in the lead. Please review the actual text of the BLP policy.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 04:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Pedrito

Hi, Jaakobou. You may not have known this, but Pedrito switched his username due to personal information release fears. Please see WP:ANI#WP:OUTING. Perhaps yo did not mean it, but in the future, it would be better to send such information to arbcom via e-mail as opposed to publicly on wiki. -- Avi (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea. Will avoid using his past username in the future.

p.s. there's a few dead links lying around, I'm not sure if something should be done about them.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 17:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for compromise

So… I had an idea (or rather, cribbed an idea from Nishidani). What if, instead of topic-banning some of the most useful, articulate, and involved editors in the IP area (on both sides) for a year, you all got together and worked on Judea, Samaria, and Judea and Samaria with the goal of promoting them into GA status in two months’ time? That way (and given the relatively public nature of the arb case), there would hopefully be wide-ranging and neutral community input – sort of an RfC on steroids. If you all did not succeed, it would be back to the arb case (which would be placed on hiatus pending the outcome). The arbs (some of them anyway) seem to be saying you all can’t work together. I don’t think that’s true, and I also think that to the extent it is true, the possibility of avoiding more unpleasantness in this arb case might lead to extra flexibility and reasonableness. In the interest of full disclosure: I don’t particularly care at all how the ultimate content issue falls out -- Judea, Samaria, West Bank, Elbonia, whatever: I’d just like to avoid a mass-banning that would have a seriously deleterious effect on IP articles. What say? (If you wish to reply, you may do so here) IronDuke 02:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Arbitrator questions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Workshop

Kirill has asked some questions here. You are invited to respond. --Tznkai (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an eye on it and possibly add something if I feel I can move the discussion forward.

Thanks for the notice, Jaakobou 16:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well done.

I'm impressed with the calmness and civility which you show in this discussion (wherever it was copied from?) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Jaakobou 15:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I beg your pardon

I shall promptly correctly myself on Eleland's Talk Page.
--NBahn (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Your Valued picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for valued picture status, File:DannyMagen.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Misplaced Pages:Valued picture candidates. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talk 15:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

lead edit

I would ask that you discuss your changes and get consensus for edits made to the lead before you make them. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Nableezy,

There's lack of consensus about the addition of the "massacre" title which is in violation of NPOV (not to mention that it promotes a blood libel). My edit was an attempt at compromise, giving room to your preferred with-"massacre" text but allowing a note about the evoking antisemitic motifs. If you're interested, an intermediate version would be one which does not include either text, not the one that keeps only the material you felt was relevant. I'd like to note that using Twinkle in content disputes is frowned upon as are blind reverts and ignoring the perspectives and notes (as well as reliable sources) of fellow editors.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 22:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

didnt know about twinkle, next time just use undo. My point about getting consensus before is that the lead has in the past been at the heart of some heated edit wars, and i would prefer that we stay away from this. I obviously disagree with you, i said why on the article talk. So would you mind if I put in a sourced statement that 'cast lead' has produced charges of an inhumane ambivalence to the killings of over 1000 people? Nableezy (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

and saying one or the other is not going to cut it, we have had a stable lead for going on 3 months now. Nableezy (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Casualty figures and generic charges of notability should indeed be quickly and conservatively noted on the lead. The blood libel motifs should not stand alone though and we should discuss a consensus version without the hypocritical massacre charges sticking out, breaking any semblance of neutrality. Anyways, we'll resume this discussion tomorrow probably - on the article's talk page. Meantime, I urge you to review the source for the "part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" text which I've changed. The source was not saying that and my rephrase was (a) fixing the error, and (b) closer to the source content.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 22:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Help on reading if a RfC has consensus

I'm contacting yourself and some other uninvolved editors to see if you would be willng to read through an RfC at the Article Rescue Squad. It will be far from the most glamourous use of your time but it will help us see if we have reached a decision on this issue. I think the discussion has died down and concensus has been reached but another user has posited I'm misreading this. For the moment I've left my comments in the "Motion to close" and collapsed template in place but if others agree there is no consensus I'm fine removing or reworking them. The discussion itself isn't too brutal and the comments have stayed reasonably well organized so it shouldn't take long. Please read the RfC and discussion and offer your take in the "Motion to close" section. Thank you! -- Banjeboi 13:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a look-see. Jaakobou 14:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

resolved?

nothing was resolved there, and I would appreciate you leaving that decision to somebody completely uninvolved. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It felt as though the discussion has taken it's course but if others felt like it hasn't then I have no objection to it being continued. Anyways, I'm not at all involved in the raised issue and I'm certainly less involved than some of the others who participated.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 14:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian revolving door policy

Hey Jaak, I noticed you did lots of work on terms, slogans, neologisms, etc. in the I-P area. I was wondering if you can take a look at the above-linked article. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I worked on it some. Wasn't sure if it should have stayed as a stand-alone, but a review on the foreign interest in it convinced me that it probably should.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 08:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC) clarify 08:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks much better now. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)