Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:30, 16 March 2011

Archives (Index)

1 2

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Thread at WT:DYK

Following the incident over the civilian casualty ratio article, I have started a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know#Gaming problem in the DYK of civilian casualty ratio. To be clear, this discussion is not intended to seek your sanctioning, though I do believe you should be sanctioned. The purpose of the discussion is to protect the integrity of the DYK process, the quality of main page content, and the reputations of DYK contributors. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, you are certainly welcome and entitled to do so. EdChem (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Under remedy 1 of Palestine-Israel articles arbitration request, I have, on my own discretion placed the following editing restriction on you, as also seen at Requests/Enforcment of restriction edit.

• Jalapenos do exist is restricted to one revert per 24 hours, on any edit concerning Israel or Israelis, Palestine or Palestinians, or the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed, so long as that edit is within article space.
• Reverts of clear vandalism is or problematic material on biographies of living people are exempted from this restriction as usual.
• This restriction is to run for 3 months.

This restriction will be logged momentarily, and you have the usual options for dispute and appeal.--Tznkai (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For fixing English in my new article. If I write another one, could I contact you for fixing it too? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In principle yes, but I can't commit in advance. I'm trying to spend less time on Misplaced Pages and more time on real life. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and you might want to consider submitting this one for DYK while there's still time. My impression is that it needs more work, e.g. more details in the description section and an explanation of the process by which it became a big hit in the reception section. But I'm saying this without having checked what additional information exists in reliable sources. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I did submit it to DYK, but my personal hound user:unomi once again is trolling on the nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Civilian_casualty_ratio#Individual_cases_for_lead

Interested in your opinion. Roscelese (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI

. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clearing that up. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for When We Die As Martyrs

On 3 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article When We Die As Martyrs, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the song "When We Die As Martyrs" is performed by the Arab children's choir Birds of Paradise? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) 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.

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I need your advice please

Hi Jalapenos do exist, last time you helped me big with When we die as martyrs. Now I wrote another article. Could you please take a look at it, think about a new name, and help me out with this. Maybe you could include a piece about rats from here. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, well there should definitely be an article Conspiracy theories involving Israel. Academics have written a lot about this topic. That article should include both a discussion on the topic as a whole and a list of individual theories. Some of those theories should have stand-alone articles as well, depending on individual notability. I think that the vulture incident is notable enough for a stand-alone article, in fact I was planning to write that article myself. The shark theory, if I remember correctly, was discussed by the community and it was decided to keep it as part of the article on the actual incident. As for your article combining the vulture incident and the shark theory, I realize that discussions of the former in reliable sources consistently mention the latter, but I don't think that's a strong enough reason to combine two and only two separate incidents in the same article. The idea of having an article about "conspiracy theories involving Israeli use of animals" as a sub-topic of Conspiracy theories involving Israel seems promising. I think I remember seeing discussions of this as a distinct sub-topic. This may be kind of what you had in mind. But I think that that article would be sufficiently different from the article you recently wrote that it would be better to just start over than to carry out a massive expansion. So, bottom line, if you want to write an article on the vulture incident specifically and/or an article on conspiracy theories involving Israeli use of animals generally, I would probably be able to help with that. I hope I've answered your questions. Congratulations on the DYK of the last article, by the way. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and last night I moved the article to Conspiracy theories involving Israel, and I added a piece about flight 990 conspiracy theory to it. I am only not sure, if there should be an article about all conspiracy theories involving Israel or only the ones about animals to start with. I wrote an article about vulture and shark together because absolutely every source put those two together. I also wrote this article because the subject was really funny. When I've heard about poor bird I could not stop laughing, and wanted to share my laugh with wikipedia's readers. Writing the article that you are suggesting would be hard for me. It is way too big of the task. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Itamar attack for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Itamar attack is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Itamar attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Strikerforce (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The article has been nominated for a mention in the ITN section.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, a number of your recent file uploads, such as File:Itamar attack 11.jpg, have been missing information regarding their copyright status. Please note that Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously and that the copyright status of all media files uploaded to Misplaced Pages must be verifiable by others. If you have questions regarding copyright on Misplaced Pages, they can be raised at the copyright question page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the technical copyright status of the images. What I know is that the individuals who released the images onto the internet gave full permission to reproduce them, according to a public statement by a public figure. I recorded the details on the upload form. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the images in the interests of the victims' dignity. Shame on you for uploading them - it was a gross failure of judgment on your part. -- Y not? 04:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not censored, and in any case the family of the victims released the images and gave full permission to reproduce them. (Did you not read the recorded information, or do you presume that your personal opinion regarding the victims' dignity trumps that of their family?) Please restore the images immediately, in accordance with the stated positions of user:cptnono, user:NortyNort and me, and please refrain in the future from unilaterally deleting images for reasons that do not accord with Wikpedia policy. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Jalapenos do exist, uploading images to wikipedia is a complicated process. In order the images to be uploaded they should be released with a free license, and it should be proven. The best way of doing this is uploading the images to flickr, where it is easy to specify the license or, the copyright holders of the images should email to permissions on Commons to confirm the release of the images. If you have contact with the copyright holder, please email them and explain how to proceed. Please ask me questions, if you need some help. Could you please provide the link to the image you uploaded? I'd like to take a look what it says about the license. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mbz1. The info is all on the talk page of Itamar attack. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK

Hi. I've nominated Itamar attack, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Misplaced Pages:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. BabbaQ (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC) --BabbaQ (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

AE case

. Gatoclass (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright

In this edit you've lifted content word-for-word from this source. The phrases "calling it despicable, immoral and inhuman", "where mosques used sermons pre-approved and disseminated by the government", and "called for a joint Israeli-Palestinian-American committee to look into claims of incitement in Palestinian schools" are all copy-pastes. I've no objections if you want to re-write the content (I've cut it down considerably in the meantime), but please take care to put things in your own words. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if your insinuation of copyright violation weren't ludicrous, it still wouldn't explain how your removal of most of the content, as opposed to changing the wording, could be considered good for the article. Please self-revert your deletion, and, in the future, try to gain consensus for your contentious edits through civil participation on the article's talk page and not by tossing around empty accusations. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Our copyright policy supports the immediate removal of copyright violations. There is no obligation to re-write the material. This seems to be a recurring issue with your edits (see another removal here). You can continue with the faux outrage all you like, but the fact is that you're lifting the work of others and that's one of the fastest ways to a block on this project. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning: Arab-Israeli conflict

Hello, as a result of the recent request for arbitration enforcement concerning you, in view of Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, I am warning you not to misrepresent sources when contributing content to Misplaced Pages. Articles must represent what the cited sources say, not what you believe what the sources mean. See, in particular, WP:V and WP:NOR. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)