Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:49, 8 January 2013

Welcome!

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Mor2! Thank you for your contributions. I am Shrike and I have been editing Misplaced Pages for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Misplaced Pages:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

curious about an edit

Hi Mor2 - could you please explain your rationale behind this edit? It concerns me for a number of reasons.

First off - disconcertingly - it seems to add material that is not in the cited source. You added the phrase "according to Palestinian sources," but the Reuters article that the sentence used as a source doesn't say 'according to Palestinian sources, civilian houses were hit.' The cited Reuters article just says 'dozens of houses and apartment blocks' were among the 'targets hit so far.' Your edit appears to be trying to push a particular point of view by inappropriately disclaiming well-cited information.

Second off: your edit also seems to misconstrue what WP:SYNTHESIS is. I see nothing inappropriately synthetic in the sentence as it stood before you edited it. The sentence did not inappropriately join statements made in multiple reliable sources to advance a novel argument, which is what WP:SYNTHESIS requires.

I know these edits are a few days old, but I have similar concerns about some of your more recent edits as well, this was just the first one to jump out at me as being really confusing. Would you mind explaining both why you added "according to Palestinian sources" and what exactly you saw as violating WP:SYNTHESIS in the way the sentence originally stood? Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The sentence merged several sources into one. Taking the IDF "number of attacks"(it's actually number of targets, thus number of attacks can be much higher) from the first, using types of attack from the second(with some additions) and adding the list of what was hit from the third(presumably only by IDF). Merged together it implied that the IDF lunched attacks against civilian targets, which was not in the sources(there is a war crime size difference between lunch and hit). To avoid confusion I separated it into two parts according to IDF and Palestinian accounts, this way we see the IDF stated list of targets and what was actually hit.--Mor2 (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I can see why you felt that the sentence as it stood was weird (especially the point that the number of attacks could be very different than the number of targets,) but I'm still concerned about your phrasing choice. Reuters isn't a Palestinian source, and didn't caveat their statement (that dozens of houses and apartment blocks were hit) with any phrasing like 'according to Palestinian sources.' When we're dealing with facts as reported in reliable sources, it is not customary for Wikipedians to use our own original phrasing to disclaim information - especially in controversial areas, because even if it is not your intent it can give the impression that the intent is to artificially lessen the impact of the statement or to introduce doubt of its veracity. (There's a policy page about this somewhere, but I cannot remember its link offhand.) If you agree with me, would you mind rewriting the passage? It should be possible to come up with a version that both doesn't have problems with conflating sources that are talking about different things and also doesn't have the same sort of original phrasing issues. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I certainly don't see how this lessens the impact of the statement one bit. On the contrary, houses can be used as command center or for storage, the whole point is that civilian targets have been hit as well, which is exactly what is being discussed in the article later on. Also I don't see how this introduce doubt of its veracity. It simply separates the IDF and the Palestinian statements. If you can phrase it better go ahead. --109.186.17.8 (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you the same user as Mor2? If so, I'd suggest you log in to make all of your edits (or alternately make all of your edits from an IP.) It's generally considered problematic to be editing the same topic area from two different user accounts at the same time, or from a user account and an IP at the same time. This is especially true when you're editing in a controversial subject area, like stuff about Israel and Palestine tend to be.

Anyway, I do still see significant problems with the sentence - particularly the fact that it introduces information to the sentence that is simply not present in the source. I'll rewrite it shortly in a way that conforms to what the actual sources say. In the future, please try not to add information to articles that is not supported by sources. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

yeah it was me(long story short, all those autosave features corrupt our memory). Sorry I missed your edit, its hard to keep track without being logged in. As for the sentence if your concern is really with sources, then you can easily google one or just look in our article sources(iirc it was in one of the casualties sources I edited before), after all the lead suppose to provide a summary of the article not just random sourced text.--Mor2 (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625, Mor2!

Misplaced Pages editor Skrelk just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Great start to this article!

To reply, leave a comment on Skrelk's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

UNSCR 242 Major edit

Mor2 You have made major changes to the 242 article scraping sections that have been stable for a very long time after considerable controversy. Please may I revert them and then we can discuss and agree changes on the article's talk page. Steve157 (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 January 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

State of Palestine

Unless you'd like to be blocked for violating 1RR, I recommend that you self-revert your latest edit to the article. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 05:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I looked at my latest edit on the article and I agree it is an unintentional violation of WP:1RR on my part. Due to only 22 hours passing since my last edit rather than 24. However, at this point, 24 hours have past and thus I see no point in self-reverting/reinstating, to avoid a technicality, cluttering the history. More importantly as I noted on Night w, talk page, this is not part of an edit war, at least not one initiated by me, which started with Japinderum revert of several edits/sourced material. Due to a discussion "we" was supposedly having about it.--Mor2 (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Suit yourself. See WP:ANEW#User:Mor2 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ). — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 05:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Please self revert or you will be blocked that pretty clear cut case.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for self-reverting. Please keep in mind that it doesn't matter who "initiated" the edit war. Also, remember that 1RR is a limitation, not a license to perform a reversion every 24 hours. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 06:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Its also not traps for the unwary, if I had noticed that the previous day edit had 2 hours overlap with today edit, we wouldn't be having this conversation.--Mor2 (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, --WGFinley (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Operation Pillar of Defense

Is under a 1RR restriction, please self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)