Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ramallite (talk | contribs) at 04:32, 22 December 2005 (Response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome, and good link

Hi Heptor!: Though we have been arguing, I see that no one has welcomed you to WIkipedia yet, so I will now. So, Welcome! Someone less lazy than me can put up a box of helpful links here. Good link you put up at the 48 war page, I'm reading it now; the 48 war page should use stuff from it. Hope you read my comments at the AI page. I agree that there should be something that should be in the place of "fought to destroy" similar to earlier versions, but I've just been trying to find something well-source that would fit both your and Brian's objections, have ironclad indisputable sourcing and merge well into the article - I think my latest try is good. Again, hope you have a good time here, and keep up the good work. John Z 16:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't want to loose it, so I added it to Wiki instead of favs :-) I think your last version is good one in the respect that it tells what happened: Arab coalition's intention was indeed to establish one state in Palestine. This plan would naturally involve removing Israel, and this should be written more clearly. I start to believe that we agree on the factual matter. How about 'The Arab states proclaimed their aim to remove the Israeli state and create a "United State of Palestine"'? BTW, what is the AI page?--Heptor 22:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Amusing about the link - me too, partly I write on Misplaced Pages for myself so I don't forget stuff later or have it lost in my bookmarks. Like I said, I am lazy, so I only wrote AI page instead of Arab-Israeli conflict. I wrote it that clumsy way because I wanted to stay close enough to the diplomatese in the cablegram, and not put words in their mouth. I am putting it up at Wikisource and will put in a link, look for it in a day or two. It's written in a very wordy way, and most of it is their view of the history of the conflict. They don't say "remove the Israeli state" or anything exactly similar, but very obviously imply it; the link I gave has much, but not all of the relevant parts. Maybe you, me and Brian should look at it once its done and we can agree on wording.John Z 14:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. BTW, sorry I reverted your edits in the beginning. The revert was targeted at Brian and his edits. The entire set of edits made article hostile to Israel, underplaying the fact that Israel was forced into this war out of self-defence. I actually agree with Brian that "invaded Palestine" sounds silly. First, because them entering the region was not the cause of war by itself, then because Jordan itself was located on what was the British mandate of Palestine (map). Should be "entered Palestine to destroy the Jewish state". --Heptor 17:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages

I see you are a fairly new editor, and seem knowledgeable about the situation in Israel; I thought you might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Territories under Israeli control. Jayjg 15:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Warning! Watch out for the 3 revert rule!

Re the Mufti quote. Kriegman 16:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt

Since you stated in your vote that user Radiant's opinons matters highly to you, and in case you are not monitoring the vote as closely as I am (being the nomiantor at all), I thought I'd let you know that Radiant has changed his vote to neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to review the new comments. Would you consider removing the # symbol from your vote, so it wouldn't affect the numbering (and thus counting)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Somebody already considered that for me :) --Heptor 21:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

1948 War

What do you think of Ian's recent addition to the Great uprising section. As always Ian has adaquately sourced all the controversial passages he has included. However, I still feel that much of it is inappropriate, I understand that it is reflecting the arab point of view but still referring to the war as "The Catastrophe" is ridiculous? What do you think about all this?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually I consider the entire page a case of selective anti-Israeli propaganda. It is dominated by one-sided sourcing and wording. I believe an appropriate action will be to put up an extensive POV-because tag, with an adequate explanation on the talk page. Please see my draft. This is just a draft, feel free to expand and improve. I would like to know what other people feel about adding such tag before editing it further.

--Heptor 22:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

When I think over it, one could present the case to the arbitration comitee. It would be also possible to present Zero's abuse of his adminitration priviliges under WP:PPol#How, point 2, and repeated violations of Misplaced Pages:Civility. Anyway, I believe there should be a POV tag as well.

--Heptor 00:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

take a look at the Palestinian exodus page. I am amzed that a person that edits with such lack of civility (like Zero) is an admin. Zeq 16:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Unfortunatly I have to be away from Misplaced Pages for a while. I reviewed the discussion on Palestinian exodus. Just the same pattern repeating itself: Ian and Zero do extensive research materials unfavourable to Israel, add this information to Misplaced Pages and then prevent everyone else from adding more neutral sources or modifying the wording of the article.

As they clearly devote an enormous amount of effort to that end, it is will be hard to follow up on them. Still, at the least, those article should have an extensive POV-because tag. I hope you will review my draft intended for the 1948 Arab-Israeli war article. --Heptor 00:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I signed on your draft. Please look at this revert best, Zeq 14:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Question: Why do you refer to Ian Pitchford as Ian Aidens? Do you know something I don't know? Who is Ian Aidens? Kriegman 20:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Did I do that? Where? If I did, it was by mistake of course. I usually write only "Ian" for brevity. And who is Ian Aidens? Do you mean Aiden Cathasaigh? He hasn't been on Wiki for a while... --Heptor 23:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Please review

Talk:Palestinian_exodus#Reply_to_Doron Zeq 10:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Aknowledged. But, I have to be away from Misplaced Pages for a while, so I may not be able to help with the editing. --Heptor 23:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Jewish Settlement Police

Hey Heptor, Ian Pitchford has pretty much edited to this article into a piece of propaganda, he has methodically taken the obviously wrong passages from the 1948 war article and placed it in this new article. It is a fact that Wingate couldn't really be classified as a "christian Zionist" the way that Ian insists, also he basically makes the group sound like evil men who terrify arabs for no reason. Anyways, I could really use your support edited the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

About article-related discussions

Ian, PLEASE stop placing article-related discussions on my talk page. Firstly, such discussions may become both lengthy and hot-tempered, and I want neither on may talk page. Secondly, any user who reads the article may be interested in the discusson, and he should not have to go to my talk page. --Heptor 21:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I now removed those discussions from my talk page. --Heptor 15:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletions

Heptor, please stop editing your talk page to make it seem that I am not answering the points you have raised, e.g. . You have reverted this page again , although I have explained clearly that this could be regarded as simple vandalism. It certainly doesn't improve the article in any way. --Ian Pitchford 22:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Would you please consider reading the section above, as well as my responses to every of the deleted contributions (which were on the page for about a day until I removed them along with the contribution in question)? --Heptor 00:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputed Edits

Heptor, your edits to 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Jewish Settlement Police consist entirely of deleting good content supported by references and replacing it with your own views and/or content (in my view extemely controversial content) that is not supported by references. I am asking you one final time to abide by Misplaced Pages policies WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. If you revert these articles again I will refer the matter to the Arbitration Committee. --Ian Pitchford 09:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ian, none of my, Kriegman's or Zeq's recent edits violate any of the Misplaced Pages policies you mention. Feel free to submit the matter to the Arbitration Committee. --Heptor 10:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation

No, I didn't notice the violation at the time. Ian hasn't contributed in almost a day, was he blocked for this? Jayjg 18:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to my best knowledge, don't you have access to check what users are blocked? In any case, I don't think it is necessary to actually block him, but he needs to be told that this was indeed a violation, and that he should not do it again. Also, for the sake of fairness, the protected version should not be the one he put up by violating the 3RR. --Heptor 18:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I've looked at it, and yes, it seems he violated 3RR. I'll let him know, but a block doesn't seem necessary with the protection of the page. I'll let him know.--Sean|Black 02:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm not allowed to do that. Misplaced Pages:Protected page says "Do not edit a protected page except to add a protected page notice." If you want an outsider to help mediate the dispute, I'm available, however.--Sean|Black 03:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

check e-mail

Ianbrown's RfA

Ian ≡ talk 07:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Response

Hi - sorry, I hadn't seen the response on Zeq's page. I've responded on my talk page. Thanks. Ramallite 04:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)