Misplaced Pages

User talk:Mbz1

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Plot Spoiler (talk | contribs) at 03:10, 8 May 2011 (→Congrats on a great article: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:10, 8 May 2011 by Plot Spoiler (talk | contribs) (→Congrats on a great article: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This userpage has been blanked. If this is your userpage, you can retrieve the contents of this page in the page history. Alternatively, if you would like it deleted, simply replace the content of this page with {{db-u1}}.

archives
1

Todros ben Judah Halevi Abulafia

Hi Mbz. I read over the article. I'd be happy to help out where I can. I see a problem, though, with the poems. The original poems are very old, but the translations are modern and subject to copyright. You may be able to quote a line or two from each poem, but more than that is probably a violation of Misplaced Pages's fair use guidelines. (See WP:FU#Text.) — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 05:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah Malik, as we would say it in Soviet Union "You are killing me with no knife :-)" (Do you understand what this expression means)? How one could write an article about a poet without providing a few good examples of his poetry?
OK, I guess I have no choice, tomorrow or in a worse case scenario the day after tomorrow I will re-work the article as you requested. I would remove the last section of it right now. BTW the first poem was published 70 years ago. Do you believe it is still copyrighted? Thanks for helping me out!--Mbz1 (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I know, I hated to have to bring you bad news. Instead of deleting the whole poem, I think you can paraphrase the poem and quote bits and phrases. As far as what's subject to copyright and what isn't, the magic year is 1923. If a work was published before 1923 and its copyright was not renewed, it's in the public domain in the US.
By the way, the article is very interesting. Nice work. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 06:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Rampage of Deletionism

Not sure if you saw it yet, but I found this AfD very amusing. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure about Mila, but I actually find DYK nomination for Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle to be one of the most amusing things I have ever seen at Misplaced Pages.

Mila I'd like you to have it. I framed it for you. It reads as a suspense novel. What will prevail common sense or ...?

　

DYK nomination on Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle



Created by Mbz1 (talk). Self nom at 02:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


  • I believe this article is a violation of Mbz's WP:ARBPIA topic ban. One cannot adequately discuss Israel's "economic miracle" without reference to the conflict in which it took place. Mbz herself tacitly admits as much in this post to my talk page where she notes she had to leave out negative information because including it would violate her ban.
While I'm not going to report Mbz for a violation at WP:AE given that this article was probably written in good faith, I see no reason to reward her here for such a violation, especially given that the article by her own admission in one-sided due to the omission of negative information that would overtly violate it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

- Other circumstances notwithstanding, wikipedia isn't about "rewarding" anyone for anything but to make information more available. This nomination is interesting, within the guidelines of the Did You Know section, and submitted in good faith. Let's leave the ARBPIA conflict there and focus on Did You Know? here, this nomination has no outstanding problems that I can see. BelloWello (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a totally inappropriate verification when a user in good standing has already challenged this article as one-sided, a fact virtually conceded by the nominator herself. I trust that updaters will ignore it. Gatoclass (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
That's nice, apparently that "user in good standing" doesn't even know how to start an article talk page. I actually don't see the article as very one-sided at all. Also, the article as it stands now has no mention that jumps out at me regarding Israel/Palestine. Are you saying because he's banned from writing about the conflict he can't write about anything pertaining to Israel? I take offense to that, Israel as a nation is much more broad than just a little conflict with some rowdy neighbors. BelloWello (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Bello, with respect, you don't seem to have much understanding of how the DYK process works. Articles are generally not promoted here until disputes have been resolved. Also, as a general rule it's discourteous to try and approve an article over the objections of another user who has substantial concerns about content. If you have an issue with my opinion, fine, let's discuss that, but please don't act as if you are entitled to simply ignore the views of others and approve articles regardless of their objections, that is contrary to our conventions and only likely to alienate other reviewers. Gatoclass (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
User:2.0 has very little experience as an AE admin, but regardless, I very much doubt he would approve of you nominating the article here at DYK. It's quite clear from both the thread at my user page and at User:2.0's that you have created an article which deliberately omitted a substantial amount of information regarding the I-P conflict so you could skirt your ban, adding this article here with the expectation that I am somehow going to include that information for you, without even inquiring beforehand as to my willingness to do so, is presumptuous in the extreme. I have no intention of being coerced into fixing your articles by adding I-P conflict-related content so you can circumvent your ban. If this article is promoted, I will be taking this matter up at AE, or possibly even at Arbcom as I am growing very tired of the gamesmanship going on at this page. Gatoclass (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Since Mbz wants to proceed with this nomination, I will ask for a ruling on this at AE tomorrow to try and resolve the matter. Gatoclass (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
So, any resolution? - Dravecky (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Leaving the question about topic ban violation alone, I do not believe that a topic ban of an article's creator is listed as one of DYK criterion. Either it should be added to the list or the article should get promoted. [[User:

ברוקולי|Broccolo]] (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I've agreed with Mbz not to go ahead with my AE challenge to the promotion of this article on the basis that Mbz has agreed to consult with me on any future nominations which may impinge upon her ARBPIA ban. In regards to this particular article, I have also agreed in line with Mbz's original request to add some missing content for the sake of balance. I will leave a message here in a day or two when hopefully we have reached an agreement on the content. Gatoclass (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The attempt to add to the article one single (quoted) sentence critical of the book and of Israel has attracted multiple people demanding to remove the quote and even to remove the article's link to that negative book review, a link that was put into the article by its creator Mbz1 although with a different quote. In the light of the ongoing dispute, I have tagged the article WP:POV. According to Ed Johnston, the article should also be tagged with the ARBPIA banner. This article is unsuitable for DYK as per "Articles and hooks that tend to promote one side of any ongoing conflict." The FT says that "The authors are so keen to trumpet the country’s successes that some passages read a bit like an "Invest in Israel" brochure." The WaPo, noting that author Senor is "a professional investor in Israel" says the book sounds "like part of a publicity campaign. " Haaretz says the book is "tarnished by a jarring, tub-thumping patriotism." DYK should not be gamed to publicize works of propaganda on Misplaced Pages's front page, nor is it likely that WP:BATTLEGROUND activity at this article is going to result in a neutral, high-quality article.betsythedevine (talk) 03:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no single valid reason to decline DYK for this article. POV tag was added by a single user User:Betsythedevine against the consensus of at least 3 other editors excluding myself. It is a bad faith attempt to decline promotion of an absolutely valid article written in a natural language with a neutral hook.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

- A topical article and good DYK nomination. No objections to negative reviews (or negative comments in balanced reviews). However it is obvious from any search that the book is a hit and reviews overwhelmingly positive. The article reflects this, as it should. - BorisG (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

' If my policy-based concerns about this article are to be overridden, I would like to see it done by someone who is an experienced editor here at DYK but not a partisan either way in P/I disputes. This article now has 4 lines describing criticism to "balance" 8 paragraphs devoted to praise of the book. Is there really no POV problem with that? betsythedevine (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    • This book got 4.5 stars out of 108 reviews on Amazons. The same proportion applies to the professional reviews. The article represent this proportion perfectly. Please stop using DYK to push your own POV. [[User:

ברוקולי|Broccolo]] (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  • As I said earlier, attempts to pass any article when there are obviously unresolved disputes are inappropriate and should be ignored. While a dispute over content has obviously broken out over this article, there is still time to resolve the issues so rejection may also be premature. Please can everyone get back to trying to resolve those issues on the article's talk page rather than bringing those disputes here. Gatoclass (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Note Please note that both users who object the promotion are involved, both users, who support the promotion are not involved.User:Betsythedevine should not be allowed to use DYK nomination as a tool to push her POV. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
DYK shouldn't be used either to wave one's own preferred flag, as is occurring here, nor to disparage anyone else's, which this very one-sided paean to Israel also does. By "one-sided paean" I mean both the book, and to a lesser extent, the proposed hook with its single word of criticism compared to 18 words of praise for the book and for Israel itself. Re the previous notes saying another user shouldn't be allowed to use DYK to push her POV, this is all I can say to such breathtaking statements.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Minor structural problems and I would prefer more specificity in the hook, but overall this is a thorough and neutral article on a bestselling, arguably partisan book. The objections, which absolutely reek of gamesmanship, ownership mentality and battleground tactics, basically amount to "I object because I object, and nothing should be on DYK if anyone objects". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to reinforce Jalapenos with another neutral DYK reviewer's perspective, I too think this article is a neutral article about a controvercial book. The hook is also neutral. Everything is good to go.4meter4 (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, that's nice, I requested that people stop trying to impose their opinion here and resolve the outstanding issues at the article talk page, and come back to find an "icon war"! Disputes should be resolved by discussion, not by weight of numbers, that applies to to the project as a whole and it's a process which has particular relevance to this page in my opinion. There is still time I think to resolve the outstanding disputes amicably, which would be a far more desirable outcome, so once again, can we please return to the article talk page? Gatoclass (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't really see it that way Gatoclass. What I see is a neutral article which is being unfairly attacked by other editors who are trying to push a particular POV, thereby upsetting the already neutral balance of the article. Just because someone is griping about POV issues doesn't mean that a POV problem exsists. Further, I can't review this nom if I were to participate in the discussion at the article talk page because then my review would be considered biased. Since you are now an involved editor in the POV discussion you should recuse yourself from reviewing this DYK. However, I do see the wisdom in waiting to promote the article until the conflict is resolved.4meter4 (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Anyone can take part in a DYK discussion, "involved" or not. Regardless, I have added some more content to the article from new sources to provide some additional balance. Assuming there are no objections to it over the next 24 hours, I think it will probably be safe to promote. Gatoclass (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Per above, "Any editor who was not involved in writing/expanding" can review. BelloWello (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I find it amusing that the editors are opposed are involved the conflict in some form or another. The uninvolved editors all seem to be green-lighting this DYK. BelloWello (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • This article was pulled from the queue and placed back here for more discussion. The hook for this article has been challenged at WT:DYK (see this thread). I proposed an alternative hook there, if someone wants to go and verify that, this one can be restored to the queue. Gatoclass (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I might as well add the alt to this page:

POV tag gone from much-improved article, ready to go back to prep with ALT1 or ALT2 or with some other NPOV hook. DYK is for new, interesting, NPOV articles, and for such a difficult area I think mostly NPOV has to be enough so long as there is not active edit-warring destabilizing the text, which there is not. 16:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Note: I have removed this from prep area one and restored it here, because article is not stable. A short while ago I reinstated the NPOV tag myself.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


Broccolo (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Bin Laden Acted 'Cowardly,' Confused in Final Moments

the terrorist leader acted "scared" and "completely confused" in his final moments, "shoving his wife" Have you read it yet?--Broccolo (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

On the same subject, this edit summary pretty much sums things up. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on a great article

Congrats on creating another great article, Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle. Sad that some psychotic editors can't allow Israel to enjoy her many successes but let the haters hate. Let us continue to innovate while they stagnate. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)