Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MichaelNetzer (talk | contribs) at 00:17, 3 January 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• Let's try to keep exchanges on the same page. Thanks.

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Khirbet Qeiyafa Vandalisation

http://en.wikipedia.org/Khirbet_Qeiyafa

Examples of manipulative editing

1. "Excavations were carried out by archaeologists Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor of the Hebrew University beginning in 2007, who dated the site to 1050-970 BC by pottery styles and two burned olive pits tested for carbon-14 at Oxford University. The theory that Khirbet Qeiyafa was a Judean city inhabited by 500-600 people during the reign of David and Solomon has been challenged by Israel Finkelstein. Based on pottery finds at Qeiyafa and Gath, archaeologists believe the sites belonged to two distinct ethnic groups. "

Although this sites are inaccessible, nowhere the findings of Haifa university scientists are mentioned, while Haifa university was solely responsible to examine the site and gave their verdicts regarding this issues. In fact anonymous criticism of officially established facts were written, while ALL FACTS WRITTEN BY EXCAVATION TEAM WERE SIMPLY REMOVED.

2. "Other readings are possible, and the official publication presented many possible reconstructions of the letters without attempting a translation. The inscription is written left to right in a script which is probably Early Alphabetic/Proto Phoenician, though Rollston and another expert consider that it might be written vertically. Early Alphabetic differs from old Hebrew script and its immediate ancestor. Rollston also disputes the claim that the language is Hebrew, arguing that the words alleged to be indicative of Hebrew either appear in other languages or don't actually appear in the inscription. One expert believes it is mostly a list of names. Hebrew University archaeologist Amihai Mazar said the inscription was very important, as it is the longest Proto-Canaanite text ever found.

Who is Rollston and who is the another expert???

All my editions were erased within minutes

Whisper

Hello. You have a new message at Wgfinley's talk page.

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Much Love :) un☯mi 10:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Would that I could always live up to the standard. Thank you and much love in return. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Now this...

Just wanted to bring this to your attention. I'm beginning to think that this is the work of Nableezy or one of his pals, since apparently an indef topic ban wasn't enough... I'm really sorry to keep messaging you about these matters, but in case I get wrongfully blocked, I will have absolutely no means of self defense. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Good to see it's winding down and you're being cleared of the charge. Also that Nableezy jumped in to defend you. Like I said before, this is a good opportunity to enjoy editing here and develop collaborative skills in areas that are free of tensions. Good to hear from you and best wishes.--MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

AE

WP:AE#MichaelNetzer. nableezy - 23:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

MichaelNetzer, would you agree to self-ban from the article for a defined period and not involve yourself in the etymological dispute that's erupted there and elsewhere in relation to "Abode of Peace"? Personally, I don't think AE was the appropriate venue for the complaint against you, even if I can appreciate the filer's frustration; asking for a high level of page protection to forestall further edit warring would have been a better idea, in my opinion, because AE is meant for long-term abuse and in our case typically involves behavior across more than one article in the topic area. But I'm suggesting this to you because you've impressed me as a mature and intelligent contributor, and it would be unfortunate were you to be topic-banned over this business of "Abode of Peace."—Biosketch (talk) 08:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern. There is a principle behind my actions that seeks to honor Misplaced Pages and what it stands for. I can't abide by information and good behavior being trampled in the way they have been here. My fate, and all of ours, is in good hands. Whatever arbitrators decide will be alright. Thanks again. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, I would agree to withdraw the complain if you made a few promises. Now it looks like I wont be around for some time, but nonetheless I think you should consider the offer and none of the requests are, I think at least, unreasonable.

1. Do not again call any other editor prejudiced, or some variant, against Jews, Judaism, Hebrew, or Jewish history. Even if somebody says "Hi, my name is Tom and I'm a Nazi", let other people deal with it; you, in my view, forfeited the right to make such judgments public. Some of the accusations you made against others were obscene.
2. At the very least, make an honest effort to try to avoid discussing others motivations for edits and reduce your discussions on topics unrelated to the actual article on an article talk page. My view of how the map discussion went is that you made that discussion much more hostile than it needed be. Through your accusations of waging political crusades, and the unfortunate side-bars that caused, and repeated accusations of only your opponents as politicizing the article with irrelevant baggage, the comments about Arabs' self-destructive violent nature, your repeated sneer that I assumed the mantle of spokesman for the project, all these things made what should have been a simple discussion become one where, I am sure, nobody thought any better of the other party after it. On an article talk page, as much as is possible, only talk about the article.
3. Do not comment in any more AEs involving me. I dont know what it is you think you are accomplishing, but as far as I can tell, the most effective thing you have done through these comments is annoy me. If you actually want there to be a collaborative spirit between the two of us, you should reconsider constantly agitating for my being banned. You are certainly free to bring a complaint against me if you see some wrongdoing, but that isnt what you have been doing over the past month.
4. This last one isnt exactly something you have to agree to, just advice. If you make a revert that is later reverted, do not make another one. Convince others on the talk page that it should be made, and let one of them make it. You cant keep arguing that when it is pretty much you vs everybody else that you are right. The two things most likely to have you banned for a significant period of time is edit-warring and socking. Dont do either.

nableezy - 21:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, though it might not seem that way, I'd prefer better all around collaboration than to not see you around. The requests are not unreasonable though I think they're framed in a way to compromise the wider picture. If you remember from the beginning on Alon Shvut, I've been accused of being a settler pushing a POV. I tried very hard not to reply in kind. My frustration at you early in the map discussion was because it seemed you distorted my point about administrative area and turned it into something else about territory. You're right that what I said was harsh but I was looking for a way to get over that hurdle, and ultimately showed that I'm more flexible than has been assumed. On the Jerusalem lede I was also accused of pushing a nationalist POV for most of the discussion, causing dismissal of everything I said. I exercised great patience in the face of it. I made the unfortunate remark at the end, after two long exchanges, and only after a remark was made that seemed to admit a prejudice. I've never made an issue of what's been said to me in the way it's being made against me. Some of my comments on AE have actually been in your favor though I agree the majority are critical of tone. But I never pushed for you to be banned nor would I. If I've learned anything from all this, it's to not engage in any more long discussions on talk pages that can raise tempers. Here is an adjustment to your requests that I agree to. I think, in light of all this, they're also reasonable.

1. I'll refrain from alluding to anyone as prejudiced or pushing a POV, and expect the same from others.
2. I'll refrain from discussing others' motives and expect the same from others.
3. I'll not comment about you in any AE's involving you for a period of 6 months, the duration of the longest proposed ban in the AE against me.
4. I'll consult editors on the talk page instead of reverting a revert I made that was itself reverted.

I hope this helps us and appreciate your reaching out. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Michael, I am not looking to bargain with you. The issue isnt with saying somebody is pushing a POV, it is with alleging a prejudice as being the cause of that supposed POV-pushing. When you repeat charges like prejudiced against a Hebrew connection you are, rather blatantly, making an accusation of anti-semitism. An accusation that has been made, repeatedly, without basis. So no, I dont find the adjustments reasonable, at least for nos. 1 and 3. Take it or leave it, I really dont care which, but Im not going to be haggling over this. nableezy - 19:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand. I don't think the text in #1, as it's proposed, reflects what I've said or implied. I responded to certain things which I don't want to get into again for obvious reasons. But nothing I said was "without" basis. One could argue that I misunderstood something but not that there wasn't a basis for misunderstanding it. I'd rather leave it at that. On #3, I don't know what else to do. I think this type of condition for "all time" is a little over the top. It's not a matter of haggling, just fairness. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Caution

The AE page is not a battleground. Please keep comments about a separate ongoing case in the related discussion. Do not take it to another case. Also keep in mind standards of civility when commenting on cases.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The AE page has not become a battleground by my doing, if you haven't noticed. It has been that way long before I started posting there. You seem to have a narrow view of what's going on and your approach with me is borderline disrespectful. AE arbitrates cases based on behavior. The behavior by the same editor in the separate case is very relevant to the one you mention because my comment is about a behavior pattern. I appreciate you'd like to help but I don't see how your assuming an one-sided judge's mantle can be helpful, in light of your comment to the other editor about me. I should remove your misleading and non-athoratative "caution" box from this page but I don't like playing such games. The incivility directed at me on AE makes my comment sound tame by comparison. Please try to be a more considerate of the facts and a little more respectful if you'd like to help. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

While editor behavior is legitimate, your comment seemed to be nothing more than a vindictive response to Nableezy's case against you. I am trying to prevent the situation from getting completely out of hand in your interest as well as those of other editors. As for my comment to Nableezy, I was hoping to prevent him from doing what I know he would have done without any comment from me.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with vindictiveness about my case. I have been commenting on the same thing with Nableezy at AE long before there was a case against me. I think you're aware of that so it's a little odd that you say such a thing. I make these comments because I edit in the same space and we inadvertently have interactions that have been combative and not by my doing. Or at least not by my initiation of combative tone. I'm gravely serious about his behavior and others in his camp and I don't think positions such as you take in this case are helpful towards the problem. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know things wouldn't be this way if there wasn't such aggressiveness from their side. You seem to come to premature conclusions without checking facts. Or you might not be interested in all the facts, I don't know. I mentioned this about your statement on my case. Take it to heart and try not to say things that are false, and frankly, a little presumptuous. If you can understand my concerns I'd also ask you to remove the "caution box" from this thread. The text is alright but the box gives it an air of authority that's misleading. I'd like you to do it voluntarily, if you will. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, TDA. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know, I found your concerns about the caution template and my comment to Nableezy reasonable. Your comments on the AE case were, all the same, quite inappropriate and I believe you let your personal frustration over Nableezy's case against you impact your behavior. It is better to stay cool in these situations.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not at all frustrated over Nableezy's case against me. I know what I've done, and others, and I have no real frustration over it. A need to help change it, maybe, but no personal frustration that I can sense. Everything around us impacts our behavior. It's almost impossible to remain human and not be affected by it. But in this case, it's only about a concern for him and for what the encyclopedia stands for, that motivated those comments. I think you're still jumping ahead of yourself a little. But that's alright I suppose. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

AE Result

Per this AE Report I am delivering the following warning:

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you continue with the behavior on Jerusalem, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

I know we have previously dialogued on this matter on my talk page. I feel some of your actions could be perceived as disruptive, I would encourage you to try to work with other editors to build consensus. Making changes because there isn't a consensus reached can be useful at times, that's not usually the case on articles in this topic space. Please use due care in the future to avoid sanction. --WGFinley (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Understood, and taken to heart, thank you. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Another uninvolved admin has stated he felt I closed the case prematurely, I have reopened the case. I am leaving the warning stand as I think that should be on the record, my opinion is the case should be closed but I will leave it for others to chime in. --WGFinley (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michael. The whole "warning" thing has caused confusion in the topic area for years now. You should be focusing on the "counseling". If admins think that you have made a big enough mistake to be banned or blocked then you should consider it. More importantly, you should be seeking the advice of other editors. I would recommend not asking anyone with a history of issues in the topic area (such as myself), but I do think you should seek some feedback from admins. That is actually in the wording of the original Arbitration decision somewhere. The admins have volunteered to do a task on Misplaced Pages. That includes assisting editors. Some would even argue that an admin should be doing that before giving a "warning". You are obviously aware of ARBPIA so that has to be considered. As your next step, consider seeking feedback while you are in long disputes. It is easy to fall into bickering for days on end while anyone uninvolved ignores it based on WP:TLDR. You have brought up some amazing points. But it will all be for naught if you get into the poor habits that editors like myself have become accustomed to. Cptnono (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Much-needed WikiLove

I trust this template does not upset you yes? ;) The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That's nicer. Colors are a little kitchy but the message is alright --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello

It says in your article that you live in Ofra, is this true? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

And you are an Israeli citizen? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Dual. US & Israel. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)