Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs) at 09:38, 15 July 2013 (→Jerusalem RfC: breakdown of results: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thanks for correcting my edit on the Bat Ye'or page - after looking a little further into her statements on Eurabia, it does indeed appear to be a veritable conspiracy theory. Perhaps a citation could be added to clarify the reason for her status as conspiracy theorist? MaximilianGrader (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Palestine-Israel enforcement restriction

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Betzelem

Hi Per, I responded to the comment you left on my talk page at the article talk. The Betzelem discussion should continue there. In the meantime, I noticed that your comment at my talk page referred not only to the Betzelem discussion (to which you also contributed) but also to my edit of the lede. The information I put in concerning the bus bomber being recruited by Hamas is currently unsourced. It would not be fair to describe it as a "distortion of sources". If you have information to the effect that early reports that he was recruited by Hamas were inaccurate, please let me know. Tkuvho (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that my edit description was wrong. When you added the claim that the bus bomber was recruited by Hamas, I assumed that it was supported by the next source. When I checked the source I found no such statements there, so I assumed that it was a case of source misrepresentation. I see now that I could have called it unsourced informatin instead, but why are you adding unsourced information? I have not seen any of these early reports that you claim said that the bomber was recruited by Hamas, but none of the reliable sources I have seen has made that connection. PerDaniel (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems that you and I are not reading the same newspapers :-) Based on a subsequent comment at the article talk page, it seems that the bomber is a member of a group in the west bank. If so, it is misleading to describe him as an "israeli arab", which suggests that he acted either alone or at any rate without a support network outside Israel, which does not appear to be the case. Tkuvho (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

A comment on the talk page isn't a reliable source. PerDaniel (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The talk page in question was reporting an WP:RS report. On a related issue, I find your tolerance for Ma'an virulent antisemitism surprising. A news outlet can hardly engage in excesses reminiscent of the Nazi era and remain within WP:RS parameters. Tkuvho (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You seem incapable of making a single talk page edit without personal attacks. I do not tolerate the "virulent antisemitism" that you claim Ma'n News is printing, I merely question the accuracy of the translations and if this is actually the news agencys views. PerDaniel (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I already mentioned that what I disagree with is your opinions. On the other hand, your comment accusing a fellow editor of being "incapable, etc." is a personal attack. As far as the substantive issue is concerned, if you have a better translation of the passage please provide it. I am fully in favor of obtaining accurate translations so we can deal with the issue of the material published in ma'an. In the meantime, ma'an has been cited many times over at Operation Pillar of Defense, apparently without making sure ma'an is reliable. Some of this material may have been added by you, apparently before determining whether or not ma'an is a rabidly antisemitic cesspool. Tkuvho (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You accuse me of having "tolerance for Ma'an virulent antisemitism surprising", which is firstly not true and secondly a thinly veiled accusation of antisemitism, and as such a personal attack. It is not a personal attack to mention that you are spewing personal attacks against several editors who doesn't support your POV. I don't understand why you ask me for a better translation, I am not a professional arabic-english translator and therefore not capable of supplying a trustworthy translation. As far as I can see there is no evidence that any of the "translations" that you use as evidence for your claim that Ma'an is not a reliable source are made by professional arabic-english translators. I therefor have little trust that the translations are accurate. The news stories that I have read on http://www.maannews.net/eng/Default.aspx have not had any evidence of antisemitism, and I am not going to accept the word of a couple of pro-israeli editors that the news agency is "a rabidly antisemitic cesspool". PerDaniel (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Some material that Ma'an found suitable to print may be found here. Tkuvho (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think that we should take seriously a translation by an anonymous wikipedia editor with 23 edits? PerDaniel (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Did you ever used any other account on Misplaced Pages?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of being a sockpuppet? PerDaniel (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of anything as I am WP:AGF maybe you doing WP:CLEANSTART.But it would be nice that you will answer the question.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence I have been using another account earlier, or do you have a habit of coming with false accusations? PerDaniel (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You account history is strange from 2006 when you created your account you made a several edits back then and then almost nothing till today.The question by itself is legitimate as there are may blocked accounts is WP:ARBPIA if you think there are some thing wrong with my question you are welcome to ask an admin.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

What is strange about that? This is a "hobby", not a job, and often I don't have the time to pursue it. If you think that I am a sockpuppet, report me. If not, stop bothering me. PerDaniel (talk) 08:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Shrike, it would be nice if Daniel would simply answer your question, but nothing requires him to do so. Let it go. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, what you did is in disagreement with the 4th pillar of wikipeida and WP:AGF. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

user:Shrike's concern is legitimate given a plague of sockpuppeting at some of the pages User:PerDaniel has been active at, such as Operation Pillar of Defense where User:PerDaniel has argued (along the lines of indicted socks) that a news agency practicing virulently antisemitic language, is nonetheless a reliable news service. Tkuvho (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you really going to use the fact that I don't agree with you as basis for an accusation of being a sockpuppet? Also the accusation you come with is false. PerDaniel (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2013 (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)

Ma'an News - RSN

You might be interested in this discussion - http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Ma.27an_News Ankh.Morpork 17:20, 31 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.)

Hi...

It appears that a good number of the books you provided are from self-published, independent sources, which does not conform to WP:Verifiability. See this for more information...http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sourcesEvildoer187 (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That is why I wrote: "I am not claiming that all of these books are reliable sources, nor that they all support the theory that Israel is a colonial state". It would be nice if you would bother to read what other people wrote, before replying to it. We can continue this discussion at: Talk:Colonialism#Settler_demographics_in_Palestine. PerDaniel (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Moderation of Jerusalem RfC

Hello. You are receiving this message because you have recently participated at Talk:Jerusalem or because you were listed at one of the two recent requests for mediation of the Jerusalem article (1, 2). The Arbitration Committee recently mandated a binding request for comments about the wording of the lead of the Jerusalem article, and this message is to let you know that there is currently a moderated discussion underway to decide how that request for comments should be structured. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, you are invited to read the thread at Talk:Jerusalem#Moderation, add yourself to the list of participants, and leave a statement. Please note that this discussion will not affect the contents of the article directly; the contents of the article will be decided in the request for comments itself, which will begin after we have finalised its structure. If you do not wish to participate in the present discussion, you may safely ignore this message; there is no need to respond. If you have any questions or comments about this, please leave them at my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 12:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: rounding up step one

Hello. This is a boilerplate message for participants in the moderated discussion about the Jerusalem RfC - sorry for posting en masse. We have almost finished step one of the discussion; thanks for your statement and for any other contributions you have made there. This is just to let you know I have just posted the proposed result of step one, and I would like all participants to comment on some questions I have asked. You can find the discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Judging the consensus for step one - please take a look at it when you next have a moment. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius 17:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two

Hello. This is to let you know that we have now started step two in the Jerusalem RfC discussion, in which we will be deciding the general structure of the RfC. I have issued a call for statements on the subject, and I would be grateful if you could respond at some time in the next couple of days. Hope this finds you well — Mr. Stradivarius 16:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two question

Hello everyone. I have asked a question about having drafts versus general questions at the Jerusalem RfC discussion, and it would be helpful if you could comment on it. I'm sending out this mass notification as the participation on the discussion page has been pretty low. If anyone is no longer interested in participating, just let me know and I can remove you from the list and will stop sending you these notifications. If you are still interested, it would be great if you could place the discussion page on your watchlist so that you can keep an eye out for new threads that require comments. You can find the latest discussion section at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Step two discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 04:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. This is just a quick message to let you know that unless there is significant ongoing discussion, I intend to wrap up step two in a few days, probably on Thursday 31st 28th February. I invite you to have a look at the discussion there, especially at question five where I have just asked a question for all participants. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step three

Hello all. We have finally reached step three in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. In this step we are going to decide the exact text of the various drafts and the general questions. We are also going to prepare a summary of the various positions on the dispute outlined in reliable sources, per the result of question nine in step two. I have left questions for you all to answer at the discussion page, and I'd be grateful for your input there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 08:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: finalising drafts

Hello. We have almost finished step three of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, but before we move on to step four I would like to make sure that all the participants are happy with the drafts that we have chosen. The content of the drafts are likely to dictate what ends up in the actual article, after all, so I want to make sure that we get them right.

So far, there hasn't been much interest in the process of choosing which drafts to present to the community, and only three editors out of twenty submitted a drafts statement. I have used these three statements to pick a selection of drafts to present, but we still need more input from other participants to make sure that the statements are representative of all participants' wishes. I have started discussions about this under question seven and question eight on the RfC discussion page, and I would be grateful for your input there.

Also, there have been complaints that this process has been moving too slowly, so I am going to implement a deadline. If there haven't been any significant objections to the current selection of drafts by the end of Wednesday, 8 May, then I will move on to step four. Questions or comments are welcome on the discussion page or on my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 03:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step four

Hello everyone. We are now at step four of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, where we will decide the details of the RfC implementation. This is the home stretch - the RfC proper will begin as soon as we have finished this step. Step four is also less complicated than the previous steps, as it is mostly about procedural issues. This means it should be over with a lot more quickly than the previous steps. There are some new questions for you to answer at the discussion page, and you can see how the RfC is shaping up at the RfC draft page. Also, when I say that this step should be over with a lot quicker than the previous steps, I mean it: I have set a provisional deadline of Monday, 20th May for responses. I'm looking forward to seeing your input. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 12:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: final countdown

Hello again, everyone. I have now closed all the questions for step four, and updated the RfC draft. We are scheduled to start the Jerusalem RfC at 09:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC). Before then, I would like you to check the draft page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and see if there are any errors or anything that you would like to improve. If it's a small matter of copy editing, then you can edit the page directly. If it's anything that might be contentious, then please start a discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#The final countdown. I'll check through everything and then set the RfC in motion on Thursday. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 16:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC has started

Hello again everyone. We have finally made it - the RfC is now open, and a few editors have chimed in already. The discussion is located at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. I'm sure you don't actually need me to tell you this, but please go over there and leave your comments. :) You are the editors most familiar with the Jerusalem lead dispute on Misplaced Pages, so it would be very useful for the other participants to see what you have to say. And again, thank you for all your hard work in the discussions leading up to this. We shall reconvene after the results of the RfC have been announced, so that we can work out any next steps we need to take, if necessary. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC: breakdown of results

Hello again everyone. Now that the Jerusalem RfC has been closed and there has been time for the dust to settle, I thought it would be a good time to start step six of the moderated discussion. If you could leave your feedback over at the discussion page, it will be most appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius 09:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)