Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bože pravde (talk | contribs) at 02:41, 9 August 2006 (Hi :)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive

User:Guy Montag/storage1

Serial comma

Hi Avraham,

I also consider myself a stickler for grammer and I am wondering if you can help me out with a silly question. In a list, does a comma come before and? For example xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, and xxx or does it go xxx, xxx, xxx and?

Thanks, Guy Montag 04:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Guy. Actually, both are valid constructions. It is called a "serial comma". I have the CMOS at work, not home, so I cannot give you the specific chapter, but the Chicago Manual of style DOES recommed putting the serial comma in. See here: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/cmosfaq.Commas.html (especially the one about Mother Theresa and the pope) :-) Hope that helps. -- Avi 04:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Artificial state article

Hi there. I noticed you reverted my edits on Artificial state without stating a reason. Could I ask for your reasoning in removing Israel from the list? It is a controversial topic wherever it rears its head, but it seems to fit the technical definition of an artificial state. - 69.249.92.211 16:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If you do not provide a reason in the next week or so, I'll revert your edit pending an explanation. 69.249.92.211 14:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Move of deir yassin

It is known as "tevakh Dir yassin" (i.e. massacre of deir yassin) even in Hebrew. Can you move it back . Zeq 09:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Kennedy

I've added a section dealing with his virulent (even for the day) anti-Semitism. If you have any additional info, please feel free to add. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Some folks are trying to chip away at it, too... Why people rush to defend this monster is beyond my ken. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done about all I can on this. Rjensen continues to whitewash. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel and weapons of mass destruction

Hi there Guy, could you please explain on the above article's talk page why you think the information you deleted is "not legitimate"? The Times article existed, and was unequivocal in its claims, and the Times is a credible source (it's the same source that broke the Vanunu story). I think the story was BS myself (for reasons of scientific plausibility as much as anything), but, like I said, it was reported as fact in one of the world's best-known newspapers. --Robert Merkel 23:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Reported for pobation violation

I have reported you for a violation of your probation, see here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag. -- Kim van der Linde 02:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Banned from Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin Massacre

Per your probation, you have been banned from editing Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin Massacre. You may continue to edit the talk pages, per the conditions of your probation, but if you continue to act disruptively, as you did by posting a "broken record barnstar", and making incivil comments, you may be blocked from editing for a short time. Ral315 (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Your move was not that bad a thing in itself, "Deir Yassin Massacre" is certainly embedded in popular culture, getting 24,000 google hits, but was obviously part of a larger battle. The problem is not discussing the matter fully on the talk page before you made major changes. As a result you caught everyone by surprise and a confused period of controversy resulted. This amounts to disrupting the article, so I think you did violate probation. So the ban is proper. I encourage you to continue considering titles of this nature and bringing them to the attention of the community, but please discuss major changes first on talk pages. As an analogy, Tiananmen Massacre redirects to Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. I opposed this at the time, but now think it is probably a better title. Fred Bauder 00:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

People keep articles like Deir Yassin Massacre on their watchlists forever. I still have Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 on mine after several years (I originally wrote most of it). So the fact no one was currently editing meant nothing. Fred Bauder 00:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"What about the Misplaced Pages Be bold? Does that cease to have any meaning?" Being on probation means, "be cautious". Fred Bauder 01:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed your ban per RAL315's instructiosn on the noticeboard. I believe that it was improperly made. Happy editing, Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As above, the ban isn't active, but my reason for banning you was the result of a few things. First, you edited the article rather vigorously, an action that isn't necessarily bad, but should be backed up with a comment on the talk page before making such drastic changes. Perhaps the changes were positive- I can't judge the quality of the edit, knowing absolutely nothing about Deir Yassin. But the reaction you got on the Talk page shows that the edits were pretty drastic- Huldra critiqued your changes pretty thoroughly.

Second, you made the move right away, another action that wasn't necessarily wrong, but probably could have used discussion on the talk page first. I'm sure you're aware that nearly every Israel-related article is in some way controversial, due to editors on both sides clashing over many points. In that vein, I'd suggest that any move you want to make first be approved through the requested moves process.

Third, I'd watch comments like the Barnstar you "gave out". I understand the humor factor, given the absurdity of the comment, yet it's important to be careful. Because you're on probation, it really wouldn't be a bad idea to just be careful in your comments. I'm not saying you shouldn't comment, but be safe about what you say- on the internet, nearly everything can be read negatively, even when meant as a joke.

My apologies that this comment is so late; I was without internet access for much of this week on a trip. Let me know if you have any more questions. Ral315 (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Deir Yassin

Please, do not remove sourced information without an explanation. Benny Morris is an internationally respected historian, and his books contain an overwhelming number of citations. If you have a problem with this quote, provide a quote with proper citation from an historian who presents a different explanation of events. Thank you. --(Mingus ah um 02:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC))

My apologies for the misunderstanding; when I did not see an explanation, I assumed the worst. --(Mingus ah um 04:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC))

Milstein book

Can I ask you which version of the Milstein book you have used for the references? Was that the Hebrew version, or the English translation? And which edition (publication year). -- Kim van der Linde 04:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Banned

For adding copyvio information to the Deir Yassin article, along with being (as some would put it) quite aggressive on the talk page, I've banned you for the period of one year as per your probation. Now, personally I don't think you need to be banned for that long, but I think you should probably give it a rest for a month or so. Work on some other articles, Srebrenica sure could do with a helping hand. Please feel free to appeal this, but I think I'm being reasonable. - FrancisTyers · 23:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me much more than a single sentence, and Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously. Perhaps I was overhasty in submitting it all for copyright review, but I think that given the similarity, and knowing Macmillan Co. v. King it is appropriate. As I mentioned above, please feel free to appeal this decision. - FrancisTyers · 01:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think I've been harrassing you, I'm sorry if you got that impression. You are quite right, I misread the ruling and will rectify that immediately. - FrancisTyers · 01:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha! Ok, *phew* I'm quite relieved. ;) Yes, I think that would be the best course of action. Just ask them if they can release it under the GFDL or public domain would be best. There are some templates here that might be useful. Let me (or another administrator) know when we have the permission and we can get on with editing. Apologies again if it seems I overreacted, but I have quite strong feelings about copyright :) - FrancisTyers · 01:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Genocide

What the hell are you doing putting POV tag? I have seen that you are not familiar with the subject, you just showed up and put POV tag without explanation which parts of the article are POV?! This article is based on International sources, and Bosnian Serb government report (they admitted genocide), so it is not POV. If you dont know anything about subject, then dont make full of yourself. ThanX!--Emir Arven 09:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Deir Yassin

I am just trying to clarify stuff in the article as it is now. The version that was blanked due to copyvio's contains copied sections from 4 or 5 different websites (I am still busy with finding more), so, there will be a lot of weeding out that needs to be done from that version. Furthermore, I do not think that adding well sourced material based on the major scholary works is a bad thing, even when the page is in transition. -- Kim van der Linde 18:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

So, you claim that there is only copyrighted information of http://groups.msn.com/Mishpocha/deiryassin.msnw or http://www.deiryassin.org/denierspr-980309-99.html that has been used in the article? -- Kim van der Linde 19:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Genocide Re:

People that worked on the article made a dill to use just valid sources, mostly international judgements (Serb, Bosniak and other users) in order to stop nationalists which are trying to destroy the article or hide the truth or deny genocide. So the style is not in the focus because most of the senteces were taken from judgements. But that was the only way to stop vandalism. There is for instance Radislav's judgement convicted for genocide. You should read it, maybe that will be enough for you to understand this style matter. --Emir Arven 19:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just seen that you asked for more sources?! Have you seen this: Srebrenica_massacre#References --Emir Arven 19:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not about the number of sources, it is about the relevance of those sources. And they are as we all agreed the most relevant sources (mostly UN courte judgements, they are not Bosniak or Serb sources, they are neutral). There are hundreds more sources but we didnt want to put it there because we didnt want to lose the relevance of the article. And this is the only thing that stopped vandalism which started a year ago. --Emir Arven 19:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

New ArbCom case

I have filed a new ArbCom case here (Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Dier_Yassin), for violation of your probation. -- Kim van der Linde 13:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

IDF investigation into Qana airstrike

Hi. After I had removed "the cause of death and time line of events are under investigation by the IDF," noting that the formal investigation had been concluded, and after having authored a section on it, you restored that line. So that did not end up working well for me. Thanks. El_C 12:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture on 2006 Qana airstrike article

Hello there! Although I think the inclusion of a victim photo is questionable, the concensus on the talk page seems to be in favor of including a photo. There does not appear to be a copyright issue. We would prefer one showing a panaroma of the entire building, as that would be less sensationalist, but so far nobody has delivered one. Please see the Talk page for comments on this.

FYI, I am not going to revert the picture back (I don't need a revert war, and anyway, I sort of agree with you) but as you can see on the Talk page, the concensus has been in favor of it, so you probably will be reverted shortly. --Jaysweet 18:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree with you about putting 'justifications in the intro. The intro is the place to state what happened: There was an airstrike that destroyed a building. The rest of the article fleshes out the background, and readers can then make a decision on whether they feel it was justified.

You'll notice I have fought heavily against both sides putting anything that is even slightly POV in the intro. For instance, the BBC comment that several civilians were unable to escape due to bombing of roads. I could argue that is relevant background -- it helps explain why it wasn't the civilians' fault they were in a Hezbollah-occupied area -- but I my fear is that statements like that will cause people to make up their minds before they even get outside the intro. For something this emotionally-charged, we need to be very very careful in the intro to just state the basic facts of what happened. Reasons are for later.

I don't revert war, though, so I'll wait for someone else to remove it from the intro. --Jaysweet 19:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I do indeed see your point. Let me suggest a possible compromise: What if the sentence were shortened so that it simply said "in response to Hezbollah rocket attacks"? The wording "firing over 150 Katyusha rockets in a two week period", while technically true (since you are saying only that the IDF alleges it), seems to me an attempt to generate sympathy for one side over the other. For instance, how about this for an intro paragraph:

The 2006 Qana airstrike was launched by the Israel Air Force (IAF) on the South Lebanese village of Qana, on 30 July 2006, during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, in response to numerous Hezbollah rocket attacks alleged by the IDF to be coming from the village.. Considerable controversy ensued over the propriety of the attack (see reactions and Hoax conspiracy theories below).

What would you think of that? --Jaysweet 19:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I read your latest counter-proposal on my Talk page... I think the placement of "according to IDF" in the middle of the sentence is a little bit awkward in terms of phrasing, but from a POV perspective I think it is good. (P.S. I told ya people would get on you over removing the image ;) )--Jaysweet 19:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Why do you keep removing the image? Thanks. El_C 19:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Israel-Lebanon conflict

Hi. I believe you breached 3RR on Israel-Lebanon conflict. I rollbacked your edit as it had some formatting errors, but I'm willing to treat it as a self revert. Does that sound okay? El_C 23:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

On 2nd thought, I'm no longer certain that it was a revert, but am still confused about what the edit intends to accomplish (on the "characterizing the cricitism through equivelence" front). El_C 23:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe Iranian support is more on the range of $150 million p/a. Also, please (please please): use edit summaries. Thanks you. El_C 21:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, $150 million p/a during the 1980s, $60 million p/a after, says this source. El_C 21:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Hey Guy, sorry I reverted the Hezbolah war crimes paragraph that you added. I was trying to revert the guy that added some BS right before you and I guess there was some collateral. I did a partial self- revert but I forgot to write that in the edit summary so hopefully no 3RR report for me.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah military capability

What about Israel's military capabilities and respective funding? El_C 23:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, both your refs are misformatted; see any other ref as an example on how to correct this. El_C 23:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah capabilities in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

A few. Iran and Syria's roles are included in Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict so they don't need a whole section on the page. (As mentioned on talk and in the edit summary). Hezbollah's capability I saved on the talk page because there is merit for a sentence or two there about Israel meeting unexpected resistance, but that belongs not in the "History" section, but in the "Hezbollah rocket campaign" section. Overall, the pressing issue is keeping the article as short as possible. When I awoke this morning it had grown from 59kB to nearly 80, which is far too long. A sentence or two on Syria & Iran could be included in the "International reaction section" I suppose, but I think a section is excessive. And the Hezbollah capability is fine as a sentence or two, but as I mentioned, belongs in the "Hezbollah rocket campaign" section (maybe that should be renamed to "Hezbollah response" to cover fighting in Lebanon.) --Iorek85 04:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've already integrated the funding into the international reaction section since someone insists on keeping U.S funding for Israel there. But your capabaility was a statement was that their anti tank missiles can kill tanks. Apart from being a statement of the obvious, since Israeli tanks have been destroyed, it isn't that notable, so I removed it. Something on Israel meeting unexpected resistance could be put into the Hezbollah response section, I suppose. But yes, article size is important. See WP:SIZE --Iorek85 22:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi :)

Since this is the first time we are talking, I'd like to inform you that I have answered your comment on my talk page. I always do that :) Regards, --GOD OF JUSTICE 02:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

1. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1153292030858