User talk:Jaakobou/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

---

Your revert

You recently reverted my changes to the sentence "According to Abu Rahma's initial sworn statement, he filmed the incident for 27 minutes, alleging that intentional Israeli shooting towards Mohammad al-Durrah and his father continued for a total of 45 minutes." Kindly rejoin the discussion here, and state your reasoning for supporting this version. ← George ^talk 01:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The In-Control Wikipedian Barnstar
		I hereby award this barnstar to Jaakobou for keeping cool and in-control while in a dispute. Kudos! BejinhanTalk 06:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Questionable removal

With this edit you removed links and in your edit summary wrote "rework, add a couple and remove one which doesn't belong to media coverage in any way." You removed the link to Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land, a documentary which, according to its article here is a "comparison of U.S. and international media coverage of the crisis in the Middle East." Will you please provide accurate edit summaries and, for now, self-revert this removal? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Heyo RomaC,

I just moved it a couple rows down.

Thanks for the note though. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

for having chimed in at this discussion on the use of Arutz Sheva as a reliable source. I may not always like what they say, but I think its ridiculous to think that we can't cite to it as an RS.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Arafat's sexual orientation

I saw your comments on the Arafat discussion page concerning his sexual orientation and took notice on how the "thought police" immediately dismissed you and your sources out of hand. I added a section about the matter and made additional edits to other sections citing at least four credible sources (exclusive of yours). I was reverted three times by three different "editors" the last of which only used an IP address. All have refused to even discuss the matter, calling it "nonsense" and dismissing the sources as "garbage." I have since found this article Arafat Doctor: Let Us Know Why He Died that alleges he died of a "shameful disease." I see the relentless reverts as a case of "me thinks thou doth protest too much." What your take on it?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick look suggests that it should be toned down a little bit as a starting point. You can't add a source about what the PA does and combine the topic with Arafat unless it is combined in the same source. This is called synthesis and its a bit of promotional in tone. I'd suggest starting out by narrowing it down to a couple of sentences that are supported by multiple reliable sources or at least notable sources - if they are unreliable. I think this issue is notable, as just recently I've heard that his death is comemorated, among other things, by claims that "the Jews poisoned" him. There is room, IMHO to explore who says what and to write this as a short mini-paragraph into some folklore section or maybe a controversy section. Anyways, I'm babbling. I've yet to see the actual sources and it would be good to see if you can convince others on the page that it is a notable issue (Regardless of reliability).

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jaakobou. An interesting discussion has developed here regarding Araft's sexual orientation and the reliability of Ion Mihai Pacepa's book, Red Horizons. Of particular interest is the comment made by Slp1 (talk). I think that based on his insight, the issue should be included in the article.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please Accept This Humble Apology

I thought that you had written that. My mistake.
--NBahn (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Right on time

A headline too dramatic, but the contents can be helpful. German documentary to debunk al-Dura shooting. Wanted to make sure you won't miss it. Maybe there will be more media coverage on that one. It might also be useful to check out German media. Best, --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool Cat barnstar?

I was looking through images of barnstars on Wikimedia commons, when I came across the "cool cat barnstar", uploaded by you. I searched for it on wikipedia, but there didn't seem to be any mentions of it. Could you explain what this barnstar is for? Brambleclawx 23:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would be good for use in the event of someone acting cool during a heated dispute. I initially added it to the barnstar page, but another editor argued that there are already enough barnstars for such an instance and I allowed the conversation to become stale due to other concerns of more pressing matter. I still think it should be noted on the barnstar page and wouldn't mind to leave such a comment if a conversation is made to this issue. On a side note, I wouldn't mind if the barnstar is used for other purposes as well. Contributions to movie animals is a suggestion that comes to mind.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Lost in translation - copy for you

I don't mean to get personal, but why is the word muqawama offensive (per this) to a Palesitnian who hears it used daily (on television, radio, etc.) by his own people in reference to their own goals and aspirations? I understand fromour past converssations that your Arabic is not very good, but it is a basic word for your people (attached sample video: The main Palestinian leader, Khaled Mashaal of Hamas, uses it 11 times in 5 minutes with the context of destroying Israel). To be honest, as much as I don't want to dissatisfy any editor on wikipedia, I can't avoid it since it is integral to the converstaion. I'll still make an effort though and try to not mention it where it doesn't belong.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC) more accurate 15:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Its the way you use the word that I find offensive, Jaakobou. You bring it up incessantly, even when it is not relevant to a given discussion. You also tend to use it derisively, as in this comment, where you write: "there's quite a lot of Muslims who are not stooges for the muqawama rhetorics." I'd appreciate it if you would heed my request, and not the use the word when it is not being used by sources we are discussing and when it is not related to article discussions. And my Arabic is fine by the way, certainly any difficulties I have with fusha do not impede my ability to understand what the word muqawama means. I think perhaps it is you that may not understand its broader meaning, limiting as you do to simply the destruction of Israel. Tiamut^talk 15:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd never do something as silly as to limit it to Israel only, that would be quite silly of me when its clear -- even by the video example -- that it has a much wider meaning. I actually disagree with Israeli middle-east expert and journalist Ehud Yaary who limited it to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in one of his articles. Regardless, I'm not fully pleased with my use of the word 'stooges', I'll give you that, and I apologize for it and will make an effort not to use it again. Still, terrorists have used the "muqawama" as an excuse for constant warfare and there's really no way to work around that. You can't say that it is irrelevant if terrorist actions were inspired by "muqawama" rhetorics and iconography. That video of Khaled Mashaal makes it quite clear that the word (used 11 times in 5 minutes) has a deep significance to their rhetorics.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you for apologizing. However, my concerns about your limiting its meaning to something inherently and exclusively negative remain. For many people, "resistance" (muqawama) includes legitimate resistance in the form of non-violent actions or the targeting of military installations or personnel engaging in illegal occupation or aggressive/offensive actions. In any case, so as to avoid prolonging this discussion, which has nothing to do with article improvement, let me just say that while you are entitled to your opinion, I'd prefer if you would keep it to yourself when it is not related to article discussions. I'd also like to not hear you use the word muqawama unless it is discussed by sources that are relevant to the articles we are discussing. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 16:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be limiting the word to usage in what is deemed legitimate protest in western cultures. That is, realistically speaking, a plainly false interpretation. Certainly, in my example video, Mashaal is not talking about holding up sings and chanting 'down with Israel'. I'm not going to go into your own offensive use of language (per 'legitimate'/'illegal') since we're trying to be able to collaborate despite opposing perspectives. I'll be sure to make an effort to use the term only when relevant to the discussed issues, that I can promise.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding me, and there is little point to continuing this conversation. Thank you for your time and your pledge to avoid using that word when unnecessary. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 17:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you purposely trying to provoke me? In this edit summary, you use the term "muqawama apologetics," presumably describing my edits which you reverted (including those not related to the "unrest"/"rioting" issue that you raised on talk). Why would you do that when we had an extensive discussion about the offensiveness of your liberal use of the word "muqawama" and you pledged, just above, to use the term only when relevant to the discussed issues? Could you please also self-revert, given that you reverted unrelated changes as well? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 16:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed what seemed like it needed changing (you can bring it on the talkpage). It seemed, to be honest, like you were trying to provoke me to intervene by calling terrorist activities against Israelis 'unrest'. It doesn't get much more misleading/offensive than that.

p.s. my promise to make an effort with the term still stands but use of 'unrest' in reference to militancy makes it relevant.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I had already brought it up on the talk page before you made this comment and you still have not addressed me comments there in any substantive fashion. As I said to you in my lastest comment here, I'm not the one being provocative by using WP:WTA irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I also find your explanation for reuse of the word "muqawama" to be unconvincing. "Rioting" doesn't have much to do with "muqawama", per your rather narrow definition of it above. Please stop trying to offend/provoke me and try to focus on keeping your commentary confined to that relevant to article improvement. Tiamut^talk 19:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The term means something different than you say and it would be good if you stop coming to my page to "explain" to me something that you, outwardly, don't understand. I happen to have researched this term and the definition is by no means a narrow one. Your claimed definition of legitimate protesting (above) is not only narrow but is dogmatic. Being provocative by repeatedly excusing violence against civilians as 'unrest'[1] or other excuses (or by posting irrelevant wiki-policy links) is not productive in any means to this project. Attacking me for making you(?!) uncomfortable every time you come up with a unique (and faulty) interpretation for things within the Arab-Israeli conflict is just mind boggling. Please stop pushing the attacking Jews in Israel is legitimate "unrest"[2] or "legitimate resistance in the form of non-violent actions"[3] angle and then I won't feel provoked.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC) correction/clarification of the issue. 12:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my edits, as anyone who reviews the diffs can see. I strongly suggest you strike the last sentence in your last comment. Nowhere have I ever said or implied that "attacking Jews is legitimate "unrest"". That is your own novel and incorrect interpretation of my edits and comments. Tiamut^talk 22:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edit and arguments are increasingly offensive, replacing a very moderate description of attacks with weapons on the Jewish-Israelis with euphemisms. You keep coming to my page to claim that I am offending you because I'm Jewish-Israeli and my use of language is offensive to your Palestinian character. My apologies, but it is quite legitimate for me to use the same language used by your leaders when explaining their ideas and you don't do these "I'm offended by your language" to Arabs that use the same language (Samples: Hezbollah -- 6 times in 7 minutes -- Lebanese explanation, Palestinian leader, Khaled Mashaal -- 11 times in 5 minutes -- Hamas video -- 7 times in 8 min). Your "offense" here seems misplaced and provocative on its own since you know very well that the topic in question is attacks on Jews in Israel during the Second Intifada and that the attacks were made by Arabs who racially tageted Jews. Its got nothing to do with calling anyone for antisemitism but you continually justify/hide/censor and even lie(!) about the meaning of terms used by militants (Sample: false claim that Hamas does not advocate the destruction of Israel[4]). I don't appreciate people giving faulty explanations to terms used by their own society and then taking offense because it has broader interpretations than the ones you're trying to impose. In that sense, I also don't appreciate you assuming that I amcalling you antisemitic when the topic is attacks on Jews within the Arab-Israeli context, and you clearly have an invested side in this. I suggest you put in the time to fully understand all the different interpretations and usages of the term instead of taking offense every time a Jewish-Israeli uses it. Still, I rephrased some to give the exact context.

p.s. I can't take this "You are misrepresenting my edits" note with complete good faith considering the number of times you misinterpreted my words and spearheaded smear campaigns against me.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if playing the antisemitism card is grounds for a block but i do know it is serious slander. The above discussion concerns the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is weaselly to 1) selectively term only Israelis-as-victims suddenly as Jews; then 2) suggest another editor is pushing a position that "attacking Jews is legitimate". I won't abide the "Criticize Israel = Jew hater" technique, friend, and I assure you that there are many editors here who come from good Jewish homes and who regard such political playing of the antisemitism card as highly offensive. I have to second Tiamut's request that you strike your comment. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Heyo RomaC,

I don't know if playing the "I was called an antisemite" card when no one has done this is grounds for a block but I do know that it is very serious slander. The "Israelis-as-victims" were not Arab-Israelis but rather Jewish-Israelis attacked in the Second Intifada. In case you're not aware, this "unrest"[5] included knife attacks on Jewish people, not Arab ones. If you were to follow Tiamut's horrible edits in this topic, you would be able to understand how offensive they are. Just recently he argued that Hamas does not advocate the destruction of Israel[6](!?) My use of language here was fairly accurate considering these were not attacks on "Israelis" but rather racially targeted attacks on Jewish people in Israel. Its pretty clear to anyone who understands the topic in discussion (I'm not sure that you do) that I did not call anyone antisemitic but Tiamut did change the phrasing in an offensive manner where the subject was attacks on Jewish people in Israel and I responded by noting that his edit was tendentious and, yes, very offensive. I don't appreciate this group thing where editors known for making edits with an anti-Israeli feel are ganging up on me to say I offended one of their buddies. Still, I made some correction to my initial phrasing to clarify the Israeli connection.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

AE comment

Would you care to strike out your comment about my edit to the Lieberman page being a violation of my topic ban as it has been demonstrated that it was not? nableezy - 17:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Nableezy,

You do have some point that you missed an official violation of the shortened sanction by 57 minutes. It still feels, however, as though you still misunderstand what the "sanction" is about and that you continue to violate its spirit. Being incivil to 4 different editors on the Israel talkpage, myself included, wasn't a good start and the revert to make Lieberman look like a radical left me with a feeling that you're not 'there' yet.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Your life, I gave you an opportunity to correct a blatant error. If you choose not to it only says more about you than it does about me. Bye, nableezy - 17:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And another

I hear you. I personally think it is a bad sign to make a revert like that within an hour of a ban being lifted. I'm assuming nothing will happen at AE. There is a possibility that there have been enough requests for enforcement to drive the point home.Cptnono (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:BAN

Please review that policy, including the section on editing on behalf of banned users and the section on enforcement by reverting edits. That you think it is appropriate to retain NoCal100's latest sock's cmts is noted, but policy explicitly disallows you from doing so. nableezy - 23:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Heyo Nableezy,

I don't have too much sympathy for banned editors, whoever they may be. However, I'm not sure where that link suggests that non-admins should remove banned editors' comments from talkpages. Could you please clarify where you're getting that from the policy?

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw it as the principle on this. Maybe Nableezy should reconsider removing or striking out comments altogether. Make a note on the page "so and so are banned". Consensus is not a vote and it isn't like people can't read the comments through the strike through. Leave it alone.Cptnono (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy,

The principle here is treating even banned editors with dignity. The policy doesn't say what you claimed and, in fact, it says that your action -- regardless of community standing -- serves as a provocation. You should not be striking other people's comments.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It says Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. I did not even remove the comments, which I could have, I just struck them out. Please do not play these games with me, I do not have the patience. nableezy - 19:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best if you avoid removing comments. You've been recently under community scrutiny over such activity and it is best if you learn from your errors rather than repeat them.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring on my talk page

If I remove a comment from my talk page, it is because I do not chose to have it there. Please do not restore it. 17:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RolandR (talk • contribs)

Oh, I didn't edit war. There was an edit-conflict when I added something to my initial comment (see here:[7]).

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I apologise for my accusation.RolandR (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:AE

[8] Tiamut^talk 17:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

ARBPIA notices

You can "notify" whoever you want, but a notification only counts for the purposes of that case if it is given my an administrator. Please do not edit the log section of WP:ARBPIA again. nableezy - 17:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

IRFU Flag and OI

Hello. Thank you very much for your response to Gnevin's notice (at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#IRFU flag) on this issue. I note that you have indicated your willingness to hear arguments for the use of an alternative to the IRFU flag with regard to OI policy. You will be pleased to know that there has been a full and robust discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union spanning many days and involving a large number of contributors, in which we made great efforts to give our reasoned interpretations of OI policy as it relates to this subject. I have recently tried to summarise the discussion here: Summary of Ireland Flag discussion and suggested consensus conclusion. The full discussion sits above that section. Your input will be greatly appreciated. I have posted this same message at the noticeboard as well. Please indicate if this is the correct protocol of relaying our discussion to you. If it is not, I apologise.Kwib (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Levy

Your constant reinsertion of ill-translated smears from an unreliable source is a breach of BLP policy, and by now constitutes vandalism. Please stop. RolandR (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Protocols and other such nonsense

If you make one more comment implying that other users are antisemites I will be going to AE. No need for a reply, but feel free if you wish, as I do not intend to discuss this further. Stop with the edit summaries and accusations in the talk page. nableezy - 22:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No one was accused of antisemitism and the article IS a horrible POV mess. This type of edit is just one example of the problem. If you have an example of me calling you an antisemite please bring it forward. I'd be surprised if this has happened (it hasn't) and I would suggest you review the comments made and read them without assuming someone was calling you anything.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I said "implying that other users are antisemites". It is hard to misquote me when the words are right in front of you, but somehow you manage to do it. Impressive. nableezy - 22:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jaakobou, You might be interested to see how Tiamut is blaming me in anti-Islamic allusion. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure there's real value in that thread. I'm also in the middle of an argument over an article written as if wikipedia were the Palestinian encyclopedia and I'd rather avoid going to new articles and expand on the conflict. If it makes any sense, both you and sandstin make some sense. I would try and listen to Sandstin's suggestions in this instance as much as possible.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You did not understand. I am not asking you to comment neither on the thread nor on the article. I just thought that you might be interested that while Nableezy is threatening you with AE for some accusations you have apparently made, Tiamut is accusing me in making "anti-Islamic allusion". --Mbz1 (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It is a bit of a tactic with Tiamut/Nableezy. That and tag-team edit-warring. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Rfc - Blood Libel / Israel's Brutality

You may be interested in commenting on this. NickCT (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

NPA

If you think I made a personal attack feel free to report me. Do not however remove my comments. nableezy - 16:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Do not change other editors' Talk page comments, as you did here. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There's actually a living person involved. WP:BLP refers to talk pages as well and the original sub-section title was "Conspiracy Theorist". I think you should reconsider the importance of talkpages as what they are meant to be used for.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Should you remove your comment?

here. You actually were responding to a sock of a banned user. I removed his comment, but should we remove the whole section? Best.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Vigilantism

Please do not remove my perfectly legitimate comments from a noticeboard, and while doing so, accuse me of "ban evasion". My comments had nothing to do with I-P issues. Even if you were right that there was something wrong in what I did, you - of all people - are in no position to act as this site's policeman. N-HH talk/edits 09:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Last I checked, you stated "[Pan-Arabism] - where Nableezy may well be a lone voice of sanity". The thread discusses activity of users in the I-P area and you yourself commented in reference to the area. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Pan-Arabism is not within the Arab-Israeli conflict, except for the sections discussing the pan-Arabist view of Israel and whatever conflict that may have contributed to. nableezy - 23:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Dudes (if I may call you all that): I'm really not a huge fan of editors in the IP area trying to use the flawed-to-almost-broken procedures against each other. Thus, NHH, would it make sense to you yourself to go and ask the powers that be whether your comment does or doesn't violate the ban (towards which, as you know, I have little sympathy)? It seems like a grey area, and might be best resolved in a non-adversarial way. Possible? Cheers all. IronDuke 00:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea IronDuke. I'd take up on that suggestion, N-HH, if you wish to make testimonials about editors involved in these articles. Repeatedly finding grey areas to test the waters with is not the best way forward. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Jaakobou, the point for me was that by removing the comment you imposed your interpretation of the scope of the ban on everyone else. Maybe by adding the comment Nick imposed his interpretation of the scope of the ban on everyone else too. Either way, you can't both be right. It's the kind of thing best left to admins. Adding the 'NOTICE:' was a much better approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)...although you could have phrased it better. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to ask anyone whether my comments were in violation of any ban, they very evidently were not. None of them, however hard you try to create some convoluted linkage. Jaakobou, you have edit warred to erase my comments from a talk page and are driving forward three spiralling threads about it (on the WQA page itself, here and on Sean's page), while accusing me of trying to use a username change to get round a ban and claiming I have a "history" of ban evasion. Seriously, I am not that fucking stupid, and the second part of your comment is an equally malicious falsehood. I'm assuming the irony of your behaviour and drama mongering is not being lost on anyone with half a brain here. I don't see the need to add much else on this myself. N-HH talk/edits 10:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Your revert

Hi Jaakobou. Would you mind explaining th reasoning for your revert on the talk page discussion where I had mentioned the change? Thanks. ← George ^talk 23:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure George. In a few minutes. Would be good if you add an explanation to why you added those sources though since they don't appear in your comment. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear what the issue with the sources is. I saw that you performed some changes, which I agreed with to some degree, but that you had removed a lot of sources at the same time, and I wasn't sure why. To be clear, adding sources never violates WP:BLP, though sentences cited to those sentence can. I fixed the sentences, but wasn't sure why the sources were removed. I don't think they were necessary for that sentence though, as I don't think it was controversial. ← George ^talk 00:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should review the discussion page a little bit. You'll excuse me if I'm not going to repeat everything that was said but BLP is a real concern with recent efforts to smear the subject of the article without relevant sources or should I say, sources that hold relevancy to the smear topic. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"Smear"? It seems your opinion is that Shahaf's a-Durrah campaign is good, but his Rabin campaign is bad. Therefore we can't mention his Rabin campaign. Sorry this is wrong because a) it is your opinion, b) the Rabin campaign is reliably-sourced. It's something like taking "Dances with Wolves" out of the Kevin Costner article, really, please be policy-compliant. RomaC (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me any of the details of his "Rabin campaign"? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of theories out there about Rabin, I'd think you could find the most sources of information in Hebrew if you really want, search "Rabin", "Shahaf", "Amir," "Shamgar Commission" etc. Can you have a look and let us know what you find? Thanks, RomaC (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything encyclopedic on the issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That's shouldn't be a problem, per the reliable sources noting his involvement is enough, did you now want to go into details? I don't think we need to do so. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's really not enough for a bio to use sources that mention the issue off hand without anyone being able to find out what its really about. He was not the subject of those articles either but rather just a side mention. I linked to it a couple times before and you really should review WP:BLP. There's a few clear explanations on what shouldn't be used in biographies and the general style in which they should be written. If you don't trust my interpretation on this issue, you can ask at the BLP noticeboard. Fair enough? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You say you need details on Shahaf's Rabin work, before the article can include even a (properly-sourced) passing mention of it? Now you're just making stuff up. Show me where this is laid out in Wiki policy. RomaC (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well,

I'm not against inclusion if we can proper sourcing, something which has not yet occurred. I notice you like magic acts so here's the physics behind cunjouring things up:

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion .. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment." (see also: Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise).

Btw, in his CV there is documentation that Shahaf has come up with a "Physics behind magic" program for gifted children. Wish we'd have more info on that one.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

edit-warring

that is your third revert at that article. nableezy - 05:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've been trying to make the article reasonable and a Nableezy/Tiamut tag-team decided (read: edit-warred) an article about an Israeli policy shouldn't have the Israeli perspective or background in it. Sigh. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, this is where a bit of give and take comes in. If Nableezy and Tiamut were more belligerently minded, they would be heading off and trying to make the most out of you calling them a tag-team. -- ZScarpia (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following what you're trying to say with that diff and commentary and, to be honest, it seems like you're looking for drama, which is against the purpose of this project. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I was trying to illustrate the last comment I addressed to you in the User:Nableezy (summary from WP:ANI) section on the Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts page, where two smallish incivilities of Nableezy's had been raised: "Just think, by shrugging things off, you earn the right to expect others to shrug off any lapses you yourself might make." I would say that calling two editors a tag-team is also a small-scale incivility and perhaps other editors might agree. Presumably you would think it disproportionate if Nableezy and Tiamut raised a case about it? -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah.

Your comment makes sense now but, in all honesty, they should actually stop punching the 3RR "clock" as a tag-team. It creates more room for Tiamut's novelty "tired Zionist propaganda" claims, yes, but your coterie is against the purpose of the project and does more damage than good in the long term.

p.s. The high road is always respected. Honesty and integrity are always rewarded. I'm sure.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

... sorry, couldn't resist entering the fray. -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

ZScarpia , what's the big deal about calling a pair of editors a tag-team? If only pro-Israel editors could work in such teamwork, the Israel related articles would be less cluttered. --Shuki (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've only just come across this question. Calling others a tag team isn't a big deal. I was using it to highlight a point I was making on the Wikiquette noticeboard where a complaint about a couple of rather minor incivilities had been posted.     ←   ZScarpia   12:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nahum Shahaf

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nahum Shahaf, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nahum Shahaf. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ← George ^talk 09:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jaakobou. Sorry, I'm confused. It doesn't seem like your edit had an edit summary..? ← George ^talk 23:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring BLP issues on Nahum Shahaf

Jaakobou, you need to address the issues raised on Talk:Nahum Shahaf and stop reverting to a version that is full of POV and BLP violations. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, it is really saddening to see you pushing the conspiracy theories there. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard re Nahum Shahaf

Please note that I have raised the issue of your problematic editing of Nahum Shahaf at the BLP noticeboard, at WP:BLP/N#POV and sourcing problems with Nahum Shahaf, as a possible preliminary to an arbitration enforcement request under the article probation regime currently in force on Israel-Palestine articles. If you have any views on the matter, please feel free to contribute to the BLP/N discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Shahaf and Rabin

Hey Jaak, I don't think Shahaf's involvement in Rabin assassination theories warrants a whole section, but do think it notable that Al-Durrah was not Shahaf's first such investigation. What would you say if this were reduced to a brief mention? Or is your position that it cannot be mentioned at all in the article? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not completely against an inclusion as long as it doesn't give too much undue body to practically irrelevant (read: al-Durrah related) "critique" by people who don't even know what he was talking about. I have to say I appreciate the new approach and hope we can indeed find a satisfactory solution for everyone. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Abandoned

Please consider placing {{db-user}} on User:Jaakobou/Battle of Jenin, it is now years out of sync with the live article and you've not touched it in a very long time. WP:USER does not allow indefinite holding of content forks. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library

Hi, Could you point out which scholars wrote that particular piece and where its editorial process is detailed? Unomi (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Please respond. Unomi (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

seeking consensus on New York Times and the Holocaust

Please join the discussion in Talk:The New York Times and the Holocaust#Seeking Consensus. The only people working on the page right now are the original author and three people who wanted to delete the topic.Cimicifugia (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)cimicifugia