User talk:Jaakobou/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

---

I apologize

I have been watching you for a while now and honestly I do not think that you need to be encouraged to go farther on saying that the whole thing was faked. You have been pushing for this at any moment and using all your will. I have thorough experience in reading IDF statements and the fact that they admitted the posiblity of having shoot the kid from the first moment is paramount. You also know the stuff so for you should also be paramount. But you completely dismiss this fact and you keep filling the article with irrelevant quarrels about how the media reflected the shooting. The whole article have been constructed by you as a debate about press coverage and you have lost no opportunity of intoducing doubts and inuendos in it. The probability that you are doing this because you are consciously pushing you POV is enormous. However you are right in saying that wikipedia rules do not allow me to comment your behaviour. My comment was certainly not a violation of WP:NPA since is not included in any of the cases written there. Perhaps it can be considered WP:NPA of the WP:ICA kind and was certainly a violation of ["assume good faith"] since the rule explicitly says that "Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute". I must confess that I have dificulties to stay cool when we are speaking about a dead kid and this was the reason I gave up editing that page and the reason I cannot aggravate a dispute that does not exist. In any case, since whatever my reasons, I should have not commented on you, I formally apologize. If you want, you can erase my comment and then I will substitute for a comment about content not about contributors.--Igor21 12:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

if i'm not mistaken, you just echoed your belief in the accusation; try not to repeat it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Forum shopping

Would it be possible for you to go a day without a complaint about PalestineRemembered? Catchpole 14:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

are you an admin? if yes, then i respectfully request seriously going over the last ANI instead of jumping at me for asking his repeated harassments and violations addressed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about Catchpole but I'm an admin if that makes any difference for you and I also find it rather tiresome to see you starting threads on various boards every couple of days to complain. I did delete a template which Palestineremembered had blanked more than two weeks ago so I'm not sure why you'd come and ask me to comment on it now. If anything, it shows that he has toned it down. I wish you could do the same. Pascal.Tesson 21:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

1. i had not opened the original ANI (but did open a new one when i saw the conversationwas completely sidetracked).

1. i would not have started anything had he toned it down and stopped harassing me, i assume no one jumps into each and every one of your content dispute talks with accusations about "your long history", so please give me some benefit of the doubt that i am truely in distress at the lack of response from the community (2-3 months already) only because he has some frineds to make discussions very big and hard to follow.
2. if you do decide to go over the threads (and the links provided), you might grow to agree with me.

with respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not exactly easy to be oblivious to the fact that you have a problem with PR. Indeed, you have started a thread on WP:AN, one on WP:ANI, extensively participated in an ANI thread two days ago, and started a thread 10 days ago on WP:VPA. Perhaps it's time for you to consider that this obsession of yours with PR's edits is not entirely warranted and that there may be more productive ways of resolving the conflict than asking for his head every week on a different forum. Pascal.Tesson 21:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Pascal.Tesson,

thank you for mentioning tha VPA case in which i asked for directions on DR with User:Eleland. PR was not part of the conversation, but he attacked me on that thread regardless^[1].... so maybe i'm not the obsessed one? please consider that my issue has not been dealt with rather than assume bad faith.Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith. But I am assuming an inability to deal with conflict other than by asking that the other camp be disciplined. Both you and PR edit articles on highly contentious subjects which are prone to edit warring, overstatements, accusations, etc. From what I gather, you have also been guilty of such excesses in the past. That's not to say PR is a model wikipedian, far from it. But many agree that he's toned it down and is more measured in his edits than he used to be. Pascal.Tesson 22:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"sure you're not assuming bad faith".. you're only comparing me (based on what exactly?) to the person who accused me of being a war criminal,^[2] and created Hated Google Test after he accused me of "tampering" with the structure of an RfC i opened in order to get rid of his long standing attempts at changing the article title to Jenin Massacre and make it seem as though hundreds were killed in jenin and israel covered it up.

either go over the material seriously, or don't - but please stop making gross comparisons if you have no intention to get into this seriously. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point entirely. Nevertheless, I have deleted User:Jaakobou/GeniVolunteering which is clearly meant to be an attack on Geni's work as a mentor. I do realize that you feel Geni has done a horrible job as a mentor but clearly, that page is not part of a solution to your problems with PR. Pascal.Tesson 06:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Jews Against Zionism

No, it's jewsagainstzionism.org that is registered in my name. A completely different organisation, secular rather than religious. So I really can't help you on Baruch Kaplan; try contacting יודל, who I believe knows about this.RolandR 00:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look

at seplling and other issues at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni Thanks. Zeq 08:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hebron zt"l

Jaakobou, how are you? I hope that you're at least moderately comfortable with my effort on Hebron. Hopefully, other 3rd parties will contribute too. In any case, I just added a note there to ask you guys to knock off the edit warring. As always, feel free to contact me if you have any further q's or issues that you'd like me to address. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 18:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. fyi, I'm replying w/an answer to your question at Talk:1929 Hebron massacre and, as you might imagine, replied at PR's AN/I with specific questions for you. I suspect you'll help move things forward through your responses at both spots, thanks. HG | Talk 08:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ok, replied on my page, give a look, thanks. HG | Talk 09:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Gideon Levy

I have removed most of the extremely large criticism section you inserted into this article; whilst there is no doubt that the criticism is a valid part of the article, giving such weight to the Linur letter just seemed a bit OTT. As well as being OTT, it was also a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight, as around 80% of the article was given over to criticism, 65% of which was the Linur letter. I don't want this to turn into another spat, so I hope you can accept that the criticism is ensconced into the article, but doesn't need expanding beyong it's current proportions. Thanks, пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. I have actually rewritten the criticism section so it goes into more detail about why Linur criticised Levy, but without expanding the section much. The section is still a little large, but I think it is now as succinct as it can be. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

i'll give it a look, but from our history, i tend to think you should have written on talk and find out that my suggestion was to expand the article rather than censor it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have also written on the talk page, though effectively what I have written directly to you (I was hoping a more personal approach might stop the nascent flame war which is happening on that page in its tracks). Anyway, even if the article was longer, the Linur letter does not deserve more than the couple of sentences that it has now - censoring it is not, just something which does not deserve so much space - it's not the declaration of independence! пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

i agree, however, the suggestion made by the other two, was unacceptable censorship. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did the big revert which you linked to, but then I realised that I had removed some worthwhile stuff, so I made a couple of edits that put it back in and reworded the original (this diff shows both edits). пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

please take a deeper look at the diff i gave you rather than assume haven't went over the changes. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, then I don't believe it is a blind revert - I haven't blindly removed information - I've kept everything in there (apart from the Glazin bit which I really thought was irrelevant) but just reduced its length. I also believe that calling him a commentator is preferable to an advocant (which a few people will know what it means, most will probably think it means lawyer). пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

you've removed quite a number of things (go over the diff). also, lookup the term "פובליציסט" and tell me if you have any better suggestions than my own. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I still can't see anything else that I removed except the Glazin bit. There is still the bit about him opposing the Lebanon War, criticism from Plaut and the bit about Ezra/Shabak, but I just reduced the amount of text on the Linur letter - I don't believe it is necessary to mention every single point she brought up - saying that he "owns" the Palestinian department, is amateurish and prevents negative reporting on the Palestinians is enough without mentioning the settler/Bargouti bits. Mentioning every aspect of any criticism that Levy has ever recieved would probably surpass the 30kb limits on the page!

Also, I don't understand what you mean by פובליציסט - publicist? I don't think it is used in the same context in English. Having just looked it up, "advocant" is not actually a word (it isn't in the OED, though I guessed your meaning from the context) - "advocate" is the correct term, but I think "commentator" also conveys this and has the benefit of not being able to be confused with "lawyer" - perhaps you could say that he is a left-wing commentator - few people could argue against that. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As I have made it quite clear, it was not a blind revert. I did not remove any sources or information which you added, but merely reduced the unnecessary weight given to one criticising source (which was also a clear violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight). And as I have made it quite clear in the past, I do not have an allegience with POV pushers whether it be yourself or pro-Palestinian ones. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)
repeating yourself, doesn't make you correct, try reading the text instead. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop inserting the overly-long criticism section to the Gideon Levy. It is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Thank you. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

i shortened it myself (after re-inserting all the blanketed material)^[3] and we can discuss shortening it further - your warning is more than ridiculous - you've removed information and sources^[4] from the article with a blind revert and now you give me a warning notice?! Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

btw, your unexplained source removal here, resulted in the removal of the term "left wing" in the folowing edit - please fix this issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No, what is ridiculous here is your claims. The one that you "shortened it" yourself still resulted in the Linur letter accounting for 51% of the article, and criticism as 73% of the total article. The current version has 42% devoted to criticism, which is still too high, but contains all the valid points. As for removing sources, do you really believe that www.iransolidarity.endofempire.org is a reliable website? I certainly don't, and I'm sure you would go mental if someone tried to use it in an anti-Israeli way (say on Battle of Jenin). I said I have no problem with left-wing being used (note that I left it in; so much for blind revert), but you'll have to sort that out with Nishidani (and you can tell him that as a neutral, I support its inclusion). пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

1. apparently, you think that if any criticism segment is constructed too early then it must be deleted. if you would have went over talk discussions, i clearly suggested we expand on his political beliefs and activities - maye you're not aware of this - but his political activity and the criticism that follows are a major part of the public perception on him (i.e. his otability). i expanded some on both - but mostly on the criticism, i leave it to people who prefer his POV to ADD materials to the article ('ADD' being the key word). note also that the article was marked as a stub - so the "deletionist" attitude (personally, seeing exactly who edited before you came along - nickhh, G-Dett, Nishidani, Abu Ali - and made your first ever edit on the article. i tend to interpret it as a bold group effort of promoting the POV shared by you and your friends) seems counter productive to the encyclopedia in my opinion.
2. i'm not against any website when it's mentioned by name. i'd be opposing that website if it were supposed to be considered 'the accurate WP:RS on israeli affairs', yes, but i would oppose most material by gideon levi as 'the accurate WP:RS on israeli affairs' no matter what website hosts him - even Haaretz's own website. however, i've already allowed some funny sites when the report was on topics they'd be considered reliable, and in case you was not aware, Gideon Levi indeed both wrote for "hostile contries" media sources and his words were also translated on them - i find no exceptional reason to feel that article was a fake Gideon Levi article - and it seemed like a good english source to back up the (not contenteous at all) note that he's considered a leftist.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Junk mail

Please don't use my talk page as a scrawl space for junk mail and bogus warnings.--G-Dett 15:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

i believe you've made a fairly disruptive edit, nothing bogus about this note or the previous notes i've given you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop harrassing me

I'm sick of your incomprehensible warnings showing up on my talk page. In every forum ([5] [6]) you've taken this to, you get told that Wikipedia is for big boys and girls, and that a certain back-and-forth on article talk pages is inevitable when working with controversial subjects. You refuse to engage in dialogue on article talk pages, and you rewrite article-space to reflect your personal views of a subject, without regard to proper sourcing or even proper spelling. You use incivility, real or imagined, as an excuse to avoid normal dispute resolution - and repeatedly, you have moved, edited, or deleted my comments in neutral forums to further short-circuit DR. Numerous independent editors have expressed their concern over such actions. Finally, you don't even deliver your warnings in a single edit, thus causing the "new messages" box to popup repeatedly for no reason.

From now on, I will be removing your complaints as soon as I see them. You are, of course, free to take your indignation elsewhere, as you seem to do in any case where you don't get your way. But do know that if you insist on making this an administrative issue, I will feel free to discuss your disruptive conduct at length. And I actually read and write English at an adult level, so you may be at a disadvantage in such a case. <eleland/talkedits> 17:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

removing them means you've seen them. that is all that matters if you escalate a step further and i am forced to take the matter to an ANI. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

p.s. i'd much rather have you address issues with some civility than so many times^{sample 1, sample 2} asking nicely (and now with notices and warnings) that you stop treating wikipedia like a battleground to lash out at others in. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop

Have the decency to respect the policy(WP:Words_to_avoid#Extremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fighter) regardless of how you might personally feel. Believe or not we cant change the rules for you. If the ploicy gets changed then fine, call them terrorist. Also remember one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. IP198 19:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

i'm afraid you need to learn to distinguish between militant operations and terrorist operations - there's a difference between a militant and a terrorist. look it up, and try to be reasonable when reverting attacks on children into "militant attack". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be reasonable about it if Israeli attacks against children were also called "terrorist" attacks. Or do you believe that Israeli blood is worth more than Arab blood? IP198 20:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

you must be new to the concept of "encyclopedia" and very familiar with the concept of "bash israeli crimes forum". i will answer your question though... however, it'll be in a private note so that i won't be using this space like a forum. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That wont be necessary. I have better things to do, and im sure you do as well. I wont change your views and you probably wont change mine. I will try to avoid Israeli/Palestinan for a-while, but lets say in a couple of months i see the word terrorist in a article and its violating the policy, i will revert it. If you wish to prevent that from happening, i strongly encourage you to have this policy changed or altered. Have a good one. IP198 20:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

some people, especially israeli, don't respond well to threats. think about it during those couple of months. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Tell me your problem

Hi Jaakobou - I wondered if you'd care to tell me what policies of the project you really think I've contravened? You seem to have gone to an enormous amount of effort to get me either muzzled or blocked and it seems such a shame to come out with so many accusations of me breaching policy, but with virtually no meat on any of them. Your participation seems positively blighted by this irritation you feel.

The problem you have is not just with me, of course - you've done similar things to at least three other editors quite recently, each of them (I think) professional academics - or certainly word-smiths much more skilful than me[7][8][9]. Such is the scholarship of those three editors, I'd barely even think of contradicting any of them (despite multiple disagreements with each). It's as if your anger towards me is overflowing and taking over your participation. You were recently told off for "Forum Shopping", so you're clearly just making a fool of yourself.

I was particularly sad to see here "I request he'd be blocked from editing until the community finds him a replacement mentor (this time, someone with admin options)"] - because this came about after you'd harassed poor volunteer User:Geni into silence with User:Jaakobou/GeniVolunteering. If you'd only tell me what irritates you so badly, I'm sure it would be possible to make your contributions less problematic and stressful to you. I'm trying not to go back into your history of harassment of admins and so forth because I know that's not the way to move forwards - but it certainly seems as if I'm doing something that's making your problem get worse and worse. PR^talk 16:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, i suggest you find a new mentor fast. otherwise, i might be "making a fool of myself" on Arbcom. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Yidisheryid

I must say, I get this feeling that you are User Yidisheryid (talk · contribs), correct me if I am wrong. IZAK 11:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

you are wrong. i've absolutely no idea on who that user is and i don't recall even encountering his/her edits. mind my question, but what made you think i might be that user? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The way you (mis)-spell and type (so poorly) and make the whole world crazy wherever you edit and your determination to destroy articles about Zionism. Just a few small things like that you know. It reminds me of my friend User:Yidisheryid, oh and he is known to abuse sockpuppets, and I haven't seen much of him lately, so I thought maybe he went over to Israel/Palestine and attacked the Jewish homeland (articles) directly since he hates the Zionists so much he will even destroy himself like a peaceful ("Yiddisher") Japanese on a Kamikaze mission. But then again, I may be wrong since I have met such a peaceful man like you. IZAK 12:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

what do you mean "determination to destroy articles about Zionism" ?

p.s. i don't make the "world" crazy. only people with heavy POV that don't get a free pass in pushing it.

p.p.s. "met such a peaceful man"... i don't know, but it seems i should take this comment as a cheap shot considering the content heading it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh don't be silly, you asked me to give my reasons and now when I honestly do you throw accusations at me, you know, that's not fair and it's just what Yidisheryid used to do. Are you sure you are not him? IZAK 12:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not try to give the antisemites a hard time instead of bothering some Israeli and Judaic editors? Turn your gun-sites on the right targets for a change. IZAK 12:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

there's explaining things, and there's acting guile. perhaps i'm misreading you, but the latter is how your comments come off.

p.s. i don't target any editor for his ideology and i've no idea what you're basing your assessments on. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ariel_Sharon_by_Latuff.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ariel_Sharon_by_Latuff.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. IZAK 12:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC) IZAK 12:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your user page

Following this discussion in which another editor pointed out that it may have been inappropriate to create it, I have deleted your user page (as I was its creator and only editor, I assumed that I was able to under WP:CSD#G7). If you want to reinstate it or tell us a bit about yourself, feel free. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

why on earth would you do that after i already said i don't mind the edit? (plus it sat there for a few months) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I do remember you saying it was no big deal, IZAK has suggested it was inappropriate to do in the first place and that I should remove it. No harm done anyway, пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

indeed no harm done, have a groovy day. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ariel Sharon by Latuff.jpg)

rmd 18:40, 7 November 2007. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 

Thanks for uploading Image:Ariel Sharon by Latuff.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Got your email

I got your email, but I don't use any of the IRC chat like tools. Long before instant messaging were widely available, I learned I had the choice of using them or being productive. I choose productivity. You've already commented in the IfD discussion and can do so further; take a look at the commons category now linked directly above your comment, as that will address at least half your comment. GRBerry 14:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

in the time that passed since the deletion notice came up, i found 4 out of the 5 images with links that mark them clearly as copyright free. regardless, i thought about the comment that perhaps we should only chose one image to represent the (quite large) series, and thinking about it, there are far more interesting images created by the propagandist. i was hoping to go over some of them (public domain images) with you to hear your thoughts on what would work best. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know this editorial cartoonist at all to know which of his work is most significant/well-known Go look at the references for the article. If they consistently use the same example(s) to discuss his work, we probably should also as those are likely the most well known and/or significant examples of his work. If they don't, pick from among the examples they do use, assuming at least some of those are available under an appropriate license. Given the size of the category on commons, I'd bet at least some are. GRBerry 04:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

List of massacres during the Second Intifada

Talk:List of massacres during the Second Intifada Looking for outside input into a long-term controversy over the naming and scope of this list. As you participated in the afd, please help us out. Thanks. <<-armon->> 11:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding NPOV on Operation Defensive Shield

Please review WP:NPOV. This policy does not justify the deletion of content which you keep performing on that article. To quote: The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The correct approach under our NPOV policy is to add content which balances the view you believe is being given. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

i believe that if you are unable to deal with this issue properly (COI per being part of this dispute), then you should refer it to the other mentor.

p.s. there's nothing to counter pov pushing, out of context, out of time line, WP:OR connection of a cafeteria quote from march 5th to the reasons for Operation Defensive Shield announced early morning march 29th after a full month of suicide bombings culminating with the Passover massacre late night march 27. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, that comment was during the first wave of Israeli attacks, which the hotel bombing was in response to. It seems to be part of the overall timeline of the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered edit-warred over a POV cherry quote - not over "time line".

considering you've made a similar edit Nov. 3 but haven't expanded on talk after you've been reverted, i would (again) suggest that, "if you are unable to deal with this issue properly, then you should refer it to the other mentor." Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

nevermind, i've taken the liberty and did it myself. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is you might want to actually try reading Rees, Matt (2000-03-18). "Streets Red With Blood". Time Magazine. It provides a reliable, contemporary report of what was going on in the weeks prior to the operation. You can quibble about what parts exactly belong as a part of the article background, but there's no reason to keep removing it as a source. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

well then, it seems that we both missed each other's points. i have missed your point, that you are discussing your edits of time line events (which are in dispute with tewfik); and you have missed that i am discussing a quote inserted repeatedly by PalestineRememebred, out of context, in an attempt to push the POV that sharon is an evil war criminal.

maybe you should go over the diffs [10] again?

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s. sample edit summaries from the 5 provided diffs:

"Sharon's original goal was to "hit" the Palestinians", [11]

"Sharon intended "to hit the Palestinians" before any of this", [12]

"Sharon's intended mass killings" [13]

these comments (diffs listed [14]) and the quote have little to do with time line; esp. when PalestineRemembered was notified twice of terror attacks on 2,3 and 5th of march [15][16], the quote being referred to march 6th.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You do have a point about PR's POV being beyond what the sources said, and his choice of inserting this information is temporally in the wrong place. I suppose I'm as guilty as anyone of not using the talk page to foment discussion. All of us need to stop edit warring and attempt to discuss compromise edits at Talk:Operation Defensive Shield. Back and forth accusations about edit warring aren't being productive here. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

the back and forth between you and tewfik is not very interesting to me (even if i tend to think your version minimizes the background to the operation) and i suggest you indeed handle it on the article's talk page. The PR abuse of the quote was moved to the other mentor due to your COI. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

offtopic

Let me butt in, although all of this really belongs on the article talk page. Both the Palestinian Authority, in their submission to the UN on Jenin, and Amnesty International, in their overall report on March and April incursions culminating in Defensive Shield, chose to use the Sharon quote as an epigraph to introduce the Israeli motivation. Now, obviously we can't write articles solely to Palestinian or AI POV, however, excluding their POV while keeping the official Israeli POV is just as bad. We should mention both the officially stated reason, and the conjectured true goals. If AI and the PA are not considered to be notable enough, I can also provide a great many sources from the Israeli and Western left which are in the same vein. <eleland/talkedits> 23:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

this comment is irrelevant to the issue raised and indeed should be made on the article's talk page; regardless, thank you for your perspective on how both the palestinians and amnesty (echoing the palesitnian claims) regarded/used this quote. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You claimed that a quotation is irrelevant to Defensive Shield, I show that notable POV's treated it as not only relevant but crucial, and you come back saying it's got nothing to do with the issue? What IS the issue, then? The fact that you don't like PR? <eleland/talkedits> 00:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

i request that you make your (belated) case regarding content on the article's talk page and avoid personal attacks. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The quote from Sharon is considered absolutely central to the progress of Operation Defensive Shield, even the pro-Israel Time magazine reported it 2 weeks later in these words in the first paragraph of "Streets red with blood": "The Palestinians must be hit and it must be very painful. We must cause them losses, victims, so that they feel the heavy price" He went on to do just that, unleashing a broader military offensive than anything seen so far in the past 17 months of fighting". Amnesty International and the PA treat it the same way. This edit-war has been going on for well over 6 weeks now, over a simple, straight-forward edit that properly adds necessary information to the article. How are we ever going to deal with really difficult edits if this one causes us so much trouble? PR^talk 16:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

am i seeing correctly? are you soapboxing on my page again? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

note

I read the discussion and decided the appropriate course of action was to delete the image. -Nv8200p talk 02:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:HeilIsrael.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:HeilIsrael.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

no. i havn't quite seen a fair use replacement for a "sharon with the hitler salute" comic by latuff. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote mining again? There are several images by the same artist. // Liftarn (talk)

Image:HeilIsrael.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:HeilIsrael.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Liftarn (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Liftarn (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Carlos Latuff

A request was made on WP:RFPP to protect the article due to the edit conflict. TSO1D (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Your behaviour with regard to Palestine Remembered has crossed the line into disruption. I am warning you that if continue to interject yourself into discussions about him by seeking topic bans without any demonstration of having actually tried to work together with him, I will block you for disruption. Let the mentors mentor him, stop getting in the way. GRBerry 16:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

i won't assume anything, but this block warning is over the top and uncalled for. i'd go as far as saying i don't believe i have not tried working with him - on many accounts i tried explaining and finding a common ground... (example:) the story behind Hated Google Test. are you aware it is a result of an RfC i opened [17], which came after many attempts of finding a consensus?

p.s. i also don't quite believe i've interfered with the work of the current mentors - i did refer one note to Ryan after it was more than clear that Kendrick has a WP:COI on said article. but that certainly is no call to block me or even warn a block. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Hi Jaakobou,

I've started a WP:RFAR regarding the repeated deletion of the term "occpuied territories" by yourself and others here.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 28.11.2007 16:01

"Incivility"

I have replied on my talk page. --Nickhh (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of entire article

You are kindly asked to refrain from blanking List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada by redirecting it to List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. Four editors have expressed their support of this move while not one has articulated a valid rationale against. Please engage in talk to build consensus for your changes. If you blank that page again, I will be asking for a User RfC to be opened against you. Thank you. Tiamut 10:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

please try reading the edit summaries. an article about non combatants was split in half with no reason other than WP:POVFORK; so i reversed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, if you refuse to use the talk or edit summaries to justify your change, I will revert them.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 29.11.2007 17:29

Jaakobou please desist from blanking articles because you do not like the content. thankyou.--Burgas00 (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

i'd appreciate a diff or two. thank you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

comment - anyone interested in knowing a few of the pro-palestinian, anti-israeli editors, can simply take a peak at this subsection. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

comment - perhaps you meant to write:

"anyone interested in knowing what an anti-palestinian editor who violates wiki policies can expect to encounter, can simply take a peak at this sub-section."

no? Tiamut 00:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither Jaakobou's comment nor Tiamut's response is appropriate. Tone it down, both of you! GRBerry 04:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

i'd be happy to "tone it down". i think a good first step in resolving this issue would be you asking these three editors to not abuse my page like this, though, just because they want to keep a WP:POVFORK.

p.s. there's been extremely "revert this person at all cost" atmosphere lately around me, even though at least some of the edits were well based on talk. i suggest to the "secret revert jaakobou society" (who's most undoubtedly watching) to tone it down also so that an arbcom can be avoided. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

sample - [18] edit per Talk:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#taken_hostage_vs._captured (noted in edit summary).

reverted by Pedero.

pedro's response: "if you refuse to use the talk or edit summaries to justify your change, I will revert them." - Pedro Gonnet, 17:32, 29 November 2007.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

How disingenuous of you... I made my comment after reverting this edit of yours. Not after your bogus claim to some kind of consensus in the talk. pedro gonnet - talk - 30.11.2007 08:22

clearly, you've ignore the complaint itself. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Hi Jaakobou,

I re-factored the RfC here and hope that you will now be able to participate.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 30.11.2007 09:33

Hello again,

You might want to re-consider your latest edit at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I copied the comments out of the previous, ill-formatted RfC discussion, not from the discussion at large, as you did. I'm no specialist on Wikipedia policies, but that could be interpreted as vote-stacking.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 30.11.2007 15:16

Please

I would appreciate it if you would hold off on editing Iman Darweesh Al Hams while I merge the two articles and format the refs. You can make changes afterward if you still feel it necessary. Thanks. Tiamut 14:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

please pay close attention to the last rewrite i inserted. [19] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Tantrums

Jaakobou, if you reference a guideline in a manner which indicates you haven't even read it, you're wasting everybody's time, and calling you on it is not a "tantrum". You claimed that WP:NOTCENSORED justified the insertion of information from Arutz Sheva's website, an unreliable extremist source. But WP:UNCENSORED is about images of faeces, racist quotations, and the like, not about source reliability. The guideline explicitly states that content must "not violate any of our existing policies (especially neutral point of view)", and it's those policies you should be discussing, not irrelevancies. Baseless accusations of censorship are far more problematic than the "tantrums" which they incite. <eleland/talkedits> 11:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

that is very much your own perception, and should be discussed with civility on the talk page. not with uncivil revert commentary.

p.s. i hope you remember that this is not the first time you've used this aggressive mannerism and i request you go over Wikipedia:Civility#Examples and take notes. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict (2nd try)

Hi Jaakobou,

I've suggested a compromise and it would be nice to have your input on it.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 08:12

Media & online sources

Thought I'd make a general point to you here as it seems to be a bit of a theme that comes up in a lot of your editing, in my view. I'm also a bit surprised that this has to be spelled out to you, but there you are - anyway the point about sourcing is to verify and show that events happened or that certain people said certain things, not so that editors here can extract their favoured interpretation of events and claim it as "sourced" in an article. That's why Wikipedia should limit itself a) to mainstream reliable media sources; and b) to lifting only straight facts from those sources.

The New York Times, The Jerusalem Post and yes even the BBC are large organisations, who employ researchers, fact-checkers and editors. Their journalists will also have good contacts with official organisations and their spokespeople, and access to press briefings and the like. They don't publish accounts of things that happened or were said unless, generally, those things did actually happen or those things were said. Yes they make mistakes but they are usually caught out somewhere down the line. Most also tend to strive towards at least a semblance of balance in their reporting, as well as even on their op-ed pages. These are some of the differences between mainstream media outlets and a lot of blogs or other self-published or avowedly partisan websites, whichever side they tend towards.

However at the same time different media do of course have their own biases and editorial rules (whether acknowledged or not), and also tend to write in quite descriptive language even in straight news items. Eg The New York Times might report that "the IDF launched a devastating raid into the West Bank" or that a "horrific attack hit Tel Aviv yesterday". It would usually be inappropriate to carry these phrases over into a Wikipedia article. Equally, different media sources will use different words to describe the same situations, so there is often no consensus in any event. This means that editors here cannot use that aspect of media reporting as if it were a definitive judgement on something and insert it into Wikipedia articles, claiming that they have therefore "sourced" their favourite turn of phrase.

Apologies for the lecture, but it may save having to point this all out to you again and again on separate talk pages. --Nickhh (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

i agree with you 100% on the stated "lecture". however, the dispute is over arafat politically motivated action and that was the consensus we reached a while back. the first phrasing was 'symbolically donated blood', based on a number of sources and also the text of the image in the BBC article (right click that picture and click properties). however, there were objections to the term symbolically and we ended up agreeing on the text used in the article body. started here: [20] and ended here: [21]. anyways, i'm open to suggestions that stay true to the notion that it was a politically motivated action. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

comment regarding eleland

rmd 23:43, 5 December 2007. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 

per this subsection: [22] - static version.

only one user violated 3RR (while adding uncivil commentary), so i find it odd that the policy is not enforced.

side note: this is not a case of BLP violation, the information was standing since december 2006 [23]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, blocking a user is only one way of preventing edit warring - protection is also an option. Blocks aren't punitive. Stifle (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)