User talk:Jaakobou/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

---

"Rule of the Gaza Strip by Egypt" vs. "Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt"

Talk:Rule of the Gaza Strip by Egypt#"Rule of the Gaza Strip by Egypt" vs. "Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt"

Go, knock yourself out. pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 17:00

Well, are you going to defend your move or not? pedro gonnet - talk - 12.12.2007 09:17

my move is just as defensible as yours. however, i was hoping to see a comment or two by less involved individuals than us both. please answer me this question does the term "occupation" imply foreign army in a land not their own? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As stated in Military occupation, the definition given by the Hague Conventions is

“ Art. 42: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. ”

and

“ Art. 43: The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country. ”

I'm curious to see how you're going to try to parse this to your advantage... pedro gonnet - talk - 12.12.2007 10:02

pedro, we have opposing opinion regarding this term - but i'm trying to keep an open mind, please do the same. my question was: does the term "occupation" imply foreign army in a land not their own? and from your given text i see that, "the authority of the hostile army" which would support my notion that the answer to my question is "yes". do you accept that it is indeed the answer or no (explain why)? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not support a strict "boots on the ground" definition. Occupation is when you exercise control. If this control is achieved by having troops there (as in the West Bank or Iraq) or by threatening to move troops there (as in the Gaza Strip) makes no difference.

What is important is that the occupant has authority over a territory which does not belong to him/her. How it is effectively enforced (troops or no troops) is not important. pedro gonnet - talk - 12.12.2007 10:15

And by the way, this is a discussion, not an RfC. We should try to work this out ourselves before calling on the community. pedro gonnet - talk - 12.12.2007 10:19

"by threatening to move troops there"? i'd appreciate a WP:RS for this addition/extension to the original definition. if someone would apply the same logic in reverse form, than all of israel is occuppied by the arabs/muslims and also the city of mecca which used to be jewish. try to keep emotions/pre-conceptions out of the discussion and keep to what the reliable sources say, please, so we can avoid turning this debate into a facebook style give-and-go.

to quote you: "which does not belong to him/her". so, do you agree that the definition of "occupation" suggests that the "occupier" is a foreign force? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

My source is the Hague Conventions. The phrase "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army" means just that: authority is important.

Regarding the ownership issue, no part of the British Mandate of Palestine was ever given to Egypt (the Gaza Strip was to belong to a new arab state, as stated in the article in question), hence it did not belong to them.

Look, I'm no big fan of word-games and entrapment. If you have a point to make, make it. pedro gonnet - talk - 12.12.2007 10:36

i agree that 'authority' is important, i also subject that 'hostile' is also important. you are avoiding the question - please answer it in relation to the sources and words you've already used - so that we can move on to the ownership issue.

to repeat, the question was: does the term "occupation" imply foreign army in a land not their own?. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what you don't understand about my answer. "Occupation" implies foreign authority in a land not their own. To answer in one word: does the term "occupation" imply foreign army in a land not their own? No. pedro gonnet - talk - 12.12.2007 11:09

thank you for answering the question - per, "foreign authority in a land not their own." [1].

now the question rises, who owns these strips of land called gaza and west bank. and that is where the real complications begin. according to the balfour declaration, it's jewish land. according to the arab rejected 1947 UN proposal, it's arab land. according to the pan-arab movement and the islamist movement, it's arab/islamic land. according to the zionist/jewish movement, it's israeli land. these are obviously conflicting narratives, and the UN is rejected by both. i agree that the term "occupied" can be used to some extent in this conflict... but not everywhere. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

$\leftarrow$ The issue of ownership of the Mandate after its dissolution is a rather large and prickly issue... To make the whole thing easier: It doesn't matter who the "land" (i.e. the Gaza Strip) belonged to exactly -- what is important is that it definitely did not belong to Egypt. Hence, it was occupied by Egypt. pedro gonnet - talk - 12.12.2007 12:32

User:Pedro Gonnet,

"what is important is that it definitely did not belong to Egypt." - pedro gonnet 12.12.2007 12:32.

- i agree with you on this 100% (glad we agree on this), although they certainly have a stronger case than Jordan over the West Bank considering the history of Albanian Muhammad Ali.

"Hence, it was occupied by Egypt" - pedro gonnet 12.12.2007 12:32.

this is where WP:OR comes into the picture (again). have you ever given a look to land ownership laws of different countries? what about ownership laws of non countries? ever heard of the "Galactic Government"? (not related to star wars). on point, you are definitely 100% incorrect with your statement that, [if it] did not belong to [anyone]...then it was occupied.

false perceptions are hard to correct, but i trust you will agree (at least on this semi-point) if you explore this issue based on reliable sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So your point is that although it didn't belong to Egypt, and Egypt took it by force, it was not an occupation because, perhaps, of "ownership laws" in Egypt? I did not say, as you try to mis-quote me, that the Gaza Strip did not belong to anyone -- I said it did not belong to Egypt. Can you give me a quote for the legal basis of the non-occupation status? Or for "ownership laws" that invalidate the occupation status? pedro gonnet - talk - 13.12.2007 09:02

How about "Annexation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt"? This seems to be much more neutral than either of the others. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, they didn't annex it. If they had, they would have had to make it part of the state of Egypt (which they didn't) and give all inhabitants political rights (which they didn't). pedro gonnet - talk - 13.12.2007 10:02

P.S. I took the liberty of copying this discussion to Talk:Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt, where it belongs.

Media coverage IPConflict

Please lay off the "undo" button there. You're up to five reverts in the last 18 hours or so. <eleland/talkedits> 02:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

if i'm not mistaken, each is a separate issue and mostly resolved - only that a couple of disruptive editors insist to revert without discussion and attempt at compromise. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a big "if I'm not mistaken". Your insistence that everybody else is disruptive and reverts without discussion and compromise juxtaposes oddly with your own actions on that article. <eleland/talkedits> 03:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

what acts, my opening of a subsection explaining the issues whith a reference based breakdown [2] and requesting comments? [3][4] oh noes! Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Chat

I would be glad to chat. You can find me in #wikipedia on IRC, probably until around 5:30 UTC tonight. I'm often online there between 2 and 5 UTC; my IRC name is carl-m. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

hopefully we can help resolve a dispute or two on the jenin battle. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Former Students of Easington Community Science College

Category:Former Students of Easington Community Science College, was decided to be kept. Whether or not you voted for this, your contribution to the CFD was valued.Thanks.--Sunderland06 17:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary usage

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Saeb Erekat has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

appreciate the note, it shows that you've been watching. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Isr-Palest article

Hi. good to have your help recently. just want to ask, do you agree with the compromise which i laid out recently? If so, can we offer it as a way to achieve consensus? Would just like to get your input on this.

(Please reply on my talk page, if not too much trouble.) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm taking another try at a compromise, at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#Possible_solution. please feel free to go there, and to post your response and comments. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

File:Hanukiyot.jpg

Jaakobou, Happy holidays, and Happy New Year See you next year.

Yahel Guhan 23:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2007 (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/Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:15, 19 December 2007 (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.

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-19 Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Hi, I want to try and help, therefore I offer to take this case, and have contacted the other involved parties inviting them to summarise their opinions on the matter. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Blind reverting

At Second Intifada. Please engage in talk. Jumping in as a party to an edit-war without reviewing the material and offering cogent arguments for the deletion of sourced material is frowned upon. Thanks. Tiamut 23:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

thank you for the note - all the needed reply is given here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, yeah, that was Tewfik's comment, not yours. He is not your representative in the talk, and that was a non-response as I pointed out in my reply there. You please use the talk to defend your edits.

You're also deleting sourced information at Arab citizens of Israel without talking about it (twice now) and making the same edits twice now at October 2000 events that I cannot understand. Please talk Jaakobou. Thanks. Tiamut 03:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

don't overdo the notices. start a talk page section yourself if you feel the material is reliable, neutral and worthy of inclusion - it is not. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues

Hi. please help! The category Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues has been nominated for deletion. this is a category which is meant to be simply a conveneient non-partisan gathering-place for all entries which are general overviews of various issues, as opposed to being related to a specific event or location.

The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 21#Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues. This category is beneficial to all of us who habitually edit these articles, regardless of whether we may be more affiliated with Israeli concerns or Palestinian concerns. The category's deletion is being advocated by editors who rarely edit any articles on this topic, and have little involvement in this topic at Wikipedia.

Your help would be greatly appreciated. please go to this category's discussion entry, and express your opinion. Hopefully, you will be willing to advocate keeping this category. thanks for your help. Thanks, Sm8900 --207.10.186.39 (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

email

Hi. I just emailed you. let me know what you think. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR

It is not a breach, as the first edit was not a revert. As for making threats to report me, you are the one at serious risk of being reported to WP:ANI for being a long-term POV pusher and TE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

reply given: [5]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest you go over WP:NPOV and reconsider all the edits you have ever made to Wikipedia. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Having given it a bit more thought, I have re-worded the article to include the Jewish death. Thoughts? пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

i've made a minor addition after your edit. if you intend on preventing bad blood, i request you strike-through parts of your comment above from 11:27, 28 December 2007 and avoid similar accusations in the future. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Eleland

I am sorry if I have placed this note in the wrong spot. I m very inexperienced with Wikipedia. I was enthralled by Wikipedia. Initially. That is until I met Eleland. I noticed that you had some interesting discussions with Eleland. Eleland engineered a small article which I contributed some information to be deleted. He organised a "kangaroo court" made duplicitous unfounded claims and then set up a false consensus.

The Article was on Ed O'Loughlin Fairfax publishing MidEast correspondent. The said individual has a unfortunate habit of mixing reporting and commentary. He was amongst the candidates for this year's HR.com dishonest reporter award - despite being in the Australia only catchment area - so you can imagine the quality of his journalism.

Anyway Eleland did a great job of protecting him and got the article deleted.

So I studied Eleland a little.

I've looked at over 100 of his posts on the Arab Israel conflict. More than 95 were directly anti-Israel. His modus has been generally to unfairly rubbish the references of the pro-Israel side. In this way he has undermined many many articles.

Personally I don't care what his opinion is, but when he uses his editorial power and influence at Wikipedia to falsely invalidate, delete, manipulate etc. I think there is a problem.

Wikipedia is, I am afraid, beginning to read like Eleland wrote the script.

Who is Eleland? What power does he actually have?

Can anything be done?

Adon Emmet

If you post a reply here I will contact here or even by e-mail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.88.235 (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've had my share of clashes with Eleland but it seems that we've managed to de-escalate the situation before it got too heated. I suggest you create a username and then i'd be happy in guiding you to a better understand the policies and guidlines. cheers. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It is Adon Emet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.88.235 (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

regarding your idle threats

i answered you on my talk page. Tiamut 13:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:V

WP:V says "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source". This means that you must provide reliable sources for content you add to wikipedia. No, its not optional. I have said this to you again and again. Why do you keep ignoring this fundamental policy by re-inserting unsourced content? The above policy applies to all content, not just content about living persons. However, it applies more strictly to content about living persons.

The content you re-insert is a BLP vio. How? Because it is talking about living persons. For example you accuse Walid Shoebat of defining the word Jihad to mean "the struggle to impose Allah's will over the earth, resulting in holy war against the non-Muslim world in order to bring it under the rule of Islam." This is a contentious claim. You need a source for this claim.

Again read over WP:V and WP:BLP and you should understand why you need to provide sources for all content related to living people.Bless sins (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins,

walid is in the movie explaining the term jihad. please watch the film and feel free to raise your concerns afterwards if you still have them. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable and published source that says what you claim Walid is explaining?Bless sins (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

just watch the movie, this is getting boring real fast. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here to entertain you, but only tell you to follow wikipedia policies. It doesn't matter if you've watched the movie, or you made it. You need sources for all content, particularly contentious content about living persons.Bless sins (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR for House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

You have reverted text 3 times in less than 24 hours, and you have removed the reference link 3 times for Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. You have violated 3RR. See WP:3RR. Please quickly self-revert to Eleland's version to avoid being blocked. You can be blocked for less than 4 reversions in 24 hours. This is a courtesy warning requested by the text of the WP:3RR article for newbies to 3RR. But it looks like I am not required to give you this courtesy warning since from looking at your talk page you are well aware of the 3RR rule.--Timeshifter (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

you've made an error, please re-examine the explanation of the policy and the edits i have made. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been reported

You have been reported for breaching WP:3rr on House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You can find the report here. Bless sins (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of eighty-four hours for edit-warring and persistent reverting across multiple articles. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 21:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Copying from WP:AN3: "Blocked for eighty-four hours, for edit-warring across multiple articles. I see a pattern of edit-warring behavior – at House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian, Second Intifada, Islam: What the West Needs to Know, and, to a lesser degree, at other articles – that simply needs to stop." -- tariqabjotu 21:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment regarding block reasoning:

Following this [6] (static version) WP:3RR complaint by User:Bless_sins.

I admit of being involved in a high volume of edits on a number of articles and also admit to what could be construed as an edit war together with User:Eleland on House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

However, inspection into my '"edit warring on a number of articles"'[7] reasoning stated by User:Tariqabjotu is superficial and incorrect as well:

1. Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian - My recent conflict with Tiamut, was by no means an edit war. He had a misunderstanding regarding the history of the region and we resolved it (I believe) quite quickly when I added the reference/source to my correction of the error-ed text ("Palestinim, Am Behivatsrut," by Kimmerling, Baruch, and Joel S. Migdal - Keter Publishing, ISBN: 965-07-0797-2).
2. Second Intifada - There was a multiple user conflict, which consisted of as many as 6-7 participants. After an edit war was already ensued between two very different versions - I've engaged in the article with a major attempt to resolve the disputes [8]. After resolving two of a the many disputes the discussions devolved into reverts once the issue of "intifada (uprising)" was a bit stuck but I have again reopened, a second discussion attempt on that issue [9] and it seemed to be moving quite reasonably. I don't believe that my attempts to resolve the disputes on said page should be portrayed as an edit war and stand against me on other article disputes.
3. Islam: What the West Needs to Know - In this article, for some reason, User:Bless_sins (same editor who opened the 3RR) claims that it is a BLP violation to re-write what a participant in the film stated and to support his BLP theory he removes the entire synopsis section. [10] I don't see my objection to this as an edit-war at all.

Considering this overview of the disputes and my efforts to resolve them, and considering that Palestinian-Israeli articles are filled with high emotions [11], incivility [12], pov accusations [13][14][15], and pov violations [16].

I believe, just as the first admin who inspected the 3RR notice believed [17], that if 3RR rules are to be applied to me regarding this dispute (where I have reverted 3 exactly times), then they should be applied evenly.

Lastly, if the descision is made to block anyone, and because I was given 84 hours. An inspection into my block log shows that apart from one 3RR mishap in July, my 3RR blocks were all rescinded. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to clear some things up. On the article, House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I never said your editing was illegitimate. It was wrong in the sense it violated WP:3rr. Whether you were following WP:NPOV, or eleland, (or both or neither), I can't say.

You are, however, wrong in inserting unsourced material about living persons in Islam: What the West Needs to Know. I've asked you numerous times to source your edits.Bless sins (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"is a BLP vio. How? Because it is talking about living persons...you accuse Walid Shoebat" - User:Bless sins, 02:58, 30 December 2007

Walid Shoebat is featured in the film giving commentaries... even for a moment, assuming "i accused him" of something he had not said in the film (watch starting minute 31), it does not justify a complete blanking of the film's synopsis.

p.s. it is not a sign of good faith now that your friend, Eleland, is repeating your justification after you've reached 3 reverts.

p.p.s. further comments should be made on the article's talk page, not here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

SALTing

To answer your question, salting the earth is done to ensure that once a crop has been uprooted or destroyed, nothing else can grow there. Hence WP:SALT, the wikipedia practice of not only deleting a page but protecting the page in its deleted form so that a new article cannot be started. Reggie Perrin (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the input. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Saeb Erekat

This edit was not vandalism. Even if you disagree with it, please refrain from characterizing good-faith edits as vandalism. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Stifle,

1. i believe the user should have asked guidance from his assigned mentors rather than address someone who's not aware/watching his conduct history.
2. repeated removal of well established and very well referenced information from articles, without any edit summary or discussion, after all the discussions and edits already made (including two of his mentors) is disruptive vandalism.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Well established," in this case, means that you edit-warred it in until nobody could be bothered to waste their time fighting you over it. And your "very well referenced" information includes references which do not name or discuss Saeb Erekat. PR should have used an edit summary, but his was a legitimate action, unlike your prolonged highly tendentious editing. <eleland/talkedits> 18:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You (and others) might be amused to peruse this, where you'll discover that Jaakobou has managed to drive off every other interested editor (eight in total) throughout the whole 16 months of TalkPage discussion about this article!

You'll already know that none of his claims are referenced atall - only blogs and the perpetrators of the killings (of which there were 497 according to the official International figure) have called Erekat a liar. His career is long and really rather distinguished under the very difficult circumstances. There is a huge amount of interesting material that could go into this article, but this poisonous edit-war has driven off every other editor interested in improving the project.

Another thing you might find astounding is that Jaakobou has only just come back from a 3.5 day block for edit-warring (across a range of other articles) and immediately (2nd edit) set about the exact same activity, on an article where he's done so much damage for so long! PR^talk 19:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Mass blanking at Palestinian Fedayeen

I have asked you on the talk page there to restore the over 17,000 bytes of sourced, attributed and in-line cited material you deleted. I am deadly serious Jaakobou. I will report you to WP:ANI for a pattern of disruptive editing if you fail to heed this request. You used the same tactic at Second Intifada, mass blanking over your objections to one sentence in the introduction. This is not good faith editing and I will not tolerate it. Tiamut 18:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

dear Tiamut,

i explained the main issue with your use of sources to "rev up" the "resistance" narrative and explained where the problem lyes. instead of addressing the issue, you've went on with a similar direction. removing sources and revving up the "sharon is a killer" (strike 15:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)) plot-line. you may start an ANI case, accusing me of mass blanking... but it doesn't change the facts that this is (a) a content based dispute. and (b) that you've made a huge number of edits in 2 days while ignoring my talk page raised issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jaakobou,

I have reported you to WP:ANI. While you claim that your edits on the talk page raise real or specific issues with the edits I made, they in fact, do not. I have tried to respond to any specific concerns you have raised, but I do not understand how the material you blanked is related to the one source you seem to have a problem with. It is not my job to read the sources for you or review the content I posted in detail for you. You have to read it and raise specific concerns or make edits to the material accordingly. You cannot mass blank two days of work that is based on reliable scholarly sources and claim that you are justified in doing so based on your vague assertions that my edits are POV. That amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and it's not fair to those of us trying to improve articles. Tiamut 18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Solomon / Shalom / Peace

Hey Jaakobou, I noticed that a little while ago you removed the claim that "Solomon" or "Sulaymin" are cognate with "Shalom" or "Salaam" meaning "peace". You said that whoever wrote that must have been unfamiliar with old Hebrew. The American Heritage Dictionary thinks that Solomon = S-L-M = peace, and so does Aryeh Kaplan, ([18]) who I'm pretty sure is familiar with Old Hebrew! <eleland/talkedits> 00:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

i wasn't aware that americans are suddenly an authority on hebrew and it's structure. the root S-L-M means whole, the extra meaning of peace is not the original one, and it most certainly was not the meaning of bible day names who are all (almost all) refer to god in some manner... shlomo (solomon), means the wholeness of god or god is complete, or god made me complete with this child... it has nothing to do with peace and anyone who writes that it is, is making an error, even if they are supposedly a serious scholar. the root S-L-M is older than the hebrew language and it's been used for example in jerusalem at its creation -- i just now went over [19], and to be frank, i'm shocked at how much room is given to the peace interpretation of the "Some say it means" compared to the Midrash one.

p.s. the root can mean peace, but not in a biblical name. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, Aryeh Kaplan is obviously well aware of Hebrew and its structure, being best known for his English translation of the Torah. I'm really not going to take this on your authority alone... have you any references? <eleland/talkedits> 16:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

i looked a bit for references on the web and couldn't find a proper one (just yet). after that, i went over the biblical text - per samuel 2, chapter 12 verses 13-25 (first mention of solomon in the biblical text) bible - going over the context, i can now understand why someone would attribute the term "peace" to the name - however, i don't believe this to be the correct meaning of the hebrew text (there is no implication for such an interpretation), and plan on calling a friend of mine (tomorrow) to help me out finding the midrash related text (i don't have the related books). i'll keep you posted. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. where does arieh kaplan say this root means peace? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In the commentary attached to his English translation of the Bahir, on page 130; the details are all in the citations on Solomon, and if the Google Books link given above isn't working for you (it decides what you're allowed to see based on what you've already read) I'll transcribe the relevant portion. <eleland/talkedits> 22:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for repeating the input in the link, I missed it in your first comment. Going over the extra input, and discussing it also with a "talmid chaham" (smart student) friend of mine, I can now completely understand where the Peace translation comes from... apparently, there is a "source" attribution by scholars to the 'chronicles' mythology text... this text is believed to have been written some 100-200 years after Solomon died and in it David is saying that god told him he'll give Solomon peace and that should be his name... a less religious scholar than Aryeh Kaplan, would go by the "original" text (from the actual period) in Samuel 2 where it is told that David lost a previous son because of his sins (and despite not eating anything) and afterwards attests to the greatness of god by naming his son Shlomoh... anyways, even though i still believe the orthodox peace interpretation to be incorrect, i am faced with a serious referenced perspective. I won't contest this interpretation in the future. cheers. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

You should know about this. Arrow740 (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your e-mail

A few notes from your e-mail - I choose to reply in public rather than hide on messenger.

• "I have noticed that recently you have constantly been lashing out against my edits and assuming that I'm a bad editor doing harm on purpose"
  • I have been "lashing out" against your edits since I came into contact with you. You know full well that you are a "bad" editor and that not only are you one of the biggest POV-pushers around, you are guilty of being probably the worst violator of WP:TE that I have come across. The evidence I put on WP:ANI (multiple instances of blocked for breaking WP:3RR, of reverting "vandalism" of others ^{[20][21][22] [23][24] [25][26]}, accusing others of censorship ^{[27][28][29][30][31][32]} and violations of WP:UNDUE (constant reinsertion of a massive criticism section at Gideon Levy)) is only part of what I hold against you.
• "I believe you are a sensible editor involved in much more on wikipedia than the Israeli-Arab conflict, therefore more neutral than many of the other editors involved"
  • How two faced are you? You constantly accuse me of having "POV issues" and telling me to adhere to WP:NPOV. Then coming to me in private and saying that I am a "sensible" and "neutral" editor?!? What is up with you?
• "I can probably explain my overall position to you by instant messaging"
  • I know your overall position. You are an unashamed anti-Palestinian POV pusher. I might describe you as pro-Israel, but that is an insult to good Zionist editors who do not let their personal opinions affect their work. Your entire purpose on Wikipedia is to denigrate Palestinians. Whilst on a very few occasions you may well have a point (I also believe the Muhammad al-Durrah "killing" was most likely staged), you take it way too far and I personally do not believe that you can ever be a productive editor on controversial Middle Eastern topics. Yes, there are also unashamed anti-Israeli POV pushers on here. However, on occasions where someone has come in to a disputed article with an actual WP:NPOV stance, you will still push for a more pro-Israel slant, whereas the Palestinian POV pushers tend to leave it at that. I would suggest the only way to redeem yourself is to leave such topics well alone and work on something such as getting rid of all the redlinks at List of kibbutzim or something similar.

пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

sent you a reply. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Detwinkled

Due to persistant misuse of the tool; [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] - I've removed twinkle from your monobook and protected it for two weeks. When you are able to readd it, please be more careful with the tool. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

i'm not sure why this de-twinkle was implemented (the large amount of diffs say very little) and would appreciate some explanation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't be using automated reversion tools in content dispute - all those diffs I point to above are you using the tool whilst in a content dispute. When you decide to revert another user in the future, please do it manually and give a fell explanation for doing so in the edit summary. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware that the tool cannot be used for regular reverts (when a a full manual explanation is given). If this is supported by some manual of use (that I've missed), I'd be more than happy to correct this error and not use the tool.

I'd appreciate some further discussion/explanation on my use of the tool for reverting vandalism, such as the cases on saeb erekat, islam: what the west needs to know, and operation rainbow. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If I were you I would leave vandalism on those articles to people who do not have a strong POV, since the definition of vandalism has been stretched in the past with these subjects. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why someone shouldn't use automated tools in a content dispute if they provide a full manual edit summary, and I'd appreciate an explanation and link to a guideline or instruction on that, since I occasionally use automated tools myself. However, the third diff given above (re "Stalemate") appears to be a revert of a good-faith edit referred to as "vandalism" in the edit summary. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If "( do not change this)" [48] in the body of the article is not vandalism, then I apologize. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I've opened a WP:AN query regarding this question - here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism, it was misguided, but not vandalism. He added some numbers that he didn't want people to change. Yeah, it should probably have been reverted, but it shouldn't have been labelled as vandalism. We don't use twinkle in edit wars for one key reason, it lowers the decorum. Users are asked to make manual revert in edit wars, this was not the case here. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree: "do not change this" was not vandalism. It was apparently added in an attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Reverting the "do not change this" part of the edit was the right thing to do, but calling it "vandalism" was not. What if "do not change this" was vandalism? That's not the only thing you reverted. You also reverted "Stalemate" -- the thing the user asked not to be changed -- and labelled it "vandalsm" too. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I can agree on the "labeled that vandalism too" perspective.. that's already in the content dispute realm (I objected to the content change also). Any suggestions for how to handle similar issues if they reoccur? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bascially, if it's not obvious vandalism, then you should revert it manually (e.g. go to the previous revision, click edit and put an explanation as to why you're reverting). In a content dispute, you should also do this and it's always good practice to post on the talk page giving the reasons for the reversion. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's a content dispute, I suggest not reverting, but discussing on the talk page until a consensus is reached. If it's vandalism on a page in which you're involved in excessively heated content disputes, I suggest leaving the vandalism for someone else to revert, as someone else suggested, (maybe even discussing it on the talk page or bringing it to someone's attention), or else reverting it manually, not using TW on those pages per Ryan's explanation above. Using automated tools tends to put one in a frame of mind not conducive to the most courteous interaction with other people. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Palestine-Israel conflict

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

A case has opened in the WP:Mediation Cabal and a user has listed you as an involved party, related to edits/comments at Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The case is located at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-09 Israeli-Palestinian conflict‎, please feel free to comment on the article talk page. Thank you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. I felt like it was time to open a mediation case, since in spite of all the contention, dissent and new proceedings curently going on, as well as edit-protections on several entries, there are actually very few active mediation efforts for any articles right now. so this is a step in hopefully a right direction. by the way, did you know that a single MedCab case can cover a few articles at once? so this seems like possibly an appropriate way to go. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. An uninvolved administrator, after issuing a warning, may impose sanctions including blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. The Committee shall convene a working group, composed of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, and task it with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations for resolving the pervasive problem of intractable disputes centered around national, ethnic, and cultural areas of conflict. The group shall be appointed within two weeks from the closure of this case, and shall present its recommendations to the Committee no later than six months from the date of its inception. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Middle East Textbooks Invite

WikiProject Middle East Textbooks is looking for editors to create, expand, and maintain complete, accurate, and neutral articles on school textbooks used throughout the Middle East, with a focus on textbook controversies and textbook analyses. You can start by simply adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Middle East Textbooks.

Mediation page

Hi. I created a new section for you to use at the Gilad Shalit mediation. i noticed that no one had asnswered you for several hours. hope that is useful. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Question?

Hi Jaakobou. I didn't really understand the latest question you left on my talk page. Can you elaborate at Talk:Palestinian fedayeen so that I can address your concern? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 17:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:(

Yeah, sorry, my ISP is kind of the suck. - Revolving Bugbear 22:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)