User talk:Jaakobou/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

---

mediation page note

Hi. i posted a question for you at the mediation page for the Gilad Shalit article. Appreciate it if you could please take a look at it when you have a chance. please feel free to write to me anytime, whether there ot my talk page. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Occupation terminology

Hi. Just wanted to let you know I've tried to describe and analyze what I understand of you views, at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 16:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply. I've responded, w/at least one point of potential disagreement. If you don't mind, perhaps you could ask Durova for her opinion, too. Please reply at your convenience. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 16:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, you haven't replied to my proposed (partial) resolution to the discussion. Since it would seem favorable to your view, I would appreciate the courtesy of your input. Thanks. HG | Talk 09:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Now trying a different tack. Pls look at page and reply. Thanks. HG | Talk 19:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

medcab

Thanks for participating in the medcab case. As I understand it, you wish to use the word "hostage" in the lead. How can we allow for Pedro's wishes? Specifically, how can we word the intro so that Pedro's wishes are also incorporated? Xavexgoem (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. I've been told by a few people that pausing the case might not have been too fair. I felt that with Pedro's absence, it would probably be better; but I'm not so sure, so if this wasn't fair to you, please tell me. And voice general complaints, too; I'm available on e-mail, too. I am new to medcab, so I appreciate any feedback. Thanks! :) Xavexgoem (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian Mujahideen

I have no interest in getting further involved in the discussion surrounding Bosnian Mujahideen. My continuous involvement in dispute resolution such as WP:3O and WP:RFC have given me the insight that as soon as reason is shunned and instead of a proper reaction, the question is rephrased, it is the right time to leave. As a piece of constructive feedback, from a fellow editor, I suggest you look back over your attempts to resolve the dispute and see why they failed. This is usually very insightful, and can help a lot when solving future problems.

To do a bit of problem analysis for you, the core problem here (important parts underlined) is that every single attempt to reach a broad consensus on a high level, such as a dispute surrounding a rename or definition, cannot be solved based on sources, as every solution will undoubtedly violate WP:SYNTH. It is simply impossible to reach a consensus in this manner, because the sources do not agree with each other, and there are sources for both sides, without any being more authoritative (e.g. a UN resolution clause) than the other (random authors). The reliability or availability of sources has nothing to do with this. User:Krator (t c) 08:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at Palestinian people

This comment is fully unacceptable. Talk pages are a public forum and anyone has the right to respond to any comment or question posed there. If you want to have a one-on-one discussion, bring it to my talk page. But if it has to do with article content and you are posting on the article talk page, be prepared for other editors to comment or question, as is their right. You do not have the right to tell other good-faith editors that they are not welcome to participate. Tiamut^talk 13:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I can fully understand your comment being that you've not witnessed the body of diffs. However, Nishidani has been following me around jumping into conversations contributing very little to the discussions while making uncivil commentary. If he decides to join the conversation with an attempt to resolve disputes, I would welcome and salute his input, but that hasn't been the case recently.

Speaking in general, I'm not sure how off topic bad faith remarks and assumptions help the discourse. I'm also not sure protecting such comments is beneficial. The wind will eventually swing both ways and I think both of us prefer a communal editing platform rather than a battleground with barely involved editors making off topic character based commentaries. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I did not find Nishidani's comments at the Talk:Palestinian people to be either uncivil or unconstructive, though I cannot speak for other comments elsewhere since I have not seen the diffs you are referring to. In any case, the point remains that your focus on me, and getting an answer only from me on the article talk page, was inappropriate. I am not alone in my opposition to the changes you are trying to introduce. If my opinion is the only one you are interested in hearing, that is hardly an example of "communal editing", which you profess to prefer. As I said earlier, if you ever do want to discuss something with me alone, you are welcome to do so on my talk page. That would send a clear sign to other editors that their comments are not required. Thanks and happy editing. Tiamut^talk 17:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to hear content based responses, not rhetorics about a supposed consensus among editors on the same side of the discussions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Talking in terms of 'sides' is counterproductive here. Relata refero (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Back off the wagon?

Jaakobou, you seem to have gone back to your old ways — mass POV editing across multiple articles, accompanied by manipulation of the talk page discussion and the use of WP:AGF and WP:CIV objections to distract and silence people.

• Claiming that Zionism is 1000s of years old when all scholarship says it's a late 19th century movement
• Shoveling more mud on Saeb Erekat against massive consensus
• Diluting important factual information with silliness
• etc

Please, cut it out. You barely avoided sanction in the recent ArbCom, solely because the scope expanded to the point where singling you out would have seemed biased. <eleland/talkedits> 05:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Read and heed — Rlevse • Talk • 21:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, the fact that you filed a very weak WP:AE case, that only inflames things. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

1) My personal observation... (of the Eleland WP:AE post)

• 25 diffs from 3 weeks after the Arbcom. (i.e. more than one per day)
• Some/most of the comments are 'concerning': 'civility is at borderline on most of these cited diffs'.
• The diffs presented multiple 'soft' violations of the new 'Decorum' and 'Editorial process'
• The diffs were directed -- during conflict -- at editors, not content.

Chosen samples:

• "political leaders of a faction you identify with" [1]
• "a [[User:Jayjg|time honoured tradition]]... makes you look rather desperate" [2]
• "your personal crackpot interpretation of the RSes" [3]
• "because you don't like them." [4]
• "looks a lot like just shouting "antisemite!" because something personally troubles you." [5]
• "quote that you're so very, very fond of." [6]
• "achieved via serial POV-pushing" (directed at a single editor) [7]

2) Summary of personal observation:

Site culture is so soft on disruptive editors that it not only ignores it's own (admittedly new) rules, and promotes mimicry of incivility and bad behavior but those who give a true effort to uphold proper conduct get burned by the kitchen. All that was needed in this case was a single person who's being supportive of a "faction he identifies with" ** (Eleland Jan 16), while "losing" a content dispute because of "[evidence] he doesn't like" ** (Eleland Jan 27) to use a "highly clever" idiom ("the pot calling the kettle black" [8]) to distract - [9] - from the problem and summarily close the case.

** Comment: This is just an example of the overbearing poor conduct I was reporting, not an actual attempt to attack 'Ryan Postlethwaite'. Albeit, he actually is a clear part in the disputes. [10]

3) I'm thinking that similar comments should not be a regularity,

Continued paraphrasing of or copying the style of these diffs into talk pages would be a breach of the Dispute resolution principals and I have no intention of adopting this uncivil mannerism.

4) So, I feel this case [11] was not so weak; and that the "the pot" testimony -- by an admin who's been involved in the content disputes [12] -- should not have been accepted on sight.

5) I intend on bringing forth similar cases if editors repeatedly ignore the 'Decorum' and 'Editorial process' principals.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC) added diff to "pot" phrase 06:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Saeb Erekat

Hi Jaakobou. Do you think we should go for an RfC or third opinion about the Jenin massacre? It might be a good idea to get some more outside input to the matter. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To be frank, I feel you owe me an apology after injecting a bad faith personal commentary into an AE notice. Regardless, I just changed the phrasing and added sources, please go over the changes, and if you still find major issues, let me know and we can consider the value of an RfC (I don't reject the suggestion, just think we should re-evaluate beforehand). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit

Please refrain from editing controversial material regarding the medcab case when no outcome has been reached. It is simply good courtesy not to make edits while such a disagreement and discussion occurs. The hostage will remain there for now. But if there are more reverts then ill report this page to the Admin notice board and request the page be locked on whatever version its on. Seddon69 (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69, I feel your assessment of the editing situation is jumping to conclusions at a great fault. Please go over the mediation case again and note that apart from a single uninvolved IP, there is no edit war going on.

Cheers. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Given your previous edit summary was as follows "Unacceptable to keep "wrong version" for two more weeks while you're offline." and your reversion was to maintain your version i simply stated it as a warning. Then to back this up i felt that any further editing regarding the terminology being used needed to be stopped until the dispute had been resolved. Seddon69 (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC) It is generally a good idea not to revert things which are of contention whether or not you agree with them. Seddon69 (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You missed the part where Pedro Gonnet changed the version during mediation and I let it stay because we were mediating. To reinsert "his" version once he took [time] off and impose "the wrong version" while mediation was on a "two week standby" is ownership behavior and unacceptable... esp. considering the evidence presented by both sides. I trust you are working with nothing but good intentions but for now, I suggest you go over the medcab materials and keep an eye out for interesting developments... if there are any.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You reinserted the phrasing with 6 citations and rewrote a section which threw a good deal of context out from under it, and deemed it a "fix" in the edit summary. You are making points, and putting the mediators in the awkward position of having to call you on that. I suggest you revert to the edit w/ hostage (pick your best citations), and completely revert the international law section.

As for "interesting developments": This is a two-editor issue. Pedro has been slow, I admit, and I wish he had submitted his evidence in full sooner (with your recommendation to filter out the abduction event), but he had to go temporarily. You have the option of leaving the case, but I will not close it while the requester is away. I won't be making any more comments on your talk page regarding this dispute.

Thank you. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the 'law' section changes; I definitely believe that I've "fix"ed the first paragraph English-wise and content-wise. There is absolutely no reason to revert this edit [13] where the previous version says "It is possible that those making these demands do not hold Shalit. If he is actually being held against his will..." when (1) Hamas is holding him, (2) against his will (3) making ransom demands. "It is also possible that he is a captive." is also a mistake, since he clearly is a captive, probably in Gaza, and a hostage of the situation. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and my edit corrected and improved the article, even if considering that the mediation about where to use 'hostage' (lead and/or body) is not officially closed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree that if the some1 changes it it wont be reverted? I just want to keep any conflict to a minimum. I have requested the same on the talk page so this isnt just directed at you, this is to everyone. Seddon69 (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We can agree to edit responsibly. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Lil archiving help

{{helpme}}

I'd be interested in archiving a subsection, but the material might be linked somewhere. Is there a way to make a "what links here" type of check on a subsection? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. I tried entering #section_title (using an actual title, of course) into the form and it just cut if off and returned the same list. Sorry. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It certainly won't get you exhaustive results, but you can use Google to search for all instances where the written out link appears, using a search like "site:en.wikipedia.org "verifiability#sources"" [14]. Unfortunately, so often these types of links are piped, which this Google search won't find.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

non-free images

You can't post non-free images in the userspace, even if you uploaded them yourself. It's a copyright issue. Can you please undo the reversion? Thanks. - Revolving Bugbear 00:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Very well, fixed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) - Revolving Bugbear 00:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination

H there, I've nominated the article for you. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian people

Jaakobou, I have asked all editors a number of times not to make changes to the introduction that significantly change the meaning of the text therein without proposing and discussing those changes on the talk page first so as to garner consensus. Twice now, you have ignored that request and added material about the Palestinian population in Jordan without supporting sources I might add. Would you mind not doing that again? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 10:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, and I mean that without cynicism; I'm not going to post each and every article change I have in mind on the talk page first. I understand what you're trying to do and fully appreciate the effort; I'm even more than willing to discuss most of the edits beforehand and support that idea when other editors want to make conclusive changes. But, there's got to be a limit on time waste somewhere and the WP:OWN levels on I-P articles (not you) are just ridiculous... I can 100% promise to not continue mass edit an article once a number of clear concerns are raised and discussion is requested (remember that old ANI?). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your reasoned response. However, I do not understand the relevance of your link to the ANI report I filed against you for wholesale reverting at Palestinian fedayeen, which led to the opening of the Arbcomm case. In any case, I have responded to your comments at the talk page at Palestinian people, explaining my addition of a source for the population of Palestinians in Jordan. I hope you will accept that that was a good-faith edit, designed to source previously unsourced information. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 13:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly accept that you're working in good faith even if an edit here and there -- esp. awarding barnstars for bad behavior -- bugs me. I'm certainly trying to work cooperatively with you -- believing that no one will ignore each other's reasoned notes -- and I hope our dispute resolutions are only going to improve. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear dear Jaakobou ... :) I did not award Eleland a barnstar for "bad behaviour". As I wrote to him in the award itself, it was a way of recognizing his largesse by admitting that he was wrong to stoop to the use of personal attacks. Further, as I wrote in my subsequent comment to him, I had been meaning to give him one for his editing contributions in general for some time now. In any case, I can see why you might interpret it the way you did. I appreciate the polite demeanor you have adopted in your dealings with other editors, and I look forward to your response to my comment on the talk page at Palestinian people. Thanks again for your thoughts. Tiamut^talk 14:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Re alleged soapboxing at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict

This is a larger version of a comment I edited down from that talk page, since it was really about issues with your personal conduct on talk pages, and thus offtopic for that venue. It was proximately caused by [15], but this is a long-term pattern on your part.

Jaakobou, the problem here is that your definition of what constitutes "soapboxing" is both overbroad and inconsistent. 6SJ7 expressed the view that concern over the West Bank barrier is overblown, and that furthermore it is an meant to prevent terrorist infiltration which is presumably a good thing. Nishidani expressed the view that the separation wall has separated Palestinian towns from their farmland as part of a land grab to create "facts on the ground." Both views can be found in reliable sources - as the ICJ put it,

the contentions of Palestine and other participants [are] that the construction of the wall is “an attempt to annex the territory contrary to international law” and “a violation of the legal principle prohibiting the acquisition of territory by the use of force” and that “the de facto annexation of land interferes with the territorial sovereignty and consequently with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination”. [...] Israel, for its part, has argued that the wall’s sole purpose is to enable it effectively to combat terrorist attacks launched from the West Bank, and that Israel has repeatedly stated that the Barrier is a temporary measure.

The ICJ, of course, ultimately found that "the construction of the wall and its associated régime create a “fait accompli” on the ground that could well become permanent," and noted that "There have also been serious repercussions for agricultural production, and increasing difficulties for the population concerned regarding access to health services, educational establishments and primary sources of water." In other words, Nishidani's "soapboxing" is well supported by the highest-grade reliable sources available. I'm not sure that 6SJ7's views have the same weight of support, but that's fine. The issue here is that you consider Nishidani to be soapboxing disruptively, while 6SJ7s expressions of his views pass without comment.

I don't want to make assumptions about you personally, and your political views. But frankly, I suspect that you're personally accustomed to hearing views like "the wall is a land grab," "Arabs have a legitimate claim to a homeland in Eretz Israel," or even "some Arabs can rightfully be called 'Palestinians'" treated as extremist or discredited. However, this is a pretty big planet, and (as Israeli partisans never tire of reminding us) the world doesn't see eye-to-eye with the Israeli right on this stuff. None of those claims are considered extremist or even terribly controversial in the broader world. You're welcome to believe whatever you want, and personal POV is certainly no disqualifier from editing Wikipedia. But constantly objecting to expressions of the worldwide majority POV on Israeli-Palestinian issues is tiresome. <eleland/talkedits> 10:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Eleland,

1) Nishidani can state views on the talk pages without soapboxing if he so desires, communal style is at the essence.

2) This "expressions of the worldwide majority POV" are usually perfect examples of WP:SOAP rather than a true majority. Some people understand that what they believe to be a majority view is still a personal opinion, and some people just can't help themselves.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian people - please discuss

Dear Jaakobou. While you are obviously entitled to object the inclusion of this information and remove it, as you did here, it is entirely unhelpful when you do so without explaining the reason for your edit in this section. As you will notice by reading that section, we are trying to follow the WP:BRD process in this case to break an impasse over contested changes to the introduction. This means that when you revert the bold edit made, you should state the reasons for your objection in the talk page section on the subject and work towards achieving consensus on how to proceed. Both you and Doright (talk · contribs) have removed this information, but neither one of you has bothered to explain your reasons why. In order to engage in constructive editing, rather than disruptive editing that will likely lead to edit-warring, discussion is a prerequisite. Please engage in discussion there. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 11:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I figured, that a reference to WP:OR would be explanation enough to an un-cited contentious claim. I was working with this diff and missed that someone else has removed it before(?). Was there any discussion on talk to include this text? link please? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Found the opened discussion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching request status

You have expressed interest in undergoing the Admin coaching program. However, after reviewing your edit history, I feel you may need more time since your most recent block(s) and/or user conduct matter(s) on Wikipedia before you can know for certain your ready to begin the process of becoming an administrator. Therefore, at this time, your application for Admin Coaching has been declined. My suggestion would be to seek adoption from a more experienced user who can help you experience all of the various components of editing an encyclopedia. If you decide adoption is not for you, there is also the editor review process that may help you find areas to improve upon in our editing. If you would like to talk more about this, please feel free to leave me a my talk page. MBisanz talk 21:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please justify your deletions

Jaakobou (talk · contribs): Please justify, in detail, citing specific reasons, each of the following cited references deleted in your edit: ( Jaakobou - Revision as of 21:36, 2 March 2008 Material violates WP:NOR, previous material was more balanced and did not violate policy.). You have claimed that Wikipedia policy was violated and must now justify that claim.

1. The term "Jewish lobby" has been used to refer to the groups organized in the US and other countries to promote the special interests of their Jewish members.(Seven Days, Jerusalem Post, June 18, 2004)
2. (A little louder, please, Jerusalem Post, June 1, 2005)
3. (Continental divide, Jerusalem Post, April 19, 2002)
4. The Oxford English Dictionary uses it in this way to serve as an example of a special interest lobby, quoting from a 1958 article in the Listener: "The United States Government, sensitive to the Jewish lobby .. backed the Jews".(The Oxford English Dictionary, p. 1074, 2nd Edition, 1989)
5. J.J. Goldberg, Editorial Director of the Jewish-American newspaper The Forward, writes that in the United States the "Jewish lobby" was thrust into prominence following the Nixon Administration's sharp shift of American policy towards significant military and foreign aid support for Israel following the 1973 war. Goldberg notes that the "Jewish lobby" predated the Nixon years by decades, playing a leadership role in formulating American policy on issues such as civil rights, separation of church and state, and immigration, guided by a liberalism that was a complex mixture of Jewish tradition, the experience of persecution, and self interest.(Jonathan Jeremy Goldberg. Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment. Basic Books, 1996.) In a speech in 2004, Goldberg stated: "The Jewish lobby ... is actually more than just a dozen organizations. The Anti-Defamation League, The American Jewish Committee, Hadassah, of course, AIPAC.(American Foreign Policy and The Jewish Lobby, J.J. Goldberg, Speech before the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, March 22, 2004)
6. The late Jewish scholar Arthur Hertzberg writes that following the Six-Day War, "[T]he "Jewish lobby" was no longer spoken of in whispers, and its official leaders no longer pretended that they advanced their cause only by gentle persuasion."(Arthur Hertzberg. Jewish Polemics. Columbia University Press, 1992)
7. For example the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission of Australia defines the "Jewish lobby" as "an unwieldy group of individuals and organisations devoted to supporting the needs and interests of the Jewish community."("The Media, Stereotypes and the Jewish Lobby". Retrieved February 2, 2008.)
8. Edward Tivnan concurs, writing in his 1988 book The Lobby that the "Jewish lobby" in the United States "had become primarily a pro-Israel lobby, one so aggressive, omnipresent and influential on matters relating to the Middle East that the denizens of Capital Hill refer to it simply as “the lobby,”…" (Edward Tivnan. The Lobby: Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy. Touchstone Books, 1988. ISBN 0671668285. Preface, p8.)

Thank you for your attention to this matter. --John Nagle (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but doesn't this content discussion belong on the article's talk page (specifically here)? I'll see you there when I can muster up some extra time.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That broken ref on Andrew Johnson

The problem was that a ref tag without any contents or closing tag should have a space and a forward slash before the closing >. Instead of <ref name="Britanica1">, you should use <ref name="Britanica1" />. That will prevent the problem you had. -- Zsero (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like wise words. :) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Tunnels uncovered in Rafah.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Tunnels uncovered in Rafah.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Lupo 19:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tunnels uncovered in Rafah.jpg

Regarding File:Tunnels uncovered in Rafah.jpg, it was removed due to copyright violation as a result of this. You'll have to request the owner of the image to release it under GFDL per Wikipedia:FAQ/Contributing#Copyrights. There used to be a way to submit a verified e-mail or correspondence (scanned) to a designated agent, where they would review it and accept the image based upon that, but it seems that it no longer exists. Hope this helps. seicer | talk | contribs 02:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Favor Regarding Second Intifada Article

Hi, Jaakobou. Sorry to ask this of you, but... A number of editors of the Second Intifada article are attempting to push the Palestinian POV by asserting that the Second Intifada was an "uprising" not only by name but also by nature. The discussion has been going here, here, and here. I appear to be the last hold-out against making this POV edit, and I could really use some help. Thanks. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 03:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously a problem, but I'm fairly certain that discussion with the usual suspects, recently working on a team mentality will do anything other than waste my time. I suggest you open the discussion to outside perspectives and follow dispute resolution process with less involved editors to give their input on the issue.

Feel free to notify me when a mediation of the sorts is open and I will try to leave a serious comment there.

Cheers. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, can you respond to this RfC for me, please? Thanks. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 22:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tibetan thanka

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:17th century Central Tibeten thanka of Guhyasamaja Akshobhyavajra, Rubin Museum of Art2.png, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 09:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Mockery

I asked you last week to remove your "joke" regarding Tiamut's notice above and you deleted my comment. I informed you at the time I would take it further, but as I wished to avoid confrontation I delayed doing so in hopes you would do the right thing and take it down yourself. Since you've declined to do so, I have made good on my word and taken this up at AN/I. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the boxes from your user and talk pages because it's obvious that you're poking Tiamut with a stick here. Not only is it disgraceful disparagement of another user, but you have already been approached regarding this and decided to shake it off. Before continuing on, please consider whether any comments or actions you make will be working towards or against a healthy and productive colloborative environment. If the answer isn't the right one, don't click "Save page" and move on. east.718 at 17:18, March 14, 2008

east718,

I was quite sad with my upcoming exams and that I wouldn't be able to edit Wikipedia, and Tiamut's box gave me inspiration for describing my feelings. Both Gatoclass and Nishidani have a history of trolling around me looking to make a fuss and unless Tiamut complains to me personaly, I can't take these derogatory personal attack "complaints" from two editors who soapbox against Israel frequently and also tried to reduce the death toll of the 1929 Hebron Massacre as anything but trolling. With all due respect, I'm reverting your removal back until such time as Tiamut comes to me and makes the request that I change my page for her. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not restore the contentious bit again, or the consequences will be severe. Thanks. El_C 19:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, even though Tiamut has not addressed me and Gatoclass made his own assumption -- that my user-box offended her -- without being approached by her also. I take this comment to apologize to Tiamut who may have been offended by my use part of her phrasing to her time off wikipedia.

I've rephrased the text and removed the word 'mourning' which I'm sure was the reason Gatoclass took offense. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Last chance. Anything up there even remotely resembling the notice it is copied from, will earn you a significant block. And I'm off to note it on the arbitration enforcement broad. In case you haven't noticed (and inexpl;icably, it appears you haven't), we are taking a very tough stand against bood blood at the Israeli-Palestinian disputes, in all areas. Thanks again. El_C 19:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi, Jaakobou and I have been chatting about this. I've just become aware of the problem. He's shown me a draft that looks unobjectionable. The basic idea of a notice about exam delays is a pretty standard thing and the image is really something special: he put huge amounts of time into restoring it and getting it featured. I had taken a stab on restoration of that photograph before he tried it and his crop is brilliant. There were some subtle problems at high resolution, particularly with the faces, and he actually stitched together two different archival files to make this work. He has every reason to be proud of the result. The word choice was an afterthought and not well chosen, I agree. Let's do our best to create a more positive atmosphere--there's a whole lot more to this site than the Israeli-Palestinian disputes and Jaakobou's been doing quite well at broadening his horizons lately. With respect toward all concerned, Durova^Charge! 20:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What? I'm not following that. Again, anything that will even remotely resemble in appearance the notice which was originally copied, will be viewed most severely. El_C 20:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Even after the offending words are removed? Really, that's carrying things a bit far. We're talking about a simple exams notice that posts an editor's recently featured picture. Jaakobou has accommodated feedback and offered an apology. What would be the basis for objection--the shade of the border color? If somebody tried to block him for that I'd post the unblock request myself. If there's something I'm not understanding, please explain. Durova^Charge! 20:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not going far. It should not resemble to the original notice, because it comes across as mocking it, by placing the mourning of people on par with Exams. That I need to explain something that obvious, is, not a good sign. El_C 20:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If I had been aware of the notice before he posted it I would have advised him to leave out those words, which of course were in very poor taste. The userbox format itself is standard and unremarkable. All the same, I've asked him to change it. Maybe if you had seen the background on that photo restoration you'd view this from a different perspective: there really were many days of back and forth, interim feedback versions, etc. It was a labor of love. And Jaakobou did some fine work with the Tibetan thangka also, which passed WP:FPC last night. It's been a positive experience and a good branching out--a way to unwrap from engagement in the Israeli-Palestinian disputes. I trust that the image and his university obligations were the main focus of the notice, and the sarcasm was a hasty afterthought. It isn't easy to broaden editing horizons and contribute featured content after arbitration. I think it would be appropriate to accept his apology in good faith, rather than taking the hardline approach. Durova^Charge! 21:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I, as an uninvolved admin, am following up a notice on the administrators' noticeboard — one which I have since archived and branched off to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Obviously, continuing to restore a similarly-formatted notice works against any such apology, whatever it may be. El_C 21:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To the extent that I could be called anything other than neutral, it's that I helped raise Palestinian costumes to good article and restored two historic photographs of Palestinian culture to featured pictures (Image:Coffeepalestine1.jpg and Image:Bedouinwomanb.jpg). El C, in light of your avowal of uninvolvement, do you have any comment about the following edits?[16][17] Durova^Charge! 23:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at this time, no. El_C 23:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just seeing this for the very first time now. I'm not sure how to express my feelings. Anger and disgust come to mind. I would say disappointment, but given Jaakobou's editing history here, and his tendency towards tendentious editing and commentary, I'm rather unsuprised. I'm sorry Jaakobou, but you have totally squandered my personal trust and at this stage, I'm not ready to forgive and forget, particularly since you seem to be downplaying how insensitive your mock-up was.

I should note that I posted the original notice on 2 March to notify people of why I had been absent and that I wouldn't be responding to inquiries here. When I returned on 4 March to make a few edits, I changed the notice to reflect that, and also modified it to include Israel to because of the killings at the Yeshiva. It was then I noticed that Jaakobou had left this message on my talk page on March 3, alerting me to his having re-opened a dormant discussion at Palestinian fedayeen and asking me to join the discussion there. I thought at that time that it was little insensitive for him to do that, but decided it would be better to assume good faith (i.e. assume that he didn't see the original notice or didn't understand that it meant I would not be editing).

In this context, to see what he did after that is really very offensive to me. I also find Durova's excuse-making for his behaviour to be somewhat inappropriate. Mentoring doesn't mean becoming an editor's advocate when he does something that is clearly wrong. The caption he placed under the picture shows he wasn't interested in highlighting the work he did on the picture, but was rather exploiting the opportunity to take a stab at the format of the template I created. I support El C's calls for some kind of sanction here. His attacks on Gatoclass and Nishidani when they raised the subject with him politely and his "apology", lacking in seriousness above only compound the initial wrongs further. They are indicative of the juvenile and offensive behaviour regularly engaged in by this user who is the constant subject (and source) of complaints. Indeed, his actions at Palestinian fedayeen months ago were what prompted the Arbcomm to be opened in the first place and he was lucky to evade a topic ban or block then. I'm sorry if this statement is harsh, but I really am disgusted. The death of any human being is simply not something to be mocked. Tiamut^talk 02:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, I am very sorry to have contributed to your grief. It's easy to lose perspective when communicating over the Internet. We don't see human faces, or hear each other's voices, and sometimes something that seems minor or an afterthought to the person who posts it really doesn't look minor to other people. When I step back I realize what I posted was really out of line, and it was in an ambiguous context that made it look worse. It was one of those what were you thinking? lapses where I don't know which is worse: explaining or not explaining. So if you really don't want to know then you can decide whether to accept my regrets without reading any further. If you do want to know, here goes: I'm a student behind on my sleep, and I was proud of getting my first featured picture, and I wanted to go and focus on my upcoming exams and let people know about those two things. And (probably because I'm young and sleep deprived) I made a lapse of judgment using a userbox I should never have used. My stupid action gave off a similar line to I've mourned too and nobody holds my hand, which isn't a very good place to be coming from, but it's the kind of ill-considered afterthought that tired young people sometimes post on the Internet and was never my intent. I'm not excusing it, But I hope it helps somewhat to know that it wasn't done maliciously. I'm sorry; it won't happen again. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I accept your apology. I do ask that you honestly reflect upon any (sub)conscious underlying hostility you may hold towards me and work to keep such feelings in check in the future. I say this partly because it should not have taken a week and the input of multiple editors for you to have realized that you were wrong, and partly because this is not the first time I have felt singled out by you. It is nevertheless big of you to admit your mistake. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 18:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the memory lapse, but when (other than now) have exactly made you feel singled out? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well as per this section on your talk page stemming from these sections at Talk:Palestinian people#Communal editing and Talk:Palestinian people#Communal editing, 2nd try. Do you need other examples? Tiamut^talk 21:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize that you felt singled out by my mis-phrased comment to Nishidani, but it was you who made the revert on my edit and therefore, I requested content based replies (not derogatory insinuations) from editors interested in resolving the dispute, not from editors (Nishidani) interested solely in advocacy for their own perspective.

I hope this explains that situation, are there any others that we need to get out of the way to start a new? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s. since you brought it up, I felt you were very insensitive at the time to Nishidani's attacks on my people. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, the issue was not that response to Nishidani alone. It was how you twice created a section entitled "Communal editing" beginning with my name in bold to discuss edits. It's not as though I was not discussing with you. I was, extensively, throughout. I encourage you to reflect on your approach there and your single-minded focus on my feedback when other editors were also interested and readily available to explain why the edit was appropriate. As for Nishidani's comments about your people, I'm not sure what you are referring to exactly. I don't recall anything strange about his comments, but if I missed something and that offended you, I'm sorry too. Please, all I'm asking is for you to reflect upon how your behaviour might be interpreted negatively by others or be coming from a place unrelated to or incompatible with the building of a healthy, collaborative working environment. And I will try to too. Okay? Tiamut^talk 22:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we're using this opportunity to clear things up. I only bolden editor's names because it helps the legibility and helps sorting out who said what and to whom; I do this with everyone and hope you have no reservations from me continuing on doing so; it's certainly not intended to "single people out" and helps me follow the large number of conversations I get involved in.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, you have not taken my advice

Jaakobou, your comment here is one long rant that that leads me to believe that you are incapable of engaging in self-reflection on how to create a healthier working environment at I-P articles. It's not only one large soapboxing rant (e.g The Arab world, Islam inspired cultural structure is the main cause of the Arab-Palestinian 91 year racist terror campaign against the Jewish-Palestinians), it's also littered with bad faith assumptions and thinly veiled personal attacks (e.g. If you want to mention the Palestinian narratives for why "it's ok" to kill innocent pizza eating Jews (and Arabs)... Please stop making vitriolic comments about your fellow editors. If I see one more such comment, I'll be taking you to WP:AE to call for a topic-ban to be instituted, since it seems you lack the ability to discuss topics related to the I-P conflict in way that is respectful of the views of others which impedes the efforts of others towards article improvement and conflict resolution. Tiamut^talk 15:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut,

This is a clear case of the pot and the kettle and seems like a blatant threat to silence any pro-Israel perspective; A collaborative environment is one that includes both perspectives and does not silence a mainstream perspective in favor for the militant victim-hood narrative.

You're being extremely insensitive to people who lost friends and family to these terrorist attacks by "collaboratively" requesting the "NPOV" word 'struggle' be used to describe attacks on civilians (both Jews ands Arabs); and collaborative atmosphere requires the end to the de-legitimization of Israeli civilian (Jewish, Arab and other) soapboxing.

Also, Nickhh made a personal attack on me, both changing the meaning of my words and taking a shot at my alleged lack of knowledge and in response I suggested to give him citation examples. [18]

Your quotes here are also taken out of proper context as they were themselves in response to soapboxing.

Collaborative efforts are at the top of my priorities, but this does not mean that the Israeli perspective is to be eliminated from the conversation for the sake of 'peace/victory'. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC) toning down phrasing. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have taken this issue to WP:AE. In your response above, you continue to make bad faith accusations that have no basis in reality. My proposed edits to Second Intifada are based on a discussion of the reliable sources and WP:NPOV. I have taken great pains to make sure that both Israeli and Palestinian POVs are represented. It is not "extremely insensitive" of me to suggest that we replace the word "war" with the word " struggle" to describe how Palestinians perceive the Second Intifada, nor does it mean that I am in any way attempting to de-legitimize [sic] Israeli civilian deaths. It is quite clear to me that you are unable to assume good faith and edit collaboratively with those who don't share your views since you base your "analysis" of my edits and proposals not on their merit (or lack thereof), but rather on my identity as a Palestinian woman. Enough is enough. Tiamut^talk 16:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume good faith, but also see that you've missed the problem. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My response to your comments on my talk page is here and it responds to your comment above as well. WP:AGF does have a limit Jaakobou and unfortunately, for the time being, you have squandered mine. Tiamut^talk 19:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not kid anyone, you've not applied AGF ever since I requested you stop POVing the Palestinian Fedayeen article and you ignored my talk page concerns. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? Is that what you think? Well, you're entitled to your opinion Jaakobou. Tiamut^talk 19:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a denial. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point. Tiamut^talk 19:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, you don't see anything other than your own POV and bad faith assumptions when someone disagrees with them. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I meant but thanks for assuming bad faith. I meant that there is no point since my interactions with you from that time up until this week have been largely [if not] pleasant and [then at least] polite from my end, as evidenced throughout your talk page. I also doubt very much that you would believe me if I denied that, since it seems that you are still upset about my reporting you to WP:ANI for your disruptive mass blankings there, even as I repeatedly attempted to respond to the concerns you raised on talk. You also continue to ignore that it was your actions there that were in fact the problem, likely because the Arbcomm did nothing to sanction you for that and the other complaints raised against you there there, preferring instead to give a broad general warning to everyone. That's what I mean by there is no point. Tiamut^talk 20:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You've responded to nothing, dismissing my POV concerns, continued editing and tried to have me blocked. Just as you are doing now. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s. at the time, ANI/ARBCOM should have sanctioned you for WP:OWN and ignoring talk page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I can understand how you might have come to perceive the situation that way, but I don't think that's an accurate description. I have always responded to your posts and I have held off editing pages to respond to the concerns of both you and other editors (most recently, holding off making a change to the lead of Second Intifada for three months). I have only reported you to WP:ANI once before for mass reversions at Palestinian fedayeen where I noticed that the relevant discussion has since been archived. As you can see there, I spent ample time responding to your concerns, just as a I have at Second Intifada. I understand that because you have not always been successful in making the changes you would have liked to see made that you would feel as though my responses were not responsive. But I should note that both 3Os you opened counselled against the changes you were trying to introduce too, so it's not just me who was "unresponsive". Again, I hope that whatever happens as a result of this latest incident that you will try to engage in some self-reflection of your own and think about the comments other editors and admins are making and ask yourself (as should we all) if what you are writing helps or hinders the project. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 22:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've yet to make official complains about our recent discourse and I felt you were trying to work with me after (not before) the Arbcom was over. If you wish for me to resolve things collaboratively, you'll stop trying to ban people with opposing views and work within the dispute resolution process.

p.s. I did not feel that your "struggle" and "new" version suggestions were by any means helpful, let alone all the commentaries by your fellow 'uprising' supporters. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

7-day ban from Israel-Palestine related pages

Jaakobou, your recent talk page conduct has been disruptive. In accordance with the discretionary sanctions, you are banned for 7 days from Israel-Palestine related pages. Addhoc (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made a retraction request on your page being that,

1. you are an involved admin that should not take discretionary sanctions on this case, and that
2. I've not been given the chance to post my full response to the situation.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I agree with Addhoc here. If we go with such a strict definition of uninvolved administrator we'd have no admins left to enforce anything. A week off from this set of articles is reasonable. Moreschi (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

With a few days having passed and in light of this latest arbitration enforcement effort, I hope both you and Durova take note that, notwithstanding my early closing of the last thread, I remain vehemently opposed to the unfounded, careless claim by both of you that I'm an involved admin. I'll continue to act as an uninvolved admin in this area, without restriction. El_C 11:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

El_C,

1. It is my belief that creating political Israel-Palestine related articles [19] (even if by translation), to be a sign of involvement enough so that admin/editor who does this should not insist he is uninvolved.
2. That said, it's not intended as a knock on any supposed bias, but rather the impropriety of the appearance of a possible COI.
3. Regardless, getting accustomed to numerous wiki-admins ignoring the concept of "appearance of possible impropriety", refusing to take a step back as if that's a direct knock on their integrity, I'll continue contributing quality material in hope to one day see abusive anti-Israel soapboxing editors get some attention rather than mostly, the people who have the displeasure to repeatedly face their advocacy/personal attacks. This is a personal feeling -- rather than a statistics -- based on all the stones I've had to swallow along the way, keeping civil and avoiding advocacy as much as possible regardless.
4. On a personal note, I'm clearly not the person to enforce your involvement/uninvolvement on Israel-Palestinian related conflicts and I can't see the point of this statement of yours other than to say "In Your Face!".

Anyways, I hope there's no more hard feelings -- about my general appearance of belief regarding wikipedia admins; and wish you to have a great weekend, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The definition given is "an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict". Translating isn't participating in a content dispute. PhilKnight (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What can I say? I see you try to disqualify the next admin trying to attend to arbitration enforcement with you, in a wholly unrelated case, the very next day? I don't do In Your Faces, but it seems like a good time as any to bring it up (I am sorry you can't see any other point to this).

I think both sides have often been able to keep articles in perpetual dispute by rules lawyering and taking an overly formalist approach:

1. Myself, creating a central page and an article to help an arbitration enforcement case I'm actively dealing with, is one example.

2. Claiming Addhoc is involved for adding a few refs is a more extreme, blatant example. And it works to the detriment of the project.

3. Almost all key editors in both the Israeli and Palestinian side see me as neutral, which is why I'm confident in taking non-robot solutions.

4. I'm just about the only admin enforcing this area who knows my way around, yet is not affiliated with either group.

So, I think it's shortsighted on the part of both of you to try and discard me like that (the offense was rather extreme in nature, and before I showed up you ignored others who tried to explain it to you, including one admin — it seems like it took a stern warning from me for you to finally grasp it). I have no hard feeling towards you, at least, but I do feel like you were treating myself (and others before my arrival) unfairly. El_C 19:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

El_C, you've missed my two points entirely. To clarify,

1. Main point: "appearance of possible impropriety" is not meant to knock on any admin's bias/quality and it's certainly not an insult/unfair treatment - there's plenty of court cases where Judges recuse from cases for the off chance of that appearance. Best I'm aware this is called "appearance ethics" under law. Since wiki doesn't share my concerns regarding editorial belief in the system, I am forced to accept it and leave it be. However, this doesn't change my perspective on what would be basis for more proper/ethical bureaucracy.
2. Secondary point: I've been forced to swallow some pretty big stones (sample); and there's a need for abusive anti-Israel soapboxing editors to get some attention rather than mostly, the people who have the displeasure to repeatedly face their advocacy/personal attacks.
3. Side point, recently anti-Israel editors have taken the custom of ownership and gaming (on Israeli-Palestinian conflict for example) and also the handing out of barstars for abusive behavior; First Tiamut hands out barnstars to both Eleland and Nishidani immediately after making very blatant insults at me, and now Tiamut is receiving this "insult-barnstar" (notice direct knock at IronDuke's "favouritve lady") from NSH001.

p.s. I don't feel wikipedia is handling my efforts -- to remain civil despite barrages of personal attacks and avoidance from responding to soapboxing -- fairly either, and these warped "group presentations" by COI editors (who repeatedly promote each other's poor conduct) are just a sad, and very common display. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to address the specifics at this time, but to respond to the broader "under law" argument: thankfully, Wikipedia is not court of law, where letter of the law technicalities supersede its spirit and substance (i.e. actual fairness and evenhandedness). El_C 19:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's culture is based around the spirit of rules, and your approach is to defend your actions in a formal legalistic manner. Generally speaking, if you are banned or blocked, launching into attacks of your opponents, and indicating how they have insulted you to justify your conduct, is a bad move. It just gives the impression that if the block or ban is undone, then your troublesome conduct is going to continue. Also, reminding editors that you have done work on featured images doesn't counter balance holding a grudge against the editors on the other side of this dispute. If you have problems with specific editors, then try to provide diffs. I appreciate that in some cases of a low level of incivility over a long period this isn't always easy. However, you should emphasize that, in general, you are prepared to assume good faith to editors on the other side of this dispute. In particular, you should avoid statements which imply that you can no longer extend good faith to any editors on the opposite side. In situations where the behavior of specific editors is problematic, you should emphasize a willingness to resolve the problem though user conduct dispute resolution. A productive course of action is to acknowledge that your conduct wasn't perfect, and to emphasize that you want to establish consensus on how articles can be improved. For example, if you had politely requested to be allowed to participate in the informal mediation case, that would have been reasonable. PhilKnight (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-18 Second Intifada

Just notifying you, that as you have been involved in the discussion regarding the Second Intifada article, which is now the subject of a MedCab case, I'm notifying you of this as you may wish to partake in this case to discuss a resolution to this dispute. Feel free to leave a comment on my talk page. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD

No, it's an AfD for multiple articles, but one has to be listed as the first/main one, and that just happens to be Hatuel (she was the first one I came across when I was going through various categories to add stuff to the Category:Years in Israel categories. пﮟოьεԻ 57 00:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Latrell Sprewell

Sorry, didn't mean to revert your edit on that page. I was actually restoring the original version before the anons messed it up. Feel free to restore your information if you want, but I just figured that the original sentence should be kept as well. Bash Kash (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

user page mess

{{helpme}}

I have a small template to link to my featured contribution but in the past couple days the (3) stars+links suddenly became huge without any change in my own code... probably a more global code change.

I could use a bit of help on fixing the issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you wanted to profile them a bit more, here it is. Mion (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Fixed it for you. The Helpful One ^(Review) 19:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

for the barnstar! --The Helpful One ^(Review) 19:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Israeli-Palestine

Regardless of whether or not your information is true or false, the fact of the matter is, there has been no consensus on this point. Given the severe disputes with this article, this is how the process is going to work. There has already been one resolved content dispute using this (User:Michael Safyan's) method. See Talk:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#Consensus. Until there has been a similar agreement at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#Consensus 2, i'm afraid the edit you are trying to make cannot be undertaken. In fact, as a result of your actions, you have broken 3RR, and I've actually gone ahead and asked to have the page protected again. Furthermore, stop with the wikilawyering nonsense. Repeating capitalized abbreviations ad nauseum does nothing to help your argument, and only irritates other editors. Thanks a lot. Suicup (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Both sides should provide a timeline: I would like to see a chronology for this passage. From what I can see, every week or two, a revert war breaks over it, then subsides for a week or two, and so on. I would like to see views from both sides on how it started, however. At a glance, it looks like just something where negative energy finds an outlet (a compromise passage does not appear that out of reach). Thx. El_C 19:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know how to make a compromise with someone who insists 'Land of Israel' never existed outside the bible even when presented with coins and stamps that have 'Eretz Israel' written on them. Go over the talk page evidence by Jaakobou and Itzse and let me know. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a lot of material to go through, that's why I would like a summary. Michael Safyan has told me "no one here has the time or patience" to provide me with one. Hopefully, others will opt for a more helpful attitude. Otherwise, either and/or both sides may find that arbitration enforcement in this article can turn rather arbitrary, fast. I am not prepared to allow that revert war to go on, indefinitely. El_C 07:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Land of Israel moves

With respect to moving Land of Israel to Land of Israel, Bible yesterday, and seeing how this follows your Feb. move of it to The Promised Land (Eretz Yisrael), I ask that you seek a more detail move discussion in the future prior to implementing the move singlehandedly. ‎Thanks. El_C 19:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, I'll try to remember it if/when discussions on the article's talk page go on poorly. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)