User talk:Jaakobou/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

---

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 20 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Hebron. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Anthøny 22:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

yeah i made a technical error, i think that i try to resolve disputes as properly as possible in a very hostile environment and that while this block is technically justified, it is not helpful to the project as it rewards rude behavior by people who are blanketing correct and referenced information just because the phrasing was a little off. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

- future reference, archive.

Neo-Zionism

I've removed for the moment the transclusion {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Zionism}} from the AfD log, since there is neither a tag on the article nor a discussion page. In case you actually want to nominate this article for deletion, please complete all three steps per WP:AfD#How to list pages for deletion. --Tikiwont 14:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wounded Soul

Kind of a stretch, to call what I said a personal attack, unless you take things way too personally, which was my point; fighting over a worthless patch of desert has wounded the souls of all involved. Speciate 21:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please watch yourself

You should not use your edit summaries to identify edits made as part of a content dispute as vandalism, as you did at [1]. This is a tacit personal attack, and may be seen as at attempt to evade scrutiny through misleading summaries. In future, I suggest you say "rv tendentious editing", or "rv as factually inaccurate and POV", or something similar. Eleland 17:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

1) i have both previous and recent history with said user.

2) this is not a content dispute but information blanking from both the intro (reason for notability) and from a resolved issue (kurdi bear) that has been discussed over and over.

3) i have given the user a chance to defend his edit on the talk page.

4) you're hardly the person to talk to me about revert incivility and misleading summaries.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

1) All the more reason for civility.

2) The blanking of information was part of a content dispute. Vandalism refers to edits which clearly have no other purpose but to damage the article, and could not be seen as constructive by anybody.

3) No policy empowers users to give each other "last chances" after which they may violate WP:CIV or WP:NPA.

4) The edit summary you mentioned drew attention to gang-reversions by nationalists. It made no reference to any particular edit or user. POV-pushing from nationalist editors is a well known problem on the Wikipedia. Eleland 18:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

you've managed to distort/misrepresent all 4 in your reply. good job. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Visitors may judge "information blanking" for themselves

Interested visitors should know that what Jaakobou calls "information blanking" (above) and/or "vandalism" is actually the re-writing of his un-encyclopedic, tendentious and wordy edits. (In this case, the article was Battle of Jenin). His version of this paragraph reads as follows:

Israel claimed that a warning was given over a loud speaker before each of the houses were destroyed; However, Yediot Aharonot's "7 Days" editorial released a personal interview with Moshe Nissim (nicknamed "Kurdi Bear", Hebrew: "דובי כורדי"), a problematic army reserve soldier who insisted on becoming a D-9 driver, as stating that regardless of the speaker calls, he personally gave no one a chance and demolished the homes as quickly as possible while thinking about all the explosives hidden in the camp and the Israeli soldiers being in a death trap situation. Nissim added his disregard for the possibility that he could be killed and that despite not witnessing any deaths, he did not care and he believes that people died inside the houses.

The version he insists on reverting out (having failed to edit-war it out of the article completely) reads as follows:

Israel claims that a warning was given over a loud speaker before each of the houses were destroyed. Yediot Aharonot quoted Moshe Nissim, nicknamed "Kurdi Bear" as saying "They were warned by loudspeaker to get out of the house before I come, but I gave no one a chance. ........ Many people were inside houses we started to demolish. ....... I am sure people died inside these houses."

Note that his paragraph replaces the correct English language reference with one in Hebrew, thereby ruining "Verifiability", one of the core principles of the encyclopedia. (I made other changes at the same time in this particular edit, the most significant being the correct reporting of death estimates - "at least 52", not "total 52". So his replacement paragraph is not just very badly written, it also put known falsehoods back into the encyclopedia).

Needless to say, there is a lot more work needs doing on this article, but it is not going to happen until this behaviour stops. PalestineRemembered 14:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

We should have both references included. My understanding of policy is that English-language references are preferred to foreign-language references, but in this case the reliability of the Hebrew source is claimed to be superior to the reliability of the English source (although personally I trust Gush Shalom more than Yedioth Ahronoth). Eleland 15:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered (and User:Eleland), all this information belongs where we've already discussed it, i.e. on the article's talk page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, and I apologize. Eleland 17:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved or not?

Civility is the toughest nut to crack at Wikipedia; people are expected to have thick skins and often harsh words are expressed and editors are allowed a significant lattitude unless there are threats, profanity, or outright name calling. I haven't seen the crossing of those lines from the diffs you linked. Are there others you'd like me look at? FYI, WP admins will not block someone for POV pushing alone even accompanied by strong language. Carlossuarez46 17:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Reopened my complaint as well. PR just doesn't get it. *headdesk* Kyaa the Catlord 10:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Response on the film article

I think that there may be an honest disagreement on how to word the critiques section. Although weasel words like "some" are usually to be avoided, where things are largely a matter of taste (as movie critiques are, basically) "some" and "others" are probably passable. One could say "Some, inlcuding the Chicago Sun-Times, ...". I think the weasel words guideline is best in a factual dispute: some people say the Nile is the longest river, others say it's the Amazon. Who the "some" are there does matter - if every supporter of the Amazon is a Brazilian Newspaper, the reader can draw his own conclusion on whether a bias is present. As for a "quote farm", a phrase I don't particularly like, while it is sometimes important to quote rather than characterize the quotations, like perhaps Barak Obama's recent statements about Pakistan or Putin's statements about the "missile shield" in Europe, and we have lots of articles of the sort "International reaction to [event]" that are nothing but a bunch of quotes. However, in matters of taste (as here) it's less important to repeat what they said: there are plenty of more polite synonyms for "boring" but they still mean "boring" - but most documentaries are boring to most audiences that's why they make lots less money than Harry Potter or Batman or Bourne movies. Carlossuarez46 22:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

i don't mind putting in that reviewers noted that the film is slow paced and some called it boring... however, starting the review section with a statement that "it's a slow boring movie... and incorrect to boot" is certainly not how we should address any film.

the thing is that with political movies that are pro/anti-israel or pro/anti-islam or pro/anti-palestinians. there's always some idiotic attempt to influence the way the film is presented and this case is no different... some wiki editors are simply incapable of taking a step back and simply noting the range of reviews in an NPOV manner. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:CIV

Yes, yes, I have noticed that you like to complain about incivility instead of addressing substantive issues. I find your need to see yourself as a helpless victim, unjustifiably targeted by hostile forces, regardless of how destructive your actions are, to be fascinating: you seem to mirror personally the attitude that your state takes internationally. If you remove material with no justification, or with no more than a passing reference to some TV show you saw on Israel's equivalent of the Discovery Channel, you'll face this type of response. It is extraordinary frustrating to deal with you. Even when you're completely off base, it takes reversions and multiple postings on talk before you — sometimes — accept it. Two cases in point would be your insertion of the term "Big Jenin Lie" in boldface to the lede, and your original research claims of accusations of "genocide" when that term only appeared once in all of the sources you provided. I'll try not to question your motives in future, because ultimately, it isn't helpful.

Now, on a related matter: Do you have a potential conflict of interest related to the Battle of Jenin? Were you a participant in the event? Although you have devoted much bandwidth to decrying this question, you have not answered it, which would be the most sensible way to deal with the issue.

Eleland 13:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

warning issued. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It would appear it was time you answered the question - did you take part in operations described in articles in this encyclopedia, and are there circumstances under which you could be charged with war-crimes and arraigned before the ICC at the Hague? Please consider your options carefully before providing a reply. If there are circumstances under which you might seek asylum in a civilised nation (or indeed, in a western nation), then you might care to consider your response especially carefully. Please note, these questions were originally presented in the context of a Conflict of Interest, and you've not replied to the original question. However, you are welcome to do so now. PalestineRemembered 17:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Libel Take Two

It's obnoxious and it's rude and it's uncalled for (and it's a violation of numerous WP guidelines), but it's not libel, at least in the US.

WP:CHILL and WP:COOL. Admins are looking at it. Further advocacy at AN/I is more likely to hurt the persuasiveness of your case by making the section difficult to read. WP:CIVIL is rarely enforced, and even less so when the complaining party is complaining loudly. THF 23:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm just curious how it's not libel for every type of question to be asked in public if it can be proven that the person asking knows what he's doing and he's doing it repeatedly on purpose, in order to vilify someone he considers to be an opponent.

you don't need to go far up this page to see he adds to his "question" the following phrasing:

Please consider your options carefully before providing a reply. If there are circumstances under which you might seek asylum in a civilised nation (or indeed, in a western nation), then you might care to consider your response especially carefully. [sic] - by user PR.

this was done after the AV/I members ignored my original complaint, therefore giving him the feeling that this kind of behavior is acceptable. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that he was blocked. Like I said, I thought the comments despicable, and I think WP:NPA is underenforced. Throwing around language like "libel", though, hurts your case, which might be why admins didn't notice it; PR essentially hung himself with his AN/I participation by defending the uncivil edit. You would have been more persuasive with titling the complaint something like "NPA: User accuses me of committing war crimes" instead of "Repeated bogus accusations/claims and libel". The former statement is uncontroversially true, an obvious violation, and would have been acted on much more quickly; the latter resulted in a debate over whether something was libel. THF 09:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you for the explanation. i agree with what you said, and in the future i'll do my best to keep it in mind. i was considering to add a comment to the AN/I, using the wording 'close to legal' and noting that a 24hr block seems like a weak deterrent to such demonstrative activity, but decided that i'd only be repeating myself. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

i just saw his page^{static version} and all i have to say is wow. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: CoI

If you want to dispel "insinuations" about a conflict of interest in the matter, try denying a conflict of interest in the matter. Even a generic statement like "I do not believe that I have a conflict of interest in the matter" would be helpful. Delivering aggrieved "warnings" to anyone who dares ask the question kind of makes you look like you're hiding something. Eleland 16:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

what you say is correct in the event of good faith questioning, but totally incorrect in this matter. i think that anyone who looks to vilify his "opponent" can easily ask such similar questions and i never elicited such impressive leap of faith questions with any of my edits or statements. while the sheer question is insulting considering the POV of the person behind it, the phrasing and insinuations made it more than evident that the editor had more interest in how defamatory he can phrase himself without getting blocked than in the reply he gets.

p.s. i only gave you a level 2 warning, and it was more based on your incivility than anything else. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Religious villages in Israel

The simple fact is that we can't put Bedolah into an "in Israel" as it never was in Israel. It was in the Gaza Strip (you yourself put it into Category:Towns and villages in the Gaza Strip, which is not a subcategory of Israel. Saying that it was in Israel is very strong POV, which of course must be avoided on Middle East-related articles. Number 57 08:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

saying that gaza is in or out of israel is POV. i don't quite know if you're aware of the jewish history there, but trust me it exists. regardless, the israeli settelements there were built under the flag of israel in a disputed territory, and therefore, both cats apply. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but saying Gaza is out of Israel is not POV, it is fact (note the comment in the intro of Gaza Strip: "[it] is not currently recognized internationally as a de jure part of any sovereign country"). Gaza has never been part of the State of Israel; it was occupied by the Israel military, but was never annexed, so unlike the Golan or East Jerusalem, none of its land has ever been part of the State. In contrast, saying Gaza is or was part of Israel (and we are not talking about the Kingdom of Israel or Mandate Palestine here) is very much pro-Israel POV; thus given your constant reference to avoiding POV in your edit summaries, I would expect you not to be hypocritical and support a POV stance on this issue. Number 57 09:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

i'd appreciate it if you ease off on the hypocrisy accusations and just discuss the issue. your notes are very much valid, however, as i've stated, the settlements were built under the flag of israel. i'm not trying to say every gaza strip city was inside israel, but i'm saying that these gush katif settlements, which were built on disputed territory under the israeli flag could most definitely be categorized as "in israel" even if according to the UN it was 5-15 kilometers outside the official borders. i'm not pushing any pro or anti perspective here, just advocating a factuality issue in a problematic situation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not problematic. The statement "in Israel" is a very well-defined fact, i.e. something is within the green line, or at a stretch, within the Golan or East Jerusalem. As Gaza is not within the green line (how close the settlements are is not important; Gush Etzion is just as much a settlement as those in the Jordan Valley), there is no way it can be said to be in Israel. On the issue of borders, the UN is the NPOV stance, and you have made clear their opinion above. Also, as you have defined these settlements as "towns in the Gaza Strip", how on earth can they also be in Israel - it is one or the other! Number 57 08:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Number 57, i'm well aware of your "gaza strip not israel" POV and have explained my reservation in clear terms. i disagree that you say the issue is not problematic and your mention of the green line seems to imply that you would consider the Ariel settlement in the west bank as outside of israel also; which would be even more contentious than the gush katif block. i suggest you refer me to the previous discussion that had more participants state their opinion and i'll see if anything there sways me closer to the "gaza strip not israel" position about this settlement block. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Gaza strip not in Israel POV"? This is what we call fact. Is this not enough to "sway" you. And of course Ariel is not in Israel, that is why it is called a settlement and not a city!

Secondly, how dare you accuse me of POV. You are one of the biggest POV pushers around when it comes to Israel-related articles (second only after Yehosipat Oliver in my experience of your editing). My only suggestion to you is that you need to stay well clear of any controversial articles. You are not contributing anything to the Wikipedia project with your obsessive edit warring on articles such as Battle of Jenin. Why not do something constructive and write about the hundreds of MKs, kibbutzim or moshavim in Israel with no article rather than spend all your time fighting with PalestineRemembered? Number 57 14:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Number 57, your aggressive reaction, alleging i'm the 2nd biggest POV pusher(?), will not help us sort this issue and your mentioning of PR, who is now under review for a possible ban from the community, perhaps shows you should stick to the subject matter rather than make statements that could be misunderstood.

now if i may, i request you link me to the discussion page so we can perhaps find a way to resolve this dispute in a civilized manner. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What is there to misunderstand about what I said? The original discussion on this issue took place on the WikiProject Israel talk page. Number 57 15:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

documentary

Thank you for your documentary recommendation and for making an effort to broaden my understanding. Unfortunately I still don't see how this large-scale conflict has such a strong influence on you personally. You have every right to maintain your privacy and don't have to answer any personal question. But your assertion that the sheer question (whether you were engaged in the IDF) is insulting, still amazes me. --Raphael1 19:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

you misunderstood the question. it was not whether i was in the israeli military (indeed not a very insulting question), but it was a question on whether i participated in the battle of jenin, an event the asking user describes as war crimes and deliberate massacre. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be relevant what you think about that IDF incursion? If I may use an analogy for clarification: There are people who would not feel insulted, if you ask them whether their parents are/were Nazis, because they are anti-Semites themselves. --Raphael1 18:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm sorry i wasn't able to make you understand the issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me, that you might consider the Battle of Jenin an ordinary counter-terrorist military operation. If that is the case, why is it so insulting to be asked whether you participated in it? --Raphael1 20:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

because the person asking it believes it was an intentional massacre and with his phrasing he wanted to discredit me more than get an answer, the purpose of the question was to insult. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

IMHO it doesn't matter what PRs intentions were. Do you consider the question, whether you are jewish, insulting, if the questioner is an anti-Semit? --Raphael1 21:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

the direction you're treading with defense for the abusing editor's intentions and questions that you pose could be interpreted as trollish behavior. i've done my best to explain and i think we've reached an end in our discussion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Accept you didn't want a perma-block on me

Hi Jaakobou - I understand you didn't intend this on me. I didn't really intend to chase you off an article either. PalestineRemembered 10:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note

I don't see a problem with those posts. Progress on that page has been obstructed by an extraordinary level of sophistry and game-playing; it's necessary to confront that every now and then. Bear in mind that deliberate obstructionism is disruptive, and reasoning that insults the intelligence of your fellow editors is itself a violation of WP:CIVIL.--G-Dett 21:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

many people have been in conflict on this highly contentious page yet you chose to accuse me personally of insulting your intelligence, apparently because i posed a different opinion on how to regard HRW and ADL. when i asked you to tone down the "explosive" language, you insisted on repeating your comment on what i should do in your opinion to avoid "credibility hits"; and therefore i decided to leave a note on your page.^[2] i hope we can leave this silly argument with this explanation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to make this clear to you, Jaakabou. When you rely on the findings of major human rights organizations to establish that the massacre claims were discredited, and then when faced with other findings dismiss those same organizations as "advocacy groups" that merely "repeat" the claims of Palestinians, it insults the intelligence. To sit there and debate whether Human Rights Watch has any more credibility than a lobby group on the question of human rights violations is degrading. Yes, let's leave the silliness here. And let's let the talk page over at Battle of Jenin grow a little more serious. Thanks.--G-Dett 22:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Suspected socks

You really need to put a little bit more into sockpuppet requests than you did on the G-Dett one. Incorrect accusations don't gain you anything, and build up quite a bit of bad faith. If you'd like some pointers on researching a sock, let me know: I'd be happy write some tips up for you. Mark Chovain 12:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the note. despite my comment to G-Dett that i hope it was only my own paranoia, i tend to agree with you fully about the bad faith remark. i will surely take this, my first time use of the sock report page, into future consideration and use more judgment before i take a second step on that page.

p.s. i'm still left to wonder what the report sequence will conclude. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I'm deeply insulted that I didn't make your ridiculous "suspects list". Perhaps I need to stop wasting my time trying to reason with you on talk, and just proceed to pushing the 3RR for all it's worth? Eleland 17:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

another notice given here. (for archive: the suspected sock report) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit intro to Battle of Jenin

I disagree with your position strongly. Where has it been established that the Battle of Jenin was a 'massacre' carried out by the Israeli Defence Forces? I agree with you that some consider the Battle of Jenin a massacre - but not official governmental organisations. If there is an event that the vast majority of international organisations (including governments) do not call a massacre, it is completely inappropriate to describe said event as a massacre - even with the qualification of 'called by some'. If one were to disagree with the above argument - and go with your view - one could add the phrase 'called by some a massacre' in the introduction to articles discussing every single battle carried out by any army in the history of humanity. It is unethical for you to consider it appropriate to place the phrase 'called by some...massacre' in an article conserning the State of Israel - and not in all other articles conserning military actions that resulted in civilian deaths (as there has been on hundreds of thousands of occasions in the past.

It is quite bizarre behaviour to post to Jaakobou's TalkPage in response to a question I asked you on your TalkPage. (You being User_Talk:Joebloetheschmo - sorry, Jaakobou for responding here - you might care to make your views heard as well).

It is bizarre indeed to suggest that "official government organisations" are required to validate accusations of massacre. But if you claim this is the case, then can you please tell us which government validated the name Boston Massacre for an incident in which just 5 people (advancing on a garrison and pelting them with lumps of ice) were killed? PalestineRemembered 21:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

all this stuff belongs on the article's talk page, PR, i've noted this to you in the past. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou is not in a strong position to ask others not to deface TalkPages, given his long record of this practice.

And in this case, I'm only here because Joebloetheschmo has responded to my question on your TalkPage. Goodness knows why he has done that, I was trying to dissuade him. (And inviting you to comment on this laughable claim that governments need to "Validate" claims of massacre!). PalestineRemembered 14:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope that Joebloetheschmo doesn't pick up the disruptive practice of using other people's TalkPages for rambling, confused and badly formatted edits about things that were not worth commenting on in the first place. PalestineRemembered 15:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: "offtopic"

• you'll excuse me if i start ignoring these polemics and dedicate myself to moving forward the evidence finding.

No, actually, I won't. You've already been shown what the evidence is, indeed, the very "polemic" which you cited was devoted to quoting the evidence at length. You've seen source material, now accept that it says what it says instead of creating these spurious time-wasting debates. Eleland 12:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

i disagree with your perception on the matter, and no, i'm not forcing you to forgive me. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:City of Jenin and refugee camp.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin

I have corrected my change in the intro. However, I will not change your self revert as I believe the original text is preferable. The first section of the sentence, i.e. "Palestinian initial estimates were of a delibarate campaign to level Jenin" makes no sense. Number 57 13:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

it makes perfect sense if you scroll down 3-4 rows and read the April 6 Nabil Shaath statements and the April 6 and April 7 statements on the Camera reference. seeing that your edit cut off my 3rd edit (incremented) for the day, i request you reconsider fixing it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Palestinian initial estimates" must be about numbers of something, estimates cannot be used for anything else. It could be rephrased "Palestinians intially claimed that it was a deliberate campaign to level Jenin and estimated that X people had been killed", but as it is originally does not make sense in English. Number 57 14:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm only asking you correct it, never told you how to go about it.

p.s. 'estimates' is not just about numbers. see: [3]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, having read the section, I don't see how the bit about it being a campaign to level Jenin is relevant in a "body count" section; therefore I have left that bit out, but otherwise phrased it how you did before reverting. Number 57 16:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

PR's Mentor

Just got indefinitely banned for being a sockpuppet. Interesting, eh? Kyaa the Catlord 07:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

very interesting indeed. is this under serious investigation somewhere? (links?) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

so

You are Israeli...Jewish or Arab? AniChai 01:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

i don't make it a habit to give personal information on open web, however, you can email me. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

sigh

i don't mean to be disrespectful, but could you please take some type of steps so that this issue which you archived would be properly resolved and not repeated?
p.s. i'm watching your page so you can reply here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jaakobou. I think you are unaware of this block and the discussion which was going on at this board. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

no offense, but a 15 minute block and a note that he should select a mentor is really not what i had hoped for after all the breaches he's done since he was assigned the sock mentor. to be frank i'm at the point of exhausted patience and think that, if not some type of deterrent block, at the very least he should be given a proper warning by a user that is not me... so he will not keep stretching the boundaries of good taste checking how far he can go. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The situation is heated Jaakobou and everyone got its share in all this. We don't really punish Jaakobou. Whenever people can find a better solution the better. Let's suppose i'd have blocked him for 48h but what i did is much more better. He'd really think about it in a different way. I remember your case when you apologized and went on. This is how it works and the most important thing here is not the period but if one is going to do it again and again. If you think otherwise, you can undo my archiving and wait for other admins but the last comment was at 18h. So why no one dared to intervene. Maybe because they thought there was no need to escalate problems when we can deal w/ them otherwise. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

please read my comment again and notice i did not request a ban but rather something else (far more effective than a mere 15 min(?) block). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I read it Jaakobou. What i was saying is that we were in the middle of a discussion about mentorship for users. So think about this. Blocking him or looking for a mentor for him? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment - it's most certainly not PR's fault that the assigned mentor was a hoax, however, during this time he has not taken a step back but rather continued pushing the envelope. i'm asking that at the very least he'd be given a proper warning by a user that is not me. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Jaakobou, i see you insisting now instead of requesting. Have you got my last message? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

i received it now, and i note you that while you are looking for a second mentor, i'm a free target to insults, false accusations and chasing around with irrelevant accusative questions on multiple subsections. i hope you understand that also when you shrug off my request that at the very least a warning be issued. if you wish to read some personal vendetta into this, then i have nothing to do but accept the fact that when these breaches reoccur, he could claim it was the first time someone else noted this issue to him. :/ Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh no we will not take ages to find a mentor. In fact we already found nadav and likely that me and Avi would do it. But let's wait for a Avi to see if he'd help. Now, this is what we can do and hope you also show some helping efforts by avoid escalation. Think about the outcome and not about the instant. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

very well, i hope things will work out for the best so i can look back at this moment and chuckle at myself for this request. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin

Hi. i need to ask you what you were referring to with your last comment. Could you please respond to the multiple quotes which Palestine Remembered posted? He seems to be missing the basic point that every single one of those quotes uphold the ISraeli point of view. it's obvious from the quotes themselves, yet he seems to miss that. I'm getting nowehere. Could you help? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 19:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Jenin dispute tag

Please stop removing {{TotallyDispted}} tags from Battle of Jenin. These issues have been discussed extensively and nothing approaching a resolution has been reached. There is no requirement for a certain number of postings per day in order to indicate a dispute. You've been very prolific on talk and you've managed to address, partially, a tiny fraction of the issues (which IIRC are not the same issues that led to the tag adding anyway). You've also managed to wear down and drive away other contributors with your sheer intransigence. Good for you. Don't confuse exasperation with consensus. Eleland 12:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

start the desired subsections on talk and we'll see if i'm convinced that these problems require such an intrusive tag... obviously, there are always points for conflict, but this article most certainly has it's body well established as factual (is there anything that's unreferenced?) and that tag is inappropriate. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have posted an extensive summary of the problems with one paragraph, to indicate how severe the problems are. Just showing how badly distorted and counterfactual this paragraph is took a very long talk page post. Please don't focus laser-like on one or two ancillary issues, post until we're sick of arguing with you, and then claim that the issues are resolved. This is an example of the problems which permeate the entire article. Eleland 13:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

sometimes focus is needed to resolve things. btw, i find your "call" about sickness amusing considering some of the things i've had to put up with on said article.^[4] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing the "Totally Disputed" tag is a breath-taking mis-reading of the current state of consensus regarding this article - because there is none atall, every facet of it is highly disputed.

And you must know that that is the case, because you asked whether the kind of "context" currently appearing in the lead belongs there. You were given the unambiguous response "No it does not". So what's it doing still in there? Even the rabid Pro-Israel sources quoted say things like "reports that a massacre did not occur have received scant attention in the Western news media" - so why is the whole article written around the proposition that "there was no massacre"? It would be massively undue weight even if this were the "Majority View" - and it's not! PalestineRemembered 20:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

i'm well aware of the points of view in this topic, but i really don't understand why this is being written on my page rather than the article's talk page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because the TalkPage of Battle of Jenin makes it clear that the entire article is disputed in almost every possible way - I'm personally convinced it's the worst article I've ever come across at WP. There are huge POV problems (starting with the lead and the title), and all the best information has been edit-warred out. PalestineRemembered 20:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

i think you've been noted on what's pretty clear. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Apology

Copied from my talk re [5]:
I'm genuinely sorry that this has become so heated; and I believe I have never quite apologized for implying you were an "incompetent hasbara-pusher" whose "broken English and manifest ignorance of policy make you look silly". In retrospect, this kind of behavior is a prime reason for the "circular discussion" which I now decry. I'm sorry. It was stupid, uncalled for, and violated WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Eleland 13:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jaakabou

I answered your questions on my talk page. All best,--G-Dett 01:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey look at the minarets on that editor!

		The WikiProject:Islam Barnstar
		For long-suffering on Battle of Jenin. Isn't this the coolest barnstar. Hahahah. :P Kyaa the Catlord 15:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Seen on G-Dett's page

Hi Jaakabou, thank you for posting this apology, but please understand that I have no hard feelings about the sockpuppet thing. I thought it was funny. It is my personality to make the most of such things.

Regarding the revert, my edit summary referred to the material I was reverting, not to its author. That material was indeed verbose, ungrammatical, superfluous, and well-poisoning; that was exactly the problem with it and exactly why I was reverting it. All of those problems were, moreover, related: the material had become verbose and superfluous in the process of poisoning the well, trying to predispose the reader to be receptive to the ADL's commentary, reminding him that the anti-defamation league opposes defamation (a bit like reminding readers that Mothers Against Drunk Driving consists of mothers who oppose drunk driving), indeed reminding him of this multiple times ("defamation of the Jewish people," "demonization of Israel," etc.); and it was ungrammatical because its verbosity had created a run-on sentence with its clauses all out of joint. You obviously have an excellent command of English. If I thought you were struggling with the language (as opposed to struggling with NPOV), I'd never have posted an edit summary like that.

Now, to your question about why I don't think your sunny description of the ADL as "an organization intended on advocating against the defamation of the Jewish people" belongs here. First of all, because it's well-poisoning (one can poison the well with positive information as well as negative). But "surely," you argue, "it clarifies [my] earlier concerns about partisan commentary?" Well, no, it doesn't. The ADL isn't regarded as partisan because it opposes the defamation of the Jewish people. It is regarded as partisan because it aligns itself – with absolute, unwavering and unreflective consistency – with whoever is currently in power in Israel, with whatever Israeli policies currently are, and with powerful domestic Israel lobbies such as AIPAC. And, finally, because it regularly and indiscriminately denounces anyone critical of Israel, with a vehemence (and not-infrequent dishonesty) that verges on outright character assassination. The ADL is a political organization; do you not realize that? Why do you think they deny the Armenian genocide? Because of Israel's strategic ties with Turkey. There are many, many intelligent people on all sides of the political spectrum who are passionately opposed to defamation of the Jewish people, who are just as passionately opposed to the poltical and lobbying machine that is the current incarnation of the ADL. I stress "current"; the ADL has done extremely valuable work in the past, and was not always so corrupt and cynical an organization.

Finally, it is gross exaggeration to describe an ADL press release as a "case study." It's bad enough that we're including a statement produced by ADL staffers surfing the internet in a section on "post-fighting investigations" produced by human-rights experts on the ground at the site of the battle; let's not compound this poor judgment by engaging in puffery.

I hope this answers your questions; if not, do post again.--G-Dett 01:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) i find your commentary in the 1st paragraph increasingly uncivil. i'm starting to wonder to the type of explanation that you require in order to stop as this is not the first time i've given you a notice.^[6]

(2) you'll pardon me if i disagree with your presentation on paragraph 2 and note that the ADL describes their document as a case study and that is how i registered this: "commented in a report which presents their case study"^[7]. (this objection, which should be on talk, could be touched up)

(3) i haven't seen you object to "puffery" when the sources had the opposite perspective and i remind you that you ignored both points in this notice. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou - it's easy to forget that we participate here in the company of some really serious academics, Ph.Ds and the like, the sort of people who deal with references and research on a daily basis. Their experience is immensely valuable and their presence is what makes this whole project worthwhile to readers (and contributors). We may disagree with these people, but we should never treat their considered words with such disrespect. PalestineRemembered 18:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes... We should treat G-Dett like the saint she is. Yeah, I'll do that after she finishes raising Israeli babies from the dead. Kyaa the Catlord 21:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

helpme

{{helpme}}

I believe User:Avi has just recently adopted User:PalestineRemembered as a mentor (or as a personal advocate) as a result of a WP:CSN case that suggested PR would be completely banned from the community (Avi suggested mentorship instead of a ban). I'm not sure on how to regard his dismissal of a 3RR^[8] (WP:COI?) (and previous issues also) and i do wish to take this issue for a serious/further review.. some help would be appreciated. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I respect the concern about a conflict of interest, though I think it is the appearance of one instead of any actual conflict. I don't see a technical violation of 3RR either. PR has a limited block history related to 3RR violations, so I would not block on the basis of the "electric fence" introduction to the rule for this tagging dispute. A thread about mediation just started on the article's talk page. I suggest everyone involved pursue that.--Chaser - T 21:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

thank you for your input. i've decided you are correct and, considering many editors were involved in minor reverts and edits, that it's reasonable to let this 3rr issue go despite his "activities" on the talk page. as for the mediation which you mentioned, in all honesty, it's starting to look like the usual and i don't hold high hopes on it to solve even one issue from the article... albeit you are welcome to give it a serious look. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Response

Jaakobou, as a sysop, I have to ensure that I treat all members of wikipedia equitably. This means both people whose ideologies are closer to mine, and especially those whose ideologies are different. I have no issues with you taking PR to dispute resolution, or reopening the WP:CSN notice. But blocking for an incorrect reason would make me no better than the people whose flaunting of wikipedia policy I am duty bound to prevent as a sysop. -- Avi 19:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

the reason should be edit warring/4 edits within' 24hrs, something he vehemently denies of ever been doing. i'm not accusing you of anything, only that perhaps in your attempt to remain neutral, you've acted on a case that you should have been avoiding. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Note

It's simple. I've seen the two of you chase each other around, in a matter of speaking, on WP:AN3, WP:ANI, WP:CSN, his talk page, your talk page, my talk page, and many article talk pages. It is obvious that the two of you have issues deeper than a content dispute. This needs to be handled by dispute resolution, otherwise, one, or both, of y'all are undoubtedly going to cross a line which will have consequences. There is no threat, only the reasoned expectations of someone who is, or has been, a parent, a teacher, a mentor, a counselor, a sysop, and an internet community administrator. Take what you want from it. -- Avi 14:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

i sent you a note. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Responded. -- Avi 00:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Your email

You sent me an email saying "i've been referred to you as a possible person who might be able to help". I'm sorry, but I don't respond via email (or IRC chat) to an email without details. If you want to continue the conversation, please send me another email to let me know (a) who referred you to me and (b) what sort of help you think I might need.

Thanks.

-- John —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Broughton (talk • contribs) 21:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

i sent you a second note. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. I misunderstood your initial email. To respond to your second email: Unfortunately, I have very significant real life commitments for the next couple of months, and here at Wikipedia I'm concentrating primarily on improving the editor's index I've created. So I'm afraid I can't be of any help. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning

Mostly separate edits, and hopefully not quite near 3RR yet. Though I do sometimes get carried away. -- 146.115.58.152 00:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)