User talk:Michael Safyan/Archives/2008/November

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your efforts and edits (January 30, 2008)

Just want to say thanks, for all your recent efforts. it appears that you showed up at a good time, as a few editors have sort of gone on hiatus. so it's good to have you here to make sure there is some balance on some of the important and controversial articles. thanks. feel free to write any time. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I just looked over your talk page history. I was wondering, do you have an archive anywhere? just curious. looks like you've been having some fairly constructive interactions here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
At the moment, I do not have a talk archive. Some interactions have been more constructive than others. I try to be accurate and objective, so for the most part my interactions have been constructive. However, altercations do occur on occasion, especially since I am a fan of WP:IAR when bureacratic rules allow editors to include inaccurate and POV content, and violating rules such as WP:3RR become necessary in order to correct the factual errors. In any event, thank you for your positive feedback. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I also want to say thanks; I think you've done a good job. I ran into the previous article sometime back in December or January and saw the trouble it was having. I must've kept the tab open for a couple weeks before I finally realized I wouldn't have a chance to participate there, although I could have added some things on historical perspective of media coverage. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Israeli Palestine Collaboration (February 4, 2008)

Hi Michael, have you considered signing up with us over at WP:IPCOLL? Your rewrite project at User:Michael Safyan/Media Coverage of the Arab-Israeli Conflict is, in my view, an example of exactly how we are aspiring to operate. <eleland/talkedits> 23:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you, Eleland. Your compliment is quite an honor. I will certainly consider it. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I will second that request, thanks for bringing up the tidbit, eleland. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael, another second. Though the invite is not contingent on quality of editing ;-) Kol tuv, HG | Talk 17:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (February 12, 2008)

Thanks for uploading Image:MediaCoverageArabIsraeliConflict CoercionCensorship DryBones.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 (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, robot. If you weren't automated, then you would realize that the image was "orphaned" because it is part of a rewrite of an article, and the rewrite is not yet complete and, therefore, has not yet become a Wikipedia article. Please inform your programmers that they should have taken this kind of situation into account. Thank you. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Status (March 10, 2008)

thanks for the protection request. it sure was nice of one of the recent editors, by the way, to show up at an article with about 25 editors, and to inform us all that he was undertaking to rewrite the lead which the rest of us had in our ignorance failed to address. I'm so glad we have all these people to make these imperious statements to the rest of us. It;'s good to see that you stepped in to gain some clarity. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A Note (March 12, 2008)

Your comments and efforts recently have been extremely worthwhile and beneficial. thanks for all your work. it is really a pleasure to find another Wikipedia editor so devoted to rationality and to clear use of logic and fairness. thanks for everything you've been doing. please stay in touch. I would like to have another editor to discuss things with, who is able to show some basic awareness of Wikipedia dynamics, and how to get things done around here. so far, that has not been too easy to find. What i often find for the most part is people who do aprpeciate my effors when i happen to agree with them, but then throw in little subtle jabs and digs the minute my even approach turns against the views they wish to espouse. so I really appreciate all your work and efforts, and hope to hear more soon. thanks very much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your positive feedback, Sm8900. It has been a pleasure working with you as well, and I will gladly stay in touch with you. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Second Intifada RfC: WP:CANVASS (March 14, 2008)

Michael, you have notified eight editors with rather partisan views on Israel-Palestine issues about the RfC at Second Intifada, which is coming close to votestacking. After seeing the first five notices you sent, I alerted two editors myself and posted at the IP-COLL project, but I have stopped myself from alerting any others for fear of having this end up in a dueling match. Please do not continue to selectively notify editors of this debate. It tarnishes the outcome of an RfC which is designed to get outsider opinions, not opinions from regulars in I-P article editing with pretty well established views that lean to one side on the issue. You have also enlisted help from one of those editors in alerting other "sympathethic editors".[1] I have to say this is pretty poor form and if it contaminates the RfC outcome, we will I am afraid, have to hold another. Tiamuttalk 01:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, about this edit [2], I think the meaning difference issue is quite clear in the RfC question itself (which by the way, isn't how I would phrased the issue, but you opened the RfC without consulting others, so it's to be expected I guess). I'd prefer that people focus on the first sentence only, since that has been the core debate for the last three months. the other paragraph was added in an attempt to balance out your concerns, but I don't think it's the issue here. People are going to be confused by the relevance of the other changes to the discussion. Can you restore the sentence you deleted? Thanks. Tiamuttalk 01:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, thank you for your feedback. I was not aware of WP:CANVASS. However, given that the majority of the editors on the Second Intifada article are pro-Palestinian, and given that I contacted the editors to whom you refer openly on Wikipedia rather than covertly, I see nothing wrong with informing other pro-Israel editors of the RfC. If you would like to contact other editors, you should do so as well. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I've actually retracted the two personal requests I placed for editors to join the debate. I prefer not to define people in terms of "camps" or call upon the different "camps" to come to battle. I would prefer that we attract editors who don't edit in this area at all, rather than those who do and are viewed as being partisan by others, so as to get some outside perspective. As for your assertion that the majority of the editors at Second Intifada are "pro-Palestinian", I strongly disagree. There seems to be a relatively diverse bunch represented there. Anyway, we'll see what happens. I for one, hope that common sense and a respect for WP:NPOV and WP:RS prevails. Over three months of discussion, I believe we have covered that "uprising" is much more common among both scholarly and mainstream sources than "wave of violence". I don't really understand your continued resistance to its inclusion or how soliciting the views of those you believe share in your general POV to an RfC on the matter is going to help, but I guess the process will just have to play itself out. Tiamuttalk 04:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your post on the WP:IPCOLL discussion page. I, too, hope that WP:NPOV and WP:RS prevail -- of course, what I perceive to be NPOV and what you perceive to be NPOV differ greatly. I agree that "uprising" appears more frequently; however, I again stress that it appears frequently as a translation and only rarely as a description. I have no problem copying the language of these sources and using the translational phrase ", or second Palestinian uprising,"; however, I take strong objection to using the term in a way which is both POV and which differs from the usage in the sources. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Michael, with all due respect, the sources use it both as a translation and as a description. It is by far the most common description, vastly outstretching "wave of violence". I believe I have been very patient and fair throughout this process. For three months, I let "wave of violence" stand in order to show respect for your position. When I finally took the intiative of bringing the text in line with the sources, you opened the RfC. However, instead of allowing the RfC process to work as it should (i.e. by alerting uninvolved editors to the dispute who can bring in an outside opinion), you instead canvassed editors with partisan views of the subject in an attempt to "stack the vote" as it were in your favour. This is not what the RfC process is for and I'm frankly deeply disappointed with your actions in this regard. Tiamuttalk 13:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Tiamut, I really don't care how the vote comes out, if it shows that responses fall on pro-Palestinian/pro-Israel, demonstrating that it is, indeed, a POV issue. The RfC was to make a point -- that it is a POV issue, that Israel, Israelis, and their advocates hotly contest the interpretation that the Second Intifada was an uprising -- and to boost my own morale -- to confirm, after the silence of the other pro-Israel editors (it turns out that Armon has IDF duty and the others were busy), that this was indeed the case -- than for making a decision about the Wikipedia article. However, I do hope that after seeing that this interpretation is hotly disputed, that you will be more willing to work towards a compromise version, which uses "uprising" clearly as a translation and not as an interpretation. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Michael, please read WP:POINT. Also, not all of "Israel, Israelis or their advocates hotly contest" the use of the term uprising. We reviewed a number of Israeli sources together at the talk page over the last three months that do use the term without any reservations. Using an RfC to "boost your morale" or "make a point" by canvassing known partisans is not what the process is for. All you have proven through this exercise is that some Israelis vocierfoursly object to the use of term. As I said on the talk page, there are 192 countries in the world and Israel is just one of them. Since we write using a worldwide perspective, giving WP:UNDUE weight to fringe minority viewpoints while ignoring what the vast majority of reliable scholarly sources have to say on a subject is not in line with WP:NPOV, nor does it accord with WP:LEAD. If you want to include a paragraph or section in the body of the article that outlines the the viewpoint of some of the sources you brought to the table who allege that the use of "uprising" is euphemistic, by all means go ahead. But we do not censor well-sourced information that defines the subject at hand simply because a fringe minority strongly disagrees with a widely used definition. With respect, Tiamuttalk 04:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, WP:POINT doesn't apply; the "point" (perhaps I should have used a different word) pertains to how the Wikipedia article ought to be worded. Secondly, the vast majority of the world also believes that suicide bombings are acts of terrorism, but we do not use the word "terrorism" because it is not neutral. Thirdly, it doesn't matter how many people espouse a point of view; so long as it is a point of of view, the matter is subjective, and Wikipedia is to be a purely objective source of information. WP:UNDUE requires that a minority point of view not be misrepresented as a more prominent point of view than it actually is; it does not allow an article to present a point of view, majority or otherwise, as a matter of fact. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-18 Second Intifada (March 19, 2008)

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) 23:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-18 Second Intifada is on my watchlist. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Pallywood (March 26, 2008)

Michael, I'm concerned that some editors may be trying to turn Pallywood into a POV fork of Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. You expressed a similar concern a while ago. You might wish to see my questions at [3] - I'd be interested in your views, and it would be helpful if you could comment on the issue at Talk:Pallywood. Thanks in advance. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful tone (March 27, 2008)

I wasn't asking for your help, specifically. I'd appreciate if you were to cut down on the negative innuendo. Thx. El_C 06:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, if you find an admin who has the time and patience to go through the history, by all means, they can take over (gladly). But either I get a summary, or as mentioned elsewhere, arbitration enforcement in this article may turn rather arbitrary, fast. Because I'm not going to allow that revert war over this passage that has been resurfacing every few weeks to keep on going. One way or the other. Thx. El_C 07:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Response here. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Response removed by El C. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles (April 13, 2008)

As a result of the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to Israel, Palestine, and related conflicts. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described below.

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
  • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
  • Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. PhilKnight (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Second Intifada (May 12, 2008)

I strongly urge you to add your comment here, whether you accept/reject the proposal that was given by email. The mediation must progress. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I already responded to your email, but ok. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed you did, but this !vote, ie, acceptance or rejectance, must be publicaly viewable, for those who will oversee the discussion, most likely 3 arbitrators. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A reply (May 21, 2008)

...awaits you on my talk page. Very best, Hertz1888 (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up and for your generous response. Have a good day. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A question (May 28, 2008)

Hi, Michael, I was just talking to the imprisoned Nishidani about something. I do agree with him about the word "uprising" I think you are reading nonexistent connotations into it. I was thinking of a couple of examples which I thought might change your mind. At the end of the second World War, the allies feared, in fact were pretty convinced, that there would be a Nazi uprising against their occupation, and carefully prepared for it. In fact it never happened, the Germans had no fight left in them. But if I can find a quote from that era using "Nazi uprising" might that sway your mind a little that this word has no positive connotation? The other example I had in mind was the Beer hall putsch or other fascist / Nazi rebellions. Cheers,John Z (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but no, that doesn't sway me. Why would it? It is the common, prevalent, and contemporary usage of a word which defines what it means, not an isolated exceptional and historical usage. The term "uprising", today, is most often used to describe what is perceived to be, for the most part, legitimate and justified. The term is most often preferred by those who commit them. When the actions of those who commit them are not perceived as legitimate and justified, the terms "rebellion", "insurgency", or "insurrection" are the ones applied. A single example to the contrary is insufficient to convince me otherwise. Also, given that the pro-Palestinian editors are so adamant to have the term "uprising" included, while a large block of pro-Israel editors strongly object to its usage, I am quite convinced that the term is not neutral.
Now, can you explain something to me? Why is it that you and your fellow editors strongly feel the need to describe a long and complex series of events with a single word? It is not as if I am proposing that we describe the Second Intifada as a "terror war" (which is the prevalent Israeli opinion) or a "wave of Israeli-Palestinian violence" (which is, in my opinion, quite generous, in that it ascribes equal culpability and acts of violence to each side). To the contrary, my proposal (proposal #1) does not use any single word or simple phrase to sum up the entire Second Intifada. Rather, it leaves it to the rest of the article to accurately and neutrally describe all the events which comprised the Second Intifada and leaves it to the reader to internalize these events in whatever condensed form he/she chooses. Why do you and the other pro-Palestinian editors feel so strongly that the Second Intifada must be immediately, indisputably, and irrevocably termed an "uprising" from the start of the article? Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that there is another point of view?
Michael Safyan (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, just asking. I personally am not married to "uprising." I'll look at other versions and think about them if I have time. I was just trying to give you pause. I agree that "common, prevalent, and contemporary usage" is what counts. But we just differ as to what it is. IMHO "uprising" has nothing to do with legitimacy and is not used that way, and never has been. The term is preferred by almost everybody as the most neutral, blandest, most general, most innocuous, most ambiguous and least informative word. Look how simple the word is; look at the latinate parallels insurgency and insurrection, which are etymologically just forms of up + rising deriving from Latin. Along with "rebellion" too, they are not used as you state them to be used. I can give you pretty strong evidence on that. The distinction there is that these tend to be more organized than "uprising" and do sound a bit odd for the intifada. I personally wouldn't object too much to "rebellion." You, and to a lesser extent Nishidani, are seeing nonexistent distinctions. I mean, "uprising" is so general that "terrorist campaign" doesn't contradict it, plenty of uprisings are partly terrorist campaigns. The intifada is an uprising, part of which is a terrorist campaign. People think of Israel 1947-8 that way too sometimes. The size of the bloc of "pro-Israel" editors is not all that important, unfortunately politics may intrude, both ways of course. What matters is the smaller number of native-speaker pro-Israel editors. Non-native pro-Palestinians or pro-Martians shouldn't have much of a say either.
There is nothing at all odd sounding about "Nazi uprising" which should be the case from your argument. I have been basically uninvolved here, as the cost-benefit ratio seems rather high! - The difficulty in acknowledging another point of view comes from the belief that I think the overwhelming majority of neutral native-English speakers, pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian or whatever would have. There is no other POV, for this has nothing to do with the I-P conflict, it has to do with the English language, and what you are saying about an English word is simply not true. I think we agree that we should write in standard English, we just differ as to what it is. This is a factual matter, about which we agree that there is a fact of the matter. My father is not a native speaker and I picked up some (mostly pronunciation) oddities from him, some of which I only realized after several decades, one in the last year. However odd the "correct" thing may sound to one's ears, however unwilling one is to realize that one has been speaking oddly for decades, surely the rational thing to do is to acquiesce to the majority on such matters, to realize that one can speak oddly?
The strength of the opposition comes from - well, to exaggerate a little - suppose that someone went into an article and insisted that "red" is POV, too associated with communism, and "vermilion" or "crimson" must be used instead. He would meet with strong opposition too. I imagine you see it the other way though! :-) Cheers,John Z (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Suppose that "uprising" is neutral. If, as you say, "uprising" is the "most ambiguous and least informative word", then why bother to include it? In terms of good writing, what does it add? I feel to see the need for "uprising" or, for that matter, any short and simple word/phrase summing up a long and complex sequence of events. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, one can circumlocute around it. It's just that most articles about wars will include the word "war" somewhere, and most articles about uprisings will have the word "uprising." The introduction to any article tries to tell a reader what the article is about, and saying that it is an uprising is the quickest way to say this, and doesn't say anything that isn't true or non-neutral, that would need further qualification. I personally would use the word because I think brevity is the soul of wit. A paragraph that used the word would likely be shorter than one that doesn't, because it shouldn't have an Israeli view, Arab view problem; uprising is an English word that perfectly well describes it from the Israeli view too. If non-native English speakers in Israel disagree, well, too bad, Americans and Brits shouldn't tell them how to speak Israeli Hebrew either. I just think that far too much energy has been expended on this, and as I said am not married to the word. When I write I try to achieve some permanence. In all likelihood, if the word is not used, if you become inactive, then in a year or five, people will forget about this foofaraw, someone, pro-Israel or pro-Arab will write something using the word, no one will object (this assumes the rightness of my position of course) and then it will be as if all this never occurred. Are you sure that other people aren't agreeing with you about this because they very much respect you (as I do) and agree with you in general? - that if you hadn't taken this view that anyone else would have taken it as strongly? If you don't think that there is a single neutral word acceptable to all ( I said rebellion would be pretty much OK with me too) don't you think that is something odd about the English language? I mentioned insurrection and insurgency; there was a fizzled movement in international law circles a few decades ago to define "insurgency" as something more than a local unrest, but less than a full-fledged "belligerency" - I think these jurists looked for the most neutral word they could find, and chose one with cognates in the main languages of international law, and which happens to be very similar to "uprising." As I said, the main problem is that it connotes a bit too much organization and solidity for this case. Regards, John Z (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Fisk, Independent & Uranium (June 11, 2008)

I see you've been working through Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict - can you explain why the 2006 Fisk/Uranium article/story is an example of "controversial" writing? As best I can tell, Fisk reports that two sets of tests have found traces of Uranium at this bombed Hezbollah bunker and speculates (quite conservatively) that a mystery (presumably DU tipped bunker-buster) has been used on it. YnetNews either repeats or confirms what Fisk has said about the tests, and a professor of military science is reported saying the same. A later report (from samples apparently taken many, many miles away) says that Israel has not used Uranium in munitions. But this firm conclusion is only in the headline, not the body of the article (notoriously, headlines are not written by the reporters, and sometimes wrongly state the content of articles). Fisk also says that Israel has lied, denying the use of White Phosphorus and then admitting it (almost confirmed by YnetNews here). So I see nothing "controversial", from the media angle, the actual story is "newspaper forces (claims to force?) one retraction, on scent of another dodgy weapon but has drawn blank (for the moment)". PRtalk 15:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe we already discussed this issue on the talk page of Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Please see the talk archive. Furthermore, since this is an issue directly related to the article, I would prefer that we discuss it solely on the talk page; that way, if contention over this matter occurs in the future, then the various parties will have a record of our current discussion. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I've taken this case back to the TalkPage of the article - but the more I look at it the more the real story looks like "newspaper forces one retraction, on scent of another dodgy weapon but has drawn blank for the moment". It clearly cannot stay as it is, since it levels an accusation of publishing falsehoods against a living individual. PRtalk 11:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Independent Media Review Analysis

A tag has been placed on Independent Media Review Analysis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Toddst1 (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


Redirect of IMRA

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on IMRA, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because IMRA is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting IMRA, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:COMPUTING Invitation

I have noticed that you are already a member of a related project and thought you might be interested in this wikiproject also and hence leaving this note ... - From the outreach dept


Please accept this invite to join the Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing.
Simply click here to accept! -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 06:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict

Greetings!
I've noticed that you have reverted all my edits on that article. I haven't reverted it back to my version, nor will I, but I have started a discussion on the talk page of the article. I"m fine if not all of my revisions are kept, but some of them I would like to discuss. I hope to see you comment on the talk page, and I hope we reach a compromise quickly:-)--SJP (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

SJP (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, and remember: "All men are created equal, but ambition, or lack of it, soon separates them."Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Its not a big deal:-) Don't worry. By the way, I've replied to your comment. Have a nice day!--SJP (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey:-) I appreciate your openness towards the ideas of others, and I also like your willingness to discuss instead of edit war. Its to bad more people here aren't like you, because if they were we would have a whole lot less conflicts, and probably no need for ArbCom to make binding decisions in conflicts. Cheers!--SJP Chat 02:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sinebot

Sometimes SineBot yields false positives, like here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A7-Zip&diff=228777294&oldid=228777165 (notice that I signed at the bottom). I worry about signing my comments. If I forgot to do it twice in my conversation with you, I'm sorry. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of The Jewish Internet Defense Force

A tag has been placed on The Jewish Internet Defense Force requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 02:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

JIDF

Hi Michael Safyan Please share your point of view--Puttyschool (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Michael, please see [4] the article is nominated for deletion and the circumstances around it look suspect to me. Thoughts on the AfD (on that page ofcource) and perhaps on this "intervention" on the talk page above woudl be welcome. Oboler (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. Just a heads up that some people might not want their Talk page improved by others. But it's a nice gesture and you can certaintly leave well enough alone, as they say. Cheers, HG | Talk 04:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand. Of course, that is for Einsteindonut to say. I intend to help him, but will gladly leave off if he doesn't want it. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I liked your advice, including: "An apology will mitigate the severity of the breach, especially if the page is reviewed by the arbitration committee, and it will also take a less personal edge off of your dispute." However, just want to mention that the ArbCom won't review this, but any uninvolved admin is empowered to sanction him, especially since he's gotten multiple warnings about his conduct (which he seems to say he will disregard). I wish you both luck in working together. HG | Talk 03:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC) PS Nice little Freudian slip, MS! HG | Talk 04:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've been using "ArbCom" to refer to the Wikipedia administrators like some people use "Coke" to refer to all brands of Soda. I will try to be a little less sloppy and refer to the administrators with more precise language in the future. Anyway, thank you for the good luck wishes. I will very likely need it. Have a good day. Sincerely, Michael Safyan (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Education in the Middle East and North Africa

Category:Education in the Middle East and North Africa, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Mentoring

Thank you for offering to mentor Einsteindonut (talk · contribs). They were close to being blocked. See this arbitration enforcement thread. Please let me know, or file a report at WP:AE, if your mentoree fails to heed your advice about maintaining decorum at Wikipedia. Best regards, Jehochman Talk 05:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Michael,
I think user:Einsteindonut would need some more advices from you on Hebron... Ceedjee (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Ceedjee. Thank you for the heads up, but I'm afraid I don't see anything to advise him about. Unless there is something I'm missing, the only thing he has done with the article is to change "Settler", which is a loaded term, to the more neutral term "Israeli". He has also requested that the image of an Israeli checkpoint (an image which generally reflects negatively on Israel) be accompanied by an image of Palestinian violence against the Jews of Hevron (to counterbalance the Israeli checkpoint image and to put the image into context). Considering that Hebron is a holy city in Judaism and was once predominantly Jewish until it was nearly depopulated of its Jewish population in 1929, I think Einsteindonut's take on the issue is both reasonable and generous. I will step in if he does something drastic. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC
Hi Michael. I appreciate your support here. Please follow my contributions as you see fit and let it be known that I am still willing to be mentored by you, despite that fact that I have cleared my talk page to some extent. I'm trying to "start fresh" and make more valuable edits to Wikipedia and tone down some of the things in which I have had issues with in the recent past. I can play by the rules without fully knowing them. I get the situation here on Wikipedia and am open to learning the rules from you. If people refer me to more rules though, I'm likely to freak out. I think I will in turn refer them to you so that you can be the judge on whether I'm actually breaking them. I think many people just don't like my POV and so try to throw the rule book at me constantly. While I did break some rules in the beginning (out of ignorance) I feel I'm getting the hang of it now. My goal is to be strong and direct here. I'll try to be as pleasant as possible, but it can be a rather daunting task when people constantly tell me what rules they think I'm breaking rather than address the points I'm trying to make. I'm beginning to see this "throwing the book at me" as just a ploy to try to avoid the fact that I'm actually trying to achieve what appears to be the most important rule here, which is NPOV. The sad thing is how few people seem to share this same interest. --Einsteindonut (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Einsteindonut.
Your opinions (pov's) are not at all the issue. Ceedjee (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Michael,
It is up to you.
But I think Einsteindonut take all issues with to much involvment. You could support him too in explaining him how to take distance.
He is talked about on the WP:AN; he became legitimately upset after being blocked; the messages he left on his talk page (and he deleted), such as legal threat, were not appreciated positively; he is opposed on several articles; some of the images he brought were proposed to deletion and on Hebron he is 100% uncivil.
Don't misunderstand me. I don't complain about him. I just point out he would need some good advices how to handle behaviour; I am not talking about content.
If he finishes like user:Shevashalosh, we will discuss about this issue...
Ceedjee (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee, you are not 100% correct with regard to your various allegations. Please stop trying to waste my mentor's time with all this. Please stop stalking me. You misinterpreted said "legal threat" and I have fully explained it in other realms. The fact that my POV is opposed on several articles is irrelevant and is natural to the Wikipedia process. You are not AGF at all and you're just trying to nitpick my every action and every move. I am not being 100% uncivil on Hebron. And you're also wrong about not complaining about me. My behavior is fine, all things considered. I thank you so much for your concern with regard to my being blocked and/or banned and would appreciate if you stopped trying to build some sort of "case" against me here. Most of your allegations are false and seem to break the rule of AGF. --Einsteindonut (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There was not legal threat. You were just upset. And you were right to be upset.
But it is not what is written here
On wp, [some] people, voluntary or not, are [sometimes] happy to use [some] pretexts to solve [some] problems.
It is up to you.
Ceedjee (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I suppose you either missed my response or you are just completely avoiding my POV. I have no clue why you are doing [this] --Einsteindonut (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


Ok, Ceedjee. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was not aware of this sockpuppets issue. I would advise Einsteindonut to not use sockpuppets; however, considering that his puppet accounts have been blocked, I believe he is now fully aware that multiple user accounts -- save for doppelganger accounts (e.g. Mike Safyan) -- are completely prohibited. Thanks again for keeping me posted. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

JPedia

Hello, Michael Safyan. You have new messages at Puttyschool's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mentoring: WP:AN/I

Check AN/I :-) « PuTTYSchOOL 11:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I will try to take a look at it as soon as I can. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hebron clutter

Michael, I've suggested we remove that dreadful clutter from the Hebron page, since it is now conserved and duplicated where it should belong, on the Hebron conflict page. Could you look in at my proposal and drop a vote? Thanks Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the material has already been moved, I suppose my input is no longer required. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

NonZionist: "the Jews control the media"

During this discussion, NonZionist stated that it is perfectly acceptable to accuse "the Jews" of controlling the media. When I calmly, carefully, and patiently explained to him, both in terms of actuality and in terms of Wikipedia rules, why such statements are unacceptable, he had the chutzpah to accuse me of "embrac[ing] inferiority and ethnic supremacy" and of supporting a "fascistic ideology". If his statements about Jewish ownership of the media weren't anti-Semitic enough, he has now essentially accused me of Nazism -- which is what one gets when one combines fascism and "racial superiority". I have already told him that I will not respond to him -- indeed, arguing with someone who is already so unreasonable as to believe and say such hateful things is unlikely to have any effect. Nevertheless, I must say that he has very nearly succeeded in goading me into responding. His remarks make very agitated, and I'm not even sure how I feel... Ordinarily, such statements would just make me angry. However, I have heard these things way too many times, and so I am probably feeling not only anger, but also a great emotional tiredness -- a tiredness of hearing these things, of addressing these things, and of being bullied and having my friends and relatives bullied simply because they are Jewish. On top of this, I feel greatly annoyed (perhaps this is the same as anger diluted by tiredness), emotionally hurt, and deeply disappointed. I am also slightly confused... why should I feel disappointed when NonZionist makes an anti-Semitic remark? Was it really that unexpected given his username? Hopefully, just the act of writing this will make me feel less troubled about this incident. Maybe my comments will be helpful to someone else. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Apology maybe?

I think that upon reflection, you will realize that you owe me an apology for this. No? Tiamuttalk 00:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

JIDF: Important well-cited, and factual information

Wish you could have re-worked into more "objective" language rather than reverting the edit completely. What would make it more objective? stating that some people think that the Yeshiva is a terrorist training ground and the children deserved to be murdered? --Einsteindonut (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Einsteindonut. Sorry for taking so long to get to it. I was planning, by the way, to eventually incorporate your change in an appropriately reworded fashion. I have just made the change. It would hardly be objective to do as you suggested. The main problem was simply that we do not have sufficient sources to make an unqualified claim that there were Facebook groups praising the murderer responsible for the Mercaz HaRav massacre. Therefore, it is necessary to make it clear that this is a claim which was reported (in Israel National News) but for which there are insufficient non-partisan sources for Wikipedia to confirm the claim. Anyway, in the future I will try to do the rewording much sooner, and I will try to not step on your toes, so-to-speak, with your edits. Until we speak again, Shavua Tov. Best wishes, ← Michael Safyan (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for re-wording it. I'm just at the end of my rope with Wikipedia patience. I was just being sarcastic with my aforementioned suggestion. However, I have had discussions with people of the"other" POV on Wikipedia who have suggested these things with regard to the Yeshiva. It's frustrating that it is supposed to be an article about the JIDF and people have felt the need to explain with the Intifada is and go into a tangent with regard to "palestinian pull down menus." It's not very focused on the JIDF itself, which is why I tried to add one more point as to what motivated the JIDF. Thanks for making it more "objective". My issues also stem from the fact that I'm getting absurd threats from people with regard to my work on the article, suggesting blocks, "telling" on me, etc. Just kinda reminds me of 2nd grade or something. Seems most editors are more concerned with enforcing Wiki rules in this Wiki game than they are about fairness, accuracy, objectivity, and honesty in the articles. Leaves me feeling rather helpless and wondering how many rules I'm breaking now for merely expressing it and who is going to come out of the woodwork to threaten to report me on the ANI board. It's really a stupid game if you ask me. People can insert their bias, so long as they learn all the Wiki rules and throw them up into everyone's face constantly. --Einsteindonut (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I hear you. I felt pretty much the same way until I finally learned all the rules... and even knowing the rules, I sometimes still feel the same way. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Great News Michael JIDF Zionism issue solved with article in Canadian Jewish News

Hi Michael User:Einsteindonut has helped resolve the whole issue that we spent so much time on by pointing out a new source for the article. The Canadian Jewish News has cleared the whole thing up re political and Zionist position of Jidf stating "It’s political views place it on the Zionist right." See Canadian Jewish News. Now they don't go into the issue re perjoritive use or any of that stuff that you articulated very well but presumably they think it is ok for Jewish people and non Jewish people to call a Jewish person's group "Zionist". Perhaps you can help me on one question. If a group is on the right of Zionism does that make it ultra-right wing, extreme right wing, far right or what? I am trying to guage the "rightness" of the "Zionist right". How far right or near right would that be ? Thanks. You can feel free to go ahead and add the info to the article now as it is sourced and approved by User:Einsteindonut Opiumjones 23 (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Mr. Opium, I just posted the article, and do not agree with your views on Zionism at all, nor do I agree with not one of your previous POV pushing edits to the article on the JIDF. One journalist saying that something is on the "Zionist right" does not necessarily make it so, first of all. Secondly, one source claiming that that something is on the "Zionist right" politically does not necessarily make the JIDF a "Zionist" organization. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
you don't know my views Einstein, don't presume what you don't and can't know. You may email me with questions if you wish. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Your views are evident through your many edits (none of which were supported by consensus) of the JIDF article, hence "POV pushing." --Einsteindonut (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Opiumjones, that still does not resolve the issue, since the source you have cited makes it possible to state that it's "political views" are "on the Zionist right"; the source is also sufficient for describing the organization as a "Zionist organization", but is not the sufficient for describing the organization as "pro-Zionist", since there are no reliable sources which support that term. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
So it is a right wing Zionist organisation? any thoughts re my question..... How far right is that? plus as an honest reporter will you add the info to the article?Opiumjones 23 (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
According to the Canadian Jewish News, it is a right wing organization. Contemplating or attempting to write how far to the right that is constitutes original research. I don't usually spend time on the JIDF, so you can make the change. Write one of: {"The JIDF is a right wing Zionist organization, according to the Canadian Jewish News", "In September 2008, the Canadian Jewish News described the JIDF as a right wing Zionist organization", "According to the Canadian Jewish News, the JIDF is a right wing Zionist organization", "According to the Canadian Jewish News, the JIDF's political views are that of the Zionist right wing", ... }. Whatever formulation you choose, just be sure to include the explicit attribution of "According to the Canadian Jewish News". This explicit attribution should be maintained unless/until multiple sources agree on this description. If the formulation chosen is inappropriate, one of the other editors or possibly myself will revert it and reformulate it appropriately. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you help

I do not want to get into an edit war with Putty again, but again, he's trying to take out cited information from the JIDF article. I made this edit after you Malik urged me to add info. from the CJN in the "talk" area. It's clearly taken directly from that RS and Putty, again, is clearly trying to take key points out. Any help would be appreciated. --Einsteindonut (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Due to Rosh Hashanah, I didn't see this message until just now. Fortunately, it appears that you and the others have reached an adequate solution to this problem through the use of a direct quote. So, congratulations for coming to a successful solution to this issue, and Shana Tova. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem

Whether it was intentional or not, you removed a copyright template from Battle of Jenin, causing copyrighted information to be displayed in the Report section. The copyright violation template causes the material up to the </div> tag not to be displayed. Please don't remove it again. The page is listed at the copyright problems noticeboard, which will I expect lead to it being looked at by an administrator within a few days. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Middle East Textbooks Invitation

Thank you for the invitation, but I don't know if I'll have the time to devote to the topic that it deserves. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of a template redirect

I have nominated a redirect to a template for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 15:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary, reading sources

In this edit, you claimed that "Source states that violence transpired after visit, does not say that it was triggered or due to his visit.". I assume that you did not actually read the source, as it states:

The Second Intifada, more violent than the previous one, was triggered by the visit of Ariel Sharon to Temple Mount on September 28th 2000.

Please be more careful in your edits. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed where it said that (I was using a search for "visit to the Temple Mount"). Nevertheless, neither that source nor that statement belong in the lead paragraph, especially given that many other Israeli government sources contradict this statement. Since many more Israeli government sources dispute this statement than support it, the use of that one source constitutes WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, while that source should be used in the visit to the Temple Mount section to demonstrate that point-of-view, such a source and such a statement does not belong in the lead paragraph. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Michael, after reverting with a rather tart summary an edit of yours to Second Intifada, I thought I should look over your last few edits to that article. What do I discover? That you are a smart, sober, judicious editor. I now dimly remember coming to a similar conclusion last time we clashed.

Not gonna get all gushy and give you a barnstar or anything; after all, we'll almost certainly clash again and I can't have you waving that thing talismanically at me. Just a friendly wave from across the aisle.--G-Dett (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, G-Dett. I'm not sure whether that was intended to be a compliment (that I am a "smart, sober, judicious editor") or an insult (that you assumed anything to the contrary), but I will assume good faith and give you the benefit of the doubt. Though we often disagree, I have had much the same impression of you. So, here's to future -- and hopefully more pleasant -- collaboration. Have a good day. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
It was meant to be the former. Disguised as the latter, to keep up my rep.--G-Dett (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michael_Safyan/Archives/2008/November&oldid=1079763867"