User talk:Jiujitsuguy

Note

Hi there Jiujitsuguy. I've reverted your additions for the second time after leaving a very clear reason the first time. Please read Wikipedia:NPOV#Bias before reinserting any of those edits again. Thanks for your understanding. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you make your edits smaller. Do them one bit at a time, then you can argue the specifics on the talk page. When you add 6 paragraphs, people will just revert the whole thing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your sources or the contents of your edits. I'm giving you some friendly advice on how things work around here. When you make a small edit, it can be thoroughly discussed on the talk page if someone has a problem with it. You edit, someone reverts, you take it to the talk page and find something everyone can live with. Then repeat with your next small edit. When you make a big edit over several sections, you'll get the response you just did. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the fact FayssalF is an admin doesn't make any difference when editing articles. His opinion is exactly the same as anyone elses. Second, like I said above. Do a small edit. If it's reverted, go discuss it on the talk page. See what kind of consensus you can achieve. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: A little balance please

I'm not sure which of your quotes you're referring to. I found several of your edits to be poorly phrased, biased by a non-neutral point of view, or misrepresentations of the sources cited. As such, I tried to clean them up. If there is some edit in particular you think I changed inappropriately, I'm always open to discussing the matter further. ← George ^[talk] 23:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The article that you consider "recruitment propaganda for Hezbollah" is currently rated a Wikipedia good article, one of the higher ratings on Wikipedia's quality scale, and a rating held by less than one in four hundred articles. Good articles are considered to be "well written, factually accurate and verifiable, broad in coverage, neutral in point of view, stable, and illustrated, where possible". This isn't the rating I gave the article, this is the rating it was given by others during the last review. Further edits made to the article should improve it, not attempt to inject bias. I have little interest in what you "will not tolerate", as you do not own these articles. Other will revert (and, in fact, have reverted) your edits if they view them as being overly biased, while I will try to remove the bias when the material seems salvageable. I also will not vet my edits with you prior to making them, as I have no reason to. Wikipedia has a dispute resolution process for resolving any disputes that should arise, and helping to achieve consensus. I can understand that you're quite new to Wikipedia, so I'd highly suggest you review Wikipedia's policies, starting with WP:NPOV. ← George ^[talk] 06:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think George's edits of the paragraphs you added were pretty reasonable for the most part. This is not to say that they can't be tweaked further, but at least he's trying to work with you to fix what he sees as WP:POV rather than blanket reverting the whole thing like many editors around here do. I suggest you continue tweaking until you are satisfied all the verifiable information is in the article, and he's satisfied that it's presented in a neutral way. If you feel you've reached a dead end, you can try WP:DR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome

Glad to see you're settling in. I think you make good edits and didn't want to see you getting frustrated and leaving. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss

Hey Jiujitsuguy.

Rather than re-insert information, please discuss the matter in the Yom Kippur War article's talk page. You wrote several comments, and I have replied to them. Thanks. --Sherif9282 (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed your reply. --Sherif9282 (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see my reply to you in the Belligerents section. Thanks. --Sherif9282 (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As you wish. But note that here, I'm a Wikipedian, not an Egyptian, so national affiliations are uninvolved in discussions. We'll continue tomorrow. Cheers. :) --Sherif9282 (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Let's hope our debates are fruitful ultimately.

May I ask, what is your time zone? I have to stay up until dawn to engage in these discussions with you. I can continue no longer today. If you can, reply to my latest comment, and I'll read it later. Cheers. --Sherif9282 (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm flattered!

I'm usually busy the rest of the day, so nighttime is best for me. Besides, its helps if you're also active during that time, as you can reply and discussions are quickly resolved.

By the way, it was easy to find out about Schiff's book, just had to do google him up.

To keep you informed, the book I'm going to use to support/replace Shazly in the article is authored by Gamal Hammad, an Egyptian. To find out more about him, just head to the last few paragraphs in Talk:Battle of Suez, where I write a description of Hammad in reply to a user. Unfortunately his book is only available in Arabic. If you have any more questions, fire away. --Sherif9282 (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

World Net Daily

World Net Daily is not a reliable source for any purposes in Wikipedia. If you have cited them in any of your edits, please remove them and find another source. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

para millitary police

Many of the organizations reporting on the casualties rejected that label for the police killed in the conflict, in fact it was widely reported that most of the police that were killed in the first days strikes were traffic police. When somebody reverts an addition you make you should not just revert it back without saying a word on the talk page. nableezy - 00:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to include it as Israel's position it should be phrased as something like "including police, which Israel considered para-military forces". But the way it was phrased is that the police that were included are para-military forces as a fact. nableezy - 02:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I would take as much out of that link as you would this one (an attack on the police academy in Gaza City on December 27 killed at least 40, including dozens of cadets at their graduation ceremony as well as the chief of police, making it the single deadliest air attack of the campaign to date. Another attack, on a traffic police station in the central Gaza town of Deir al-Balah, killed a by-stander, 12-year-old Camilia Ra`fat al-Burdini.) That is not the point though, what each "side" says needs to be presented as what that "side" said, not what is known fact. On both "sides". nableezy - 04:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

My logic doesn't imply that we put competing claims everywhere, you are right that the disputed casulties section is the place for that. What my logic says is to make clear wherever we are presenting one sides view make that clear, we dont have to say "included police, which Israel regarded as para-military forces and human rights groups regarded as civilians" but rather in that spot just say "includes police, which Israel regards as para-military forces". Would that wording, without any counter, in that section be a problem? nableezy - 04:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

thats fine, thanks. nableezy - 06:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on Talk:Gaza War

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Gaza War. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Pretzels^Talk! 02:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A reminder of the Three-revert rule on Gaza War article

just in case WP:3RR. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Gaza war

Welcome to Wiki, Jiujitsuguy. I'd like to request you please remain mindful of policies when engaging controversial content. Your recent comments on Talk:Gaza_War talk constitute a personal attack on another editor, please refrain from that Wiki is not a dojo hehehe. Policy will eventually prevail. I also want to suggest you that on Gaza War you try to make edits that source and reflect perspective from both sides of the conflict, even though not all editors follow this guideline. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"Call it a recruiting poster for Hamas and don't forget to throw in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" while you're at it."

If you are a Israeli or American jew I like to discuss some tings with you. Because there is some things i dont understand and you could help me with it. But first I think you should stop edit articles about the conflict between Israel and Palestinians. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)