User talk:PalestineRemembered

Archive1, Archive2

Re:Starting articles

Hi, PalestineRemembered, I don't want to sound simple but, I apologize I don't know exactly what you're trying to say. Are you criticizing the al-Walaja article, other town article stubs I created or both. Also who is us? Wiki:Project Palestine? If it is this project I have certainly invited other wikipedia editors to expand and look over the articles I started.[1] -- Al Ameer son 02:17, 7 July 2007

Oh ok, I understand now, thanks I am going to try to make a NameSpace if you can give me the wikipedia directions on how to make one. So if I don't have one, other editors can't add to the article or is it sort of like don't finalize on it until it is approved right? -- Al Ameer son 16:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much I will do this for now on. -- Al Ameer son 16:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have created a user page for Huj, (User:Al Ameer son/Huj).I used (http://www.palestineremembered.com/Gaza/Huj/index.html) as my source. -- Al Ameer son 16:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A request from a new member

hi, how are you. A request from a new member. I did my best to clean up and to enrich the article Zionism and racism allegations, but I am still a new wikipedian and my English language is not as good as what it should be. I think I still need some help. I hope you will participate in developing that page.

Please be sure to see my edits in the article since I fear that they will be reverted quicly. --Aaronshavit 21:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Your complaint

Actually, as I explained to you quite clearly at the time, "Actually, it pointed to an article in the Economist. There's no requirement that specific quotes from the citation be provided, beyond what is listed in the article itself. Nevertheless, I have provided one anyway." And that is exactly the case; the reference was always perfectly good, pointing to an article called "Country cousins" in the Economist, and giving the exact date of publication, April 8, 2000. "Country Cousins", The Economist, April 8, 2000. is a fine reference, fully complaint with all Wikipedia requirements, and that's what it said. There's no requirement that a lengthy quote from the article be provided, and most citations on Wikipedia don't bother doing so. As a courtesy to you I actually went and got that quotation anyway. To have you now claim that this courtesy was somehow deceptive is strange at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made a (nearly) unreserved apology to you at the ArbCom page - but I'm posting the chain of events to your TalkPage (and here) in order to avoid cluttering up that page.

I first made a mild complaint at[2], whereupon you made the fix, and messaged me that you'd done so[3] (I'm almost uninvolved and not taking part in the edit of that article, hence I don't think I saw your note). Meanwhile, I'd complained more vociferously at[4] and your response this time came across to me as denial and as an accusation of bungling against me. I trust you will similarly withdraw any false allegations you have outstanding against me. PalestineRemembered 14:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What "false allegations" do I have against you? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see the quid pro quo setup you've arranged; you make a false accusation about me, then retract it, but demand something in return. Neat. Well, it seems likely now that you didn't get that material from a Holocaust denial site. Now, please don't post political screeds on my Talk: page, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've not arranged anything - the message I saw from you (the second one) looks like denial and bluster. In fact, it is denial and bluster. There was another message from you (the first one), which was grudging acceptance and an admission that you'd much improved your reference. We are keen on proper references, now aren't we? PalestineRemembered 19:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Jenin / Kurdi Bear

Responded on my talk. Eleland 20:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

no alternative

obviously, you did not take a good look into the matter and i'm notifying you that you are wrong with your estimation/claim on that issue, as you were with most other, if not all, claims made about me. now, since you are insisting on claiming things about me or in my name with every new comment of yours - including this one from 08:33, 7 August 2007 - even after all my notes, requests^[5], and warnings^[6], i see no alternative but to report this behavior. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi PalestineRemembered. I noticed a WP:ANI report on all this at

• WP:ANI#Repeated bogus accusations/claims and libel - User: PalestineRemembered.

I thought I should give you a direct link since it wasn't clear in Jaakobou's comment what he was talking about. I am not taking sides in this. I haven't studied the issues. I am just letting you know of the WP:ANI discussion about you. --Timeshifter 11:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problem at Battle of Jenin

The text you reinserted is a copywrite violation. It is a word for word copy and paste of material found elsewhere. Please rewrite this subsection rather than simply continuing the copyvio. Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord 17:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The copyvio issue was that the Amnesty International section was not "used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea is acceptable under "fair use". It was a stand alone chunk of text stolen from another source. You have subsequently changed that, although I've not ran your new section through google... yet. Kyaa the Catlord 21:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summary did not say that, misrepresentation... but in other news, as I said before, the copyvio text has been incorporated into a form which meets the standards for use of non-free content on Wikipedia. (Which doesn't mean its free and clear, since I'm always looking for plagiaristic inclusions. I'm a stickler, sorry.) Kyaa the Catlord 21:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I can't find three un-ref-tagged references and its driving me insane. :P The one in the infobox was hard to spot. :P Kyaa the Catlord 21:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR on Battle of Jenin

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 8 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . 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.

-- Avi 14:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock|I was on my way to self-revert this complete over-sight and mistake as soon as I accidentally spotted it on the 3RR board. Leaving a note saying I'd try to understand what was going on seems to have been what triggered the block! Having never even been warned for 3RR before (I'm keen never to edit-war), I didn't realise it was a danger that it could even affect someone adding material incrementally to one article (as is necessary to do a reasonable job on an article this big and muddled). (Incidentally, it's a 3RR, not a 4RR as apparently claimed). Please unblock me. [[User:PalestineRemembered|PalestineRemembered]] 17:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)}}

I've looked at the 3RR noticeboard report and I am having trouble finding the supposed more than three reverts. The "previous version reverted to" does not include the contested material that PalestineRemembered introduced in the three edits that are labeled as reverts. There may well be copyvio and editwarring going on, but this was not the block rationale and would be difficult to evaluate in the convoluted history of that article. Due to the brevity of the block, which at any rate was successful in stopping the possible edit war (don't get it started again, use the talk page!) and since the blocking admin is apparently offline, I will exceptionally unblock without prior request for comment by the blocking admin. Sandstein 18:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the unblock, especially in light of the edit warring having stopped, which was the primary reason for the block to begin with. So consider this (belated) approval/comment. -- Avi 18:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio Warning

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Battle of Jenin. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Kyaa the Catlord 17:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a policy on this. Don't copy from other articles. Certainly don't copy paragraphs or sentences. And don't paraphrase by changing a word here or there, or by breaking a compound sentence into two shorter sentences. All of these things are copyright violations. I haven't looked at the article so I don't know what's going on here, and I'm not saying you are doing any of these things. They are just things that shouldn't be done. For more guidance, see WP:C and Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ, and you can always post here if there is a question about something you'd like to add to an article. Good luck! -- But|seriously|folks  19:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

...or here to pre-clear excerpts you would like to use. Carlossuarez46 20:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gscshoyru 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea what happened here, I've added a comment to the bottom of the text and somehow deleted everything above it. Firefox automatically reopens with the same windows as before, and I did a shut-down this afternoon, though I'm not clear how that could have caused this affect. I will leave this comment here for a reasonable time before I archive it. PalestineRemembered 18:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks like it was a mistake, not vandalism. I'm not sure how he did that, but I don't think it was intentional. Kyaa the Catlord 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This edit violates WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Please comment on edits, not on editors. Jaakobou is aware of the WP:COI policy, and this sort of questioning violates WP:AGF. THF 23:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Preferred pronoun

Could you please quit referring to me as a her? Or at least use a neutral hir? I'm starting to think you're doing this intentionally. Kyaa the Catlord 18:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've treated you in a collegiate and supportive fashion despite (or maybe because) you appeared to be hormonal. The last reference I made to you (perhaps the first by gender?) says "when he raised her objections", and this as a result of the confusion. PalestineRemembered 21:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

PR, comments like that will get you into trouble.Proabivouac 01:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I'm blocking you per the comments you made that are discussed here. Accusing fellow editors of warcrimes is beyond the pail. You have a long enough block record and have been here long enough you should know better. JoshuaZ 00:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think acting against me in this fashion is most unfortunate, giving the impression that a perfectly proper question (13:25, 6 August 2007) about Conflict of Interest doesn't have to answered.

Note how Jaakobou took immediate umbrage at my question, but otherwise stopped participating in Talk at Battle of Jenin. He made 6 edits to the Talk on the 4th of August, 6 edits on the 5th, 8 on the 6th (the last two complaining about my question) - but then stays away from Talk for over 72 hours until 22:57, 9 August 2007 when he sets about archiving it! This is *not* a Wikibreak, he makes 61 other edits in the meantime. On the 10th of August, he reverts to his previous pattern, making 11 edits to the TalkPage on that day. (Someone had better check my numbers, but there's no question that there's a long and highly suspicious break).

Under these circumstances, it seems reasonable to conclude that Jaakobou does indeed have a conflict of interest and should (as I politely suggested in the first place) recuse himself from this article. Please also note that I'm not the only editor who wanted an answer to this question, and that this is what brings me in to ask the question again - so this is not some kind of personal grudge I'm harboring.

Granted that I've rephrased the question (not an accusation, please) in quite lurid terms (probably unnecessarily), the basic question remains not just extremely valid - but the answer would appear to be that Jaakobou would be best not editing this article (unless he wishes to come completely clean as to his personal knowledge of the affair, which seems unlikely at this juncture).

Please note that the complaining editor has a long history of making allegations against people, effectively vandalising their TalkPages and personalising the issues, right up to and including inserting personal details about them in public. Editors this robust lose some of the protections extended by the system and careful administrators such as yourself. I did a very brief check around and discovered Jaakobou in serious conflict with 2 editors who are almost certainly far more polite and careful than I am - [7] [8] and [9], all from just about the same day, 14th April 2007. He regularily speaks of libel as if others have committed it eg here he's doing so in reference to public statements from a minister in the government of Israel.

Under these circumstances, it seems reasonable to lift this block. Not because I'm innocent of the charge (though I am, I've been very careful not to make any accusation, whatever other breach/s I'm guilty of), but because my behavior was necessary in the interests of the project. PalestineRemembered 10:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment from non-admin. Please assume good faith: editors do not have a conflict of interest unless they declare the conflict or unless there is sound evidence. You would presumably be justifiably upset if someone asked you if you had any role in Palestinian suicide bombings to determine if you had a COI. This is why editors are not authorized to conduct depositions about conflicts of interest: ask the question "Do you have a conflict of interest?" once, and accept the answer. While Jaakabou's accusations of libel were incorrect (and I have cautioned him about them), WP:CIVIL prohibits obnoxious remarks beyond just those that incur civil liability. You were blocked for violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and if you continue to claim that such insinuations are appropriate, I will argue for a longer block. (I am not an admin, and am thus obviously have no authority to deny an unblock request, and am not doing so here.) THF 10:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the community has not had any answer to the question about a potential Conflict of Interest.

Another editor wishes to know if there is a CoI, and repeated my question. Twice he asked the question - is doing this now to be considered a contravention of WP policy? (Please note there was no canvassing involved, public or private).

Please examine WP policy CoI, non-controversial edits, which says (amongst other things) "Editors who may have a conflict of interest are allowed to make certain kinds of non-controversial edits, such as: ... etc". We don't know if Jaakobou has a CoI, but many of his edits in the article could fairly be described as "controversial".

If any actions of mine lead to suspicion about undeclared personal knowledge or participation in events detailed in Wikipedia, you have my word that I will either answer the question or at least refrain from editing the article in question. I would certainly *not* be upset by such questions, and I certainly wouldn't expect the community to side with me if I were to declare my upset, while still refusing to answer the question. PalestineRemembered 13:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I'm the "other editor"; I never would have dreamed of asking the question, except that Jaakobou's response when PR asked it was so suspiciously combative. PR, I don't believe you deserved to be blocked. On the other hand, note that I've asked the question without resorting to hyperbole and don't appear to be in any danger of being blocked, so it would appear that in some sense you did bring it upon yourself.

Here's a provocative, but important, question. What do you think a self-described Hezbollah member would face when editing Wikipedia? I suspect it would be a major uphill battle to avoid a community ban by default, regardless of how polite and moderate the guy was. And yet an IDF member who won't answer specific questions about his involvement in the very battle which he is now rewriting the history of not only gets a free pass, he gets people blocked by whining to AN/I. I almost wish I wrote Arabic well enough to pull of the impersonation, just for the hell of it. Eleland 13:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleland, my "suspiciously combative" response to the blatantly phrased suggestion that i was a war criminal, was a somewhat belated 3rd level warning.^[10] i find your second paragraph to be treading in a similar suggestive fashion as PR, please avoid this type: "an IDF member... about his involvement... is now rewriting the history..." of baseless insinuations and accusative phrasing in the future. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It was the discussion surrounding this vivid first-hand Israeli account of the bulldozing of the camp that set me worrying. If a Lebanese appeared here and edited to make the rocketing of Israel in June 2006 sound justified (over all published material, let alone the feelings of the victims), the community would be outraged and would stop him. Such things will happen one day - perhaps it'll be Serbs who might have served in Kosovo, Russians in Chechnya or Chinese in Tibet - in fact, some such people may be participating already. They'll not be allowed to practice, or appear to practice, denial (have a look at the discussion on Gazimestan speech, we simply don't let it happen). More than that, there would be strong objection to such people participating in a contentious fashion that interfered with consensus - and if they took a particular interest in a particular event, the community would most certainly want to know whether they took part in it.

Incidentally, I didn't check Jaakobou's UserPage before I asked him how far away he was - I half expected him to say "Over 4,000 miles". All regular Israelis would have been able to say "more than 4 miles away", so my line of question was hardly intrusive. PalestineRemembered 16:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Community Ban

I have proposed that a community ban be enacted against you. Please see this entry on the community sanction noticeboard. John254 02:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)