User talk:Jaakobou

Welcome!

Hello, Jaakobou, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 19:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

notes:

• {{db-author}} - delete an image request.
• WP:DEL - deletion protocol.
• WP:CITE - <ref></ref> tags and such.
• quickSearch.
• WP:RM - requested moves.
• WP:CIT - citation templates.
• WP:RFC - request for comment.

stuff i'm reading

• Wilayah
• Sanjak
• Medina
• Caliphate
• Iudaea Province
• Damour massacre
• Muhammad Ali Pasha
• Greater Syria
• Hamlet

Re. Adam Keller

Hello and thank you for contacting me. I usually don't involve myself in the disputes that caused articles to be protected, so it's good to see that you've requested mediation. This article is going to be protected for a while, so I suggest that you also place a request for comment in order to attract more users familiar with the subject to the dispute. Discussing disputed changes on the talk page is always the best solution, especially if you believe that it's just a single user disrupting this article. But I prefer not to be directly involved in this one, I just protected the article to stop an edit war. If the war cools off or a consensus is reached, I'll gladly unprotect it. Best regards, Húsönd 18:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Informal mediation

I have opened the information mediation case for the article Adam Keller. Please indicate on the case page if you will accept my assistance as an informal mediator. Thank you! Vassyana 13:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The other party has rejected mediation. You may wish to try other avenues in dispute resolution, such as seeking a third opinion. Be well. Vassyana 14:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked (for 40 minutes)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing because of your disruptive edits. You are invited to contribute in a constructive manner as soon as the block expires. I left a note on the talk page saying that any user who removes the tag before the discussion on the talk page is complete would be blocked for edit warring. you ignored that Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot, i consider this block a direct breach of protocol and if the block is not removed i will be forced to report this. you are actually aiding and abetting a repeated revert offender.[1] Jaakobou 16:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already reported Betacommand to the admin noticeboard, after warning him that the threat was ill-advised and inappropriate. --Leifern 16:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As indicated, this matter is under active discussion on the noticeboard. FYI to Jaakobou and to avoid any confusion, the blocking admin's name is Betacommand; he operates a bot called "Betacommandbot" that is mentioned in his signature, but that the bot has nothing to do with this block. Newyorkbrad 17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Block removed after 40 minutes^[2], page hijacking issue still unresolved.^[3][4] Jaakobou 17:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Yehoshua Hankin (1864-1945).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Yehoshua Hankin (1864-1945).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

fixed, thank you for the notice. Jaakobou 11:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Libel

This is your only warning. The next time you add defamatory content, as you did to Talk:Shimon Tzabar, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. RolandR 23:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Linking to a website that may or may not contain libelous information (I have no idea as I didn't bother checking the link) does not warrant the sort of "last warning" that was just added to this page. Yes, you guys disagree on many issues and the posting of the link on the talk page was probably out of line but it does not warrant this; RolandR, I suggest you remove it for everybody's sake as there's no need for this situation to escalate further than it already has and the link is already gone. Yonatan ^talk 23:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No way. 160 sockpuppets have already been indefinitely blocked for posting this abuse and linking to this libel, as Jaakobou must know from his own stalking of me. He clearly DID follow the link (even though it was deleted), and consciously decided to post it. I hope that he too is blocked indefinitely for this flagrant abuse of Wikipedia. RolandR 23:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, jumping from warning level 0 -> 4 seems to be a bit quick even though the link is inappropriate. Yonatan ^talk 00:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jaakobou RolandR 10:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this 4th level complaint is down right out of line considering the link was not proveded in a libeleous manner at all^{article history <- will remove this once the complaint is removed}, but to present to you that you should stop accusing me of POV and climing you are a neutral editor while you blatently tag-revert revert.. at best, you could have placed a 2nd level warning although you should have assumed good faith and issued a 1st level warning if you're acutually offended by a ^[2] style link. I tend to think you're glad that you "found a chance" to give me a warning and went a little overboard with the find.. i've given my reply on the AV/I page, and honestly, i think it reflects badly on you more than it does on me. Jaakobou 12:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:RolandR, you will be blocked from editing. My user page is my space, not yours. You have absolutely no right to remove other people's messages to me; particularly before I even have a chance to read them. RolandR 21:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

another overstated warning and this time without even a just cause for a level 1 warning. i removed a personal attack against me. you can easily read it in the history. as a matter of fact, you reinstating it is a violation of WP:NPA policies. Jaakobou 21:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

2nd level notice issued here: [5] (allready reverted by RonaldR) Jaakobou 21:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

RolandR AV/I case

issued to User:SFC9394: i request you don't become an inadvertant accomplice to RolandR's malicious activity by presuming the location of his comments to be the correct one. he has ignored the notice issued under the text (relating to the personal attack on me) and created a seperate out of chronological order complaint to make his complaint be "first" on the read list. however, the history of the page indicates that i reported a personal attack on me[6] and afterwards rolandR has posted his vandalism complaint above the section dealing with the issue[7]. Jaakobou 13:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: RolandR AV/I case

I am not really fussed about whatever the dispute is about - all I am simply saying is don't delete other peoples comments when you are involved in a dispute with them. That is very bad form - please don't do it. SFC9394 13:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not refactor ANI

(edit conflict):You recently moved a comment made by another editor in the ANI report that the two of you are involved in. You are not to alter others comments. In this case, as you are an involved party, it is especially important that you do not even move other's comments to where you feel they are more appropriate. — ERcheck (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

ERcheck (talk and SFC9394. i did 'not delete or edit any comments.. only moved a misplaced comment to the proper chronological order since the other user has placed his "vandalism report" above my previous complaint for personal attacks. however, i agree that i should not move other user's comments which means i will only place links to my comments in the proper chonology. on a jokingly side (i hope you can take it on a lighter spirit side despite the heated situation) i was moving my own comments above rolandR's comments and not moving his comments down. </joke> on the serious side, user RolandR has removed the personal attack warning i issued on his user talk page. Jaakobou 13:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, you "moved" a comment. "Edit" covers moving comments as the context is changed. As you are a party to the complaint, you should let others handle any issues with respect to the out of mis-ordered comments. Let other editors make their own mistakes. If you disagree with where someone else puts the comment, make note of the placement; but, don't move it. In addition, as the editor's original comment that you moved was not in response to the subject line below it, in my opinion, it was in the proper location as a response to the comments above it. I recommend that you let the case speak for itself, rather than escalating it further by making the ANI itself an issue. You have been asked very nicely not to edit other's comments in the ANI case. If you do this again, you are subject to being blocked. — ERcheck (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

i've managed to resolve the situation in a better way thank you. Jaakobou 14:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for stepping back and agreeing to leave the other's edits alone. Working this issue with civility is appreciated. — ERcheck (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

i do try to resolve disputes, this one though is a unique and very much problematic case. you're more than invited to see the entire thread and weigh in on it. Jaakobou 14:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

As there seems to be a long standing conflict described in the ANI case above, I want to be sure that you are aware of the dispute resolution process. It seems not to be single incident, but a long string of incidents. — ERcheck (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

ERcheck, thank you for the link - i've went over it for a bit, but i think i could use an outsider's opinion with some advice on the next step i should persue to resolve this long standing incident. I'd be appreciative if you help me out with moving this thing foreward. Jaakobou 10:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that the situation still needs outside intervention, then step through the dispute resolution process . I'm guessing that you are at the "Further dispute resolution" stage (Have you tried Request for comment, informal mediation via the Mediation Cabal, or formal mediation through a Request for mediation?) I recommend that you read up on each process, decide where you feel you are in the dispute resolution process and what step you want to take next; further, no matter where you are in the process, taking a breather when things heat up is usually helpful to keep things from getting out of hand. If you choose to move forward, it is helpful to all involved if you document what dispute resolution steps you have already taken. — ERcheck (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel you would like a neutral party to help you with process, consider Requesting an advocate, as indicated on the dispute resolution page. — ERcheck (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

ANI discussion

I have closed the ANI discussion because it's ceased to be productive. That said, your constant accusations of personal attacks against RolandR and others are getting disruptive, and I suggest you stop. – Steel 12:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

i don't think you have any right to close that case - and i'm reopening it. Jaakobou 12:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked you. We've been patient enough. – Steel 12:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

1. i think you've been most uncivil with your entire approach. per: "I'm in half a mind to block you, but I'm holding off in the hope that you start being co-operative."^[8]
2. i think this block is unjustified as i've both managed to solve the previous "moving comments issue" and a single revert might constituate a warning - but not a block.
3. i've happened to miss your comment for the reasoning for the archivingl - you could have stated that a reasoning is on the page - or give me a reasoning beyond "it's ceased to be productive"... i'm not quite sure who are the "others" - ChrisO? we've solved our differences on good terms last i checked.
4. besides your approach, I also think that the conduct of User:Kingboyk by replying "enough allready"^[9] and removing my question from his talk page^[10][11] and then claiming to have explained it to me allready^[12] (since when "enough allready" is an explanation?)

We don't need to see the diffs again. You're such a victim aren't you? "Enough already" is a perfectly adequate explanation. It means, you're exhausting the community's patience by constantly complaining. --kingboyk 14:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

the entire handling with this ban and where you don't show even a sense of civility/AGF is very much disheartening. Jaakobou 13:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Use {{unblock}} if you wish to request an unblock. --kingboyk 14:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that my revert was a mistake (on the archiving). Sorry about that, you have my word I won't do it again. please unblock. while I believe my accusations were definitely warranted, apparently opinions differ so i think it will be helpful to refrain from such accusations in the future. Regardless of whether or not they're warranted. Jaakobou 15:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a very positive response, thank you. I'll ask the blocking admin what he thinks. --kingboyk 15:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You've been unblocked :) Please keep the promises you made. Cheers! --kingboyk 15:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

thank you, autoblock still on. Jaakobou 16:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, looking into it. --kingboyk 16:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Should be removed. If it isn't, please use the unblock template as somebody with more technical knowledge will have to look into it. --kingboyk 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Language tags

there seems to be a problem with the language tags for hebrew and arabic and i couldn't quite find how to fix the issue.

• english tag:
• hebrew tag: Hebrew: Hebrew
• arabic tag: Template:Ar

i hope it's clear that they are not the same. Jaakobou 11:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? What, the articles on the other wikis? If that, it's [[en:English language]] (en:English language), [[he:אנגלית]] (he:אנגלית), and [[ar:العربية]] (ar:العربية) (for the sake of an example, I have used English, which I am pretty sure has an article in pretty much every language). Hopefully this helps; if it doesn't, feel free to re-add the {{helpme}} template.:) Qwerty (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Could it also be this? {{languageicon|he|Hebrew}} (Template:Languageicon), and {{Languageicon|ar|Arabic}} (Template:Languageicon)? --Qwerty (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User page

I have redirected your user page to your talk page so that people can access it by clicking on your signature (otherwise it is just an annoying link to "Edit article"). Hope you don't mind. Number 57 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

a little bold, but i'm ok with it. Jaakobou 17:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You should get some userboxes - they're fun! Number 57 17:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

JDL

While I can appreciate your concerns about libel, I don't think they apply here. The article is appropriately worded to attribute the view that the JDL is a terrorist organization to reliable, verfiable sources that made that assessment within the last 10 years. Everything in the article talks about the FBI or other law enforcement-affiliated groups labeling JDL as terrorist or specifically sourced assertions regarding particular incidents or prosecutions involving group members. Mike Dillon 14:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

note the difference between "designated terrorist" and "designated extremist" the records seem to be "designated terrorist in 1980s" (single bombing, no injured in 1983) and currently "designated extremist".. i personally think you should remove the current designation and make the change until we find a more solid statement - personally i suggested they contact the FBI (me being in Israel would make for a large cost) to help them find a proper citation to solidify the designation in either direction. Jaakobou 17:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence#Use_of_questionalble_and_unreliable_sources_-_prefering_only_his_own_POV

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence&diff=next&oldid=124522872 Zeq 03:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Image Delete

i couldn't quite make out why the image of Aliza Olmert was deleted, sorry if this is not the correct way to inquire about it. Jaakobou 15:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is because the uploader of the image didn't specify the copyright details, nor any information about the image, thus the image was deleted. Curran (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that might be a mistake, i seem to remember to have placed some info about the image. Jaakobou 15:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Sometimes that (annoying, but don't tell it) bot deletes things that don't belong in the garbage. Try re-uploading it and adding correct details. Whether this will work-- I dunno? Might be worth a try. Curran (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seen somewhere a notice that deletions can be reverted without reuploading (an old upload of mine)- whoever, i cannot see the deletion history so i wouldn't know who to contact. Jaakobou 15:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there are any bots that actually delete things, they just tag them for admins to delete. You could look at Special:Log/delete to see who deleted the image and ask them to restore it. Just enter the image name into the "Title" box. If you don't remember the exact image name, you can look at your upload log. Mike Dillon 22:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Azmi Bishara2006.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Azmi Bishara2006.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Y not? 23:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please self-revert Battle of Jenin

Please self-revert at [13]. The original of this article in Hebrew is at [14] of the Yediot Aharonot article on May 31, 2002. Gush-shalom provide a translation at [15]. While Gush Shalom is a campaigning web-site, it is not a blog, and would normally be considered a Reliable Source in its own right. It is certainly an RS for translation purposes. PalestineRemembered 08:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

the hebrew version might be an accurate copy of the ynet article, however, the english one is full of defamation and one sided "the truth!!!" style bloggish narratives that are not by any means accurate or encyclopedic. if you want, we can include some gush shalom refrence to the ynet article, but you must find the ynet article, and you must find a gush shalom article that doesn't plagerize(sp?) from ynet. you should also find a way to write things without copy-pasting. Jaakobou 09:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Students

Hey Jaakobou! Why not write about the Students. [16] ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Article: Ex-Islamists

You recently created the article Ex-Islamists, however it seems from the text of the article that you meant for the creation to be a category (maybe Category:Ex-Islamists). If this is the case, and the article was mistakingly created, you should probably add {{db-author}} to the article so it can be removed. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

fixed, thank you. Jaakobou 04:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed Walid Shoebat from this category as he was formerly a secular Palestinian nationalist (PLO) not an Islamist. I now believe the category itself was misnamed, and suggest it should be renamed to Category:Former Islamist and/or Arab terrorists. --GCarty 16:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, while the PLO is "secular", they are anything but secular.. they are simply not as ultra-orthodox as some of the others, shoebat was educated in Ilsmic ways and there's plenty of information about that; there's nothing wrong with the current title of the category. Jaakobou 07:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The PLO's ideology was similar to Nasserism or Ba'athism. Did Nasser's Egypt or Saddam's Iraq use Shari'ah law? (Clue: Islamist = supporter of Shari'ah law). --GCarty 08:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

if you quote the quran while trying to kill jews and then change your mind and attack this ideaology... you qualify as ex-islamist. the comparisment to saddam is irrelevant. islamism, is not only about sharia law, it's also about dar al-harb and "resistance" jihad martyrdom concepts. Jaakobou 09:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

talk:Jerusalem

I wrote what I did on the talk page because I didn't want your words to provoke an argument with our visitor "friends" that could only cause harm to the article in the end. nadav (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Do you mind if I remove your last comment? I really don't want them to be pulled into starting an unfruitful argument. I think the best policy is to ignore any incoherent or unenlightening comments by IP editors. nadav (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

i don't think most of them are intelligent enough to make an argument... if they try, they might end up learning something and it would actually make them better people. thanks for your concern though. Jaakobou 00:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please Help with Yhoshua Leib Gould article

Hey, there are some of the usual suspects trying to whitewash an article about a Neturei KArta guy. Can you please help out? Yoel23 13:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Faith Issues -- Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks

User:Liftarn, It's beggining to feel that good faith is under suspiscion in regards to your edits on Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks^History. I'm making this note due to a few edits which seem to censor information from the article - such as:

• this edit: explained as "I think the caption got mixed up." in which you ⁽ⁱ⁾remove the name of the woman on tape and both the ⁽ⁱⁱ⁾ref and info to on her beying quoted as cursing the USA and ⁽ⁱⁱⁱ⁾the link to the criticism.

- this edit btw destroyed refrence no. 11^[17].

• this edit^{repeated here} in which you attach the hosting webdomain name (freedomdomain.com) as the "reporting body" in what might be an interpreted as an attempt to discredit the actual reporting body of the refrence, i.e. Times Newspapers.

While i try to assume good faith, and i havn't objected to this edit in which you discredit sources by noting they are on a "personal website". there is a fine line where i'm loosing faith due to promotion of dubious unrefrenced notes and making page moves while claiming there was a "Propaganda" or "Fraud" where it might seem to suit a possible agenda and censor-reverting and tagging refrences as "propaganda links" where it doesn't.

please note!

please remember to maintain WP:NEU in future edits to this article so that good faith suspiscions won't turn into allegations of WP:TEND and contribute to unnessesary soapbox situations and/or edit warring where you "discredit" a source and another contributor might "NPOV the situation" by "discrediting" another source. Jaakobou 11:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Was that the name of the woman? Ok, I just noticed that the caption had changed and changed it back.
• Btw, are Youtube videos useable as sources?
• Unless we fins the actual Times article it is no more reliable than any personal webpage and should be reported as such. How do we know it is an accurate description of the original article?
• The text was copied directly from the Westboro Baptist Church article (or thereabouts). Now I only found a passing reference in Targets of Westboro Baptist Church. A quick googling found http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/6/22220/02926 Just look at the signs saying "THANK GOD FOR Sept. 11"[18]. And in other media[19][20][21].
• Yes, propaganda and fraud. Fake (fraud) celebrations being brodcast as propaganda.
• I removed the links that was already used as sourced and those with an obvious bias. Then there was no links left.

// Liftarn

1. i see no problem with an article about the Westboro celebrations, i don't think they are worth much more than a "see also" in regards to this article which is heavily dedicated to palestinian celebrations.
2. i don't know if you're aware on how the international media buissness works if you call the usage of these images "propaganda".. they were not propagated by israel, but AP - an agency blamed many times for being a tool in the hands of terrorists who threaten the lives of it's reporters so they comply on many occassions to make a buck and were heavily under fire for proven photoshopped images and arranged scenes... the life of a photojournalist is about as vicious as the one of the paparatzi(sp?) if not more (you know, photography under fire and such) and to be honest, i think -- knowing pictures of celebrating palestinians were taken not only in israel (and west bank) but also in lebanon and that perceptions in the arab world about the US cultivate this behaviour (to some extent) -- that the handing out of candy is more probably part of the cultural ceremony rather than an induced staging... although, i'm not intending to add such POV into the article.
3. these video links i provided are based on the only current sources availabe for these newscasts, luckily for us they seem to be at full length and unedited. sadly we have no better source (yet) and it's here for obvious encyclopedic reasons. if you can come up with better refrences to the video that would be great.
4. for the same reason, we have no reason to suspect that the Times article is distorted.. similarly, the der spiegel source was allowed also when we have no availability of the actual full article. i believe there really shouldn't be any contention at the moment that the refrences are of shoddy reliability... i do think there is room to find better links for all the articles mentioned in the Tripod page.. that one bothers me a little, but it's there because we have no reason to believe the articles were falsified and also for encyclopedic value which is IMHO the most important part of our contributions here at wikipedia. Jaakobou 13:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent Revert on Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Cool beans. Screen stalker 14:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Mass demolitions in the Negev.

I'll try not to wantonly trigger these[22] breaches of Wikipedia civility with anything I can't prove. It was Israel's minister of interior Roni Bar-On who announced in Dec 2006 that he will destroy 42,000 homes of 2nd-class Israeli citizens in the Negev.[23] Well, unless you're going to tell me that Israelis lie, of course. PalestineRemembered 17:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

(1) note the article (from January 10, 2007) uses the words "42,000 illegal structures in the Israeli Negev.", your statement is misleading at best.

(2) note that the article by the "israeli committee" asks the question: "When will Israel create options for 80,000...", accusing israel for not creating options. which is, at best a white lie and at worst a blatant POV pushing. see these articles to note that "israelis can lie" *shrug*:

• The government discussed setting up two permanent communities for the Bedouins (note the misleading title) (2006)
• YNET Hebrew article, mentions presented option, rejected by WAdi A-Naam, to be settled at [[24]].

as you can see, a few options are presented and discussed, the people in the Ynet article had a reasonable reason.. they say that the southern part of that town is close (10Km) to a waste dump and they are worried it is dangerous.

regardless, the article also notes that in 2003, Ariel Sharon made a plan allocated 9.8 Billion NIS in a span of 10 years to upgrade and recognize 8 places of beduin concentrations and upgrade them in a manner that fits the beduin lifestyle.

User:PalestineRemembered, if you're not very knowledgeable about a certain issue and you have certain worries because of materials you've read (selectively in this case). it would be best to look for less politically motivated organizations to fact check your assumptions and avoid uncomfortable allegations of libel. Jaakobou 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find you supporters of Mugabe attempting to justify his mass demolitions. I know the excuse he made was "slum clearance", but I don't think anyone (other than people enjoying his hospitality) ever accepted what he claimed, or thought his behaviour anything other than criminal. PalestineRemembered 19:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered, so now you're planning on comparing between two situations you havn't explored seriously? .. don't you think you're stretching out a bit too far with this soapbox?? i don't know much about zim, but last i checked the life expectancy was 37!... not really a place that should be compared with israel. Jaakobou 20:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

My humble apologies. It would be quite wrong of me to compare House demolition in Zimbabwe for slum clearance purposes with house demolition elsewhere for ethnic cleansing. People might think I deplored what Mugabe is doing and was soap-boxing against him. PalestineRemembered 12:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

House demolition

I was wondering about why you changed your mind about whether the Israel Palestine stuff should be on its own article or moved back into the main one. You don't have to answer if you don't want to. nadav (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

i'm a bit ambivalent about it, but i don't remember changing my mind. *scratches head*

could you please link me to this change? Jaakobou 09:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Here's what I was thinking about: [25] nadav (talk) 09:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

lol, caught flipfloping. well, at first i thought the article deserves it's own article, but later i read the comment by Gabi S. on the AfD page and figured he had a point and that not only that this makes for a perfect POV pushing situation and considering there's no similar expantion on other countries/conflicts and that many of the words were repetative. plus it caused many unnessecary and time cunsuming edit warrings for the project. i'm still a bit ambivalent and figure there is room for such an article in the future of the project, but for the moment - i think that a Redirect, it the best solution. Jaakobou 09:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. (obviously, I have counterpoints, but you've cleared up my question) Best, nadav (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

direction of text

{{helpme}}

i need the wikicode for making a text appear from right to left. Jaakobou 12:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You can use the {{rtl-para}} tag. Example: {{rtl-para|he|שלום!}}, which prints

שלום!

nadav (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

thank you, i allready found {{Hebrew|שלום}} which makes for a better font, but the <p align="right"> formatting did not look very nice, so i settled with your suggestion. thanks again. Jaakobou 13:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

p.s. pun intended.

Allahdad incident

Hi, I removed those categories since i made a top category Category:Crypto-Judaism which is now a sub-category of those categories. Misheu 05:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew for Lion

Hi, would you be able put the hebrew characters for Lion on the Lion etymology section. Would be much appreciated. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks

The consensus from the discussion was that the source of Image:PalestinianWoman.jpg was not reliable per the nominator's reason for deletion.

I agreed with Quadell ^(talk) that having two fair use images in the short article Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks violates WP:NFCC #3a against minimal use. After readingWikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_25#Image:PalestinianWoman.jpg and Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#25_June_2007, I felt the consensus on that issue was to use Image:PalestinianChildren.jpg in the article. -Regards Nv8200p talk 14:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I reread the discussion and still believe the consensus is that the sourcing is not reliable and the image has other fair use issues. If you wish to have this decision looked at again, please request a deletion review. If my decision to delete is overturned, then those editors interested in the Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks article can figure out which image is best to use - Regards -Nv8200p talk 22:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You can try re-uploading the image and summarizing the new info you have and see if it passes the community's scrutiny. You need to document on the image talk page your rationale for re-uploading a deleted image or it will probably be immediately deleted. You can pursue getting permissions from AP for the image too if that id the copyright holder. Start a discussion on the article talk page aboput the images and see wha the consensus is. Good luck. -Nv8200p talk 14:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Jenin

Hi, if there are any specific points of the text that need translation, I would be glad to help. Danny 09:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Accurate bible translations

Hi and thanks for your note on my page. There's not really a problem. We're talking about the aerticle Bethel, and the website to link to for the various bible verses mentioned there. I had links to a site run by the Uni of Virgina which gave whole chapters from a single translation (the NIV I think), Sarek changed it to a site that gave only single verses but a wide choice of translations. I reverted because I felt (a) that whole chapters are more useful because the reader can see the verse in context, an (b) that many of the translations in his site are untrustworthy (e.g. the King James - great poetry but a bit outdated); he then pointed out that (a) the verses on his siet are easily linked to the relevant chapters, and (b) my site wasn't available any more. I regarded that point as being a bit of a clincher. Have a look at the Bethel article. PiCo 01:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Offensive post in Jenin talk page

Do not accuse me of "not caring" about the victims of bombings in Israel. I do not take that view and nor has anything I have said or any edits I have made even suggested that I do. Also please don't claim that you speak for the general public and the average wikipedia editor, as it makes you look rather foolish. You might also want to stop lazily pretending that all the people killed in Jenin were militants. --Nickhh 14:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

calling me foolish somewhat defeats the porpoise of this note of yours. regardless, you have little room to attack me after you've just insulted me and i simply noted this fact to you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Help

{{helpme}}

i really need a guide on when it's good to use the {{cquote}} template. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Try looking here I spose - Sorry I couldant be more help Tiddly Tom 21:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please undo this edit if you require further assistance. Tiddly Tom 21:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no consistency across WP when it comes to using templates for quotations. There are {{cquote}}, {{quote}}, {{blockquote}}, {{quotation}}, etc. I am not sure Category:Quotation templates lists all of them. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hebron

Jaakobou, You are over the three-revert limit on this page. Please self-revert now, or I will report you. CJCurrie 07:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User:CJCurrie, i'm not over the limit, but thank you for the heads-up. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you *are* over the limit: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. Please revert yourself now. CJCurrie 07:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

1. if you think i broke the WP:3RR, feel free to report it, i know for a fact that i have not.
2. try to remain WP:CIV, when addressing other wiki editors, bold font could be considered by some people as shouting. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You've made more than five reverts in 24 hours, so I don't see how you couldn't have broken the 3RR. You do realize that the count isn't reset at 00:00, right? CJCurrie 07:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

thank you for the update. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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 [31]. 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.^[32] 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)

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)