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)

Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Thank you.

your explanation^[7] that you contest the existence or lack of existence of the word "attack", does not explain your recent revert^[8] in which you've not only removed new and well cited material (such as the camp being a densely populated urban battlefield, and bulldozers being utilized after 13 soldiers died), but also destroyed a number of fixes to the references (such as the TIME, The Observer, JCSS, and the MFA). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edits in Mainspace are nearly as bad as your contributions to other people's TalkPages (for which you've previously been banned, at least according to two admins on 14th April). If there was anything worthwhile in your edits then I'd be astonished. PalestineRemembered 21:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

if you're thinking that repeating your misunerstanding of a conflict you were not a part of and accusing me of something false (afer you've been noted about this repeatedly), will make your revert justified then your logic confuses me. i'm even more confused considering you just lost your assigned mentor who was found to be a sock puppet. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered, Isarig, if i'm not mistaken, has only (and quite justifiably) removed the "source needs to be validated" tags on battle of jenin. his edits might be inline with eleland's edits, but to be frank, they are not close to your combative approach to the article and i find your implication that you are "astounded that i say i'm trying to promote the article"^[9] uncivil to say the least considering my efforts and your recent contributions on said article and talk. to be frank, i'm starting to lose my patience with how you've not even tried to develop your style since you've been nominated for a possible community ban (link), or changed it much since your one month block in 2006 even (link). what more needs to be done to emphasize to you that wikipedia is not a battleground for fighting for your own POV or for insulting other editors? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou you've been blocked before for just this kind of outrageous harrassment of people on their TalkPages. PalestineRemembered 14:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

reported here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:37, 28 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)

-- 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 - [10] [11] and [12], 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.^[13] 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)

CSN

Thank you for your answers at the CSN. FWIW, my personal opinion is that you were out of line with the "legal threat", but at least I was able to understand your perspective better. --Dweller 18:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

My advocacy status

I've updated the advocacy section of my user page to better reflect my current position on dispute resolution. Let me know (either on or off wiki) if you have any questions. Mark Chovain 11:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My comments at the CN

Sorry. I genuinely hope a) I'm wrong and b) others don't share my concerns. Whatever happens, good luck. --Dweller 17:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good result. Hope it works out well. --Dweller 09:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

I deeply appreciate that gesture, but from what little I know of other editors, I am struck by how much dedicated goodwill and effort is evinced by so many practiced editors. Their example prods me, somewhat disconcerted by the tenacity of ill-informed people in disrupting the composition of this encyclopedia by ill-advised opinions paraded as NPOV, to keep chipping away with my minor contributions so that, health willing, some years down the track, I may look back at the barnstar and say, well, yes, perhaps now I will not be embarrassed overly by what may have been a premature, if gracious, gesture of appreciation.Regards Nishidani 17:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Mentorship?

I saw you at the CSN board. If you follow strict requirements, I am willing to be your mentor. If so, let me know. Here are my requirements:

1. Don't edit too much because I am on wikipedia only about twice a week and can't watch you like a hawk. 2. Be willing to limit your editing and reading of certain articles, at least initially. (meaning you might have to stay away from certain articles for a while and slowly ease into certain articles) 3. Have a cooperative frame of mind. Don't come here to fight, even if others are fighters.

Note: You are such a hot potato that even my regular Jane account won't touch you. Even volunteering to help wikipedia as a whole in this way by working with someone like you is liable to get myself blocked. Don't abuse this gesture of kindness. Specialjane 05:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, comrade!

You have achieved a Wikipedia first! You've been subjected to an involuntary "mentorship" on the rationale that you were threatening to bring war crimes charges in the Hague against a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor. Of course, a major contributing factor was that you were falsely accused of neo-Nazism by an admin, surely a capital WikiCrime. (Don't look for him to be forced into mentorship.) So apparently rather than being banned from editing, you'll be banned from effective editing on any article you actually care about. Feel free to correct spelling errors on List of inedible fruits, though. Subject to mentor approval. Eleland 05:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

i'd like to state that, regardless of some serious offenses, i did not seek you get a permanent block. i only desired a change in your easy trigger on inaccurate claims for others or about others. i hope you can learn from this experience and tone down the figurative speech and selective bias. to be frank, i'd advise you to find yourself different advocates/cliques who will guide you on the right path rather than ones that promote undesired behavior. that said, good luck in the future here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you think?

I want to thank you for your modifications in User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism allegations‎. I have an idea of making a new article under the title "Israel and racism", I think this title is closer to the content in the page User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism allegations‎. --Aaronshavit 10:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community sanctions noticeboard

Hi. The noticeboard is for cases that unambiguously need community action. It's not a substitute for dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Village pump, or relevant talk pages. You keep posting a comment there that isn't an actual case, and you've modified an archived section.[14] [15] This is not helpful. I recommend that you move the comment to a more appropriate venue. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, PalestineRemembered. I would like to second what Jehochman has said, and note that such a statement is actually apropos for your user page, but not for WP:CSN. Please leave the archive as is, and if you wish, copy the text you want to a more appropriate page. Thank you. -- Avi 15:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Listen guys, my TalkPage is a free-fire zone, where you can make any allegations you feel like and I won't correct you. I'm very, very used to this kind of treatment by now. Jaakobou has seen the apology I posted him (in the new section, per the instructions). If you'd been only a little bit quicker he'd not even be reminded I'm a decent guy. PalestineRemembered 17:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Mentorship

I have e-mailed you about mentorship. This shouldn't be interpreted as support for the content of your editing, but merely a hand of friendship to help others in trouble with WP edit. If you accept, please edit responsibly and don't abuse the helping hand. Since I don't visit WP daily, e-mail should allow you to be mentored and still edit daily or almost daily. If you accept, please start out slowly as far as editing, don't edit faster than I can mentor. Specialjane 02:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have always edited responsibly and, while I have admitted some minor breaches, in all the action taken against me and the heaps of sometimes very nasty allegations made against me, almost no evidence has ever been provided of me doing anything else. It was 10 months and 1360 edits (during which time I'd suffered 3 extraordinarly long and unexplained blocks, two Community Sanction attempts and an abandoned ArbCom I very much wanted) before I did anything that provoked general condemnation. I served my block for this incivility and (quite unasked-for) posted the victim a detailed and heartfelt apology. (The latter was deleted and then moved to my User:Page - this is par for the course, one of the minor harrassments I suffer is constant high-handed changes to my personal pages). I don't believe any mentor I accept will have any cause for concern about my editing. Nor need they have any concern about my status as a Single Purpose Account - despite continuing allegations, this has been fully accepted as being to policy and an attempt to force me to change my name was also defeated. PalestineRemembered 10:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The latter was deleted and then moved to my User:Page - this is par for the course, one of the minor harrassments I suffer is constant high-handed changes to my personal pages

— User:PalestineRemembered - 10:47, 16 August 2007

PR, the above is actually an example of why youmay engender the response that you do. If you were to check the Noticeboard page, you will see that your response was not deleted, but moved back to where it was when the discussion was archived. Here, I'll give you the direct link: WP:CSN#Statement by PalestineRemembered. It's placement on your user page was as a convenience for you, nothing more. When there exists a history of mischaracterizations of others' actions for the ill, be it deliberate or accidental, it does not create an atmosphere condusive for discussion on ANY topic, let alone controversial ones. As a piece of advice, quid pro quo is a powerful idea. Human psychology is such that people are more willing to assume good faith of people who THEMSELVES demonstrate the assumption of good faith. Thank you. -- Avi 15:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've decided it's all my fault, there must be something about me that leads otherwise sensible people to start behaving in this bizarre fashion when it comes to my contributions.

Please check this last edit to the CSN board. Note how the article size has jumped from 136,457 bytes to 178,783 bytes - this time, someone has managed to duplicate the entire discussion of this issue!

I've made a silly mistake of my own - I saw and believed the summary that goes with this edit, the one that says "Restoring archived version. PR's statement will be moved to his page for his use in more appropriate venues." I somehow expected other editors here to know the difference between "Copy" and "Move". Perhaps it's a character flaw I have, expecting others here to use words with their regular meaning.

If you're really bored, please examine the changes that have already been made to my contributions (and to the archive) to understand what a mess had been created (even before this last laughable mistake). I can't be bothered to document who (let alone why) anyone should modify the archive and blame me for it, but it starts here on 11:14, 15 August 2007.

I've even been trapped into modifying the archive myself, though only to correct what others have damaged. Seeing "Whoops - actually delete freestanding comment from board" 11:17, 15 August 2007 I assumed that the previous mess had been sorted, reverting my apology into the right place (and checking it afterwards) actually made the thing right. But only for a short time, obviously!

I'll delete whole bunches of stuff presently, it is my TalkPage, after all. It's not really a free-fire zone for people where others are welcome to get confused. PalestineRemembered 16:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi PR, yeah I knew 85dotwhatever wasn't you. (I posted my theory as to who it is on the sockpuppet request.) Kyaa the Catlord 07:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

New commentary

PR, please remember the issue of our previous argument and avoid making personal attacks.

this comment that you left me:

Jaakobou is not in a strong position to ask others not to deface TalkPages, given his long record of this practice.^[16]

is a breach of WP:CIV and a very much inaccurate personal accusation (something i was hoping you will avoid). i also suggest you go over my comment again and notice i haven't accused anyone of anything and only noted you that i've asked you before to keep article discussions on the article talk. i have not accused anyone of defacing my talk page and i haven't used the word "deface" at all, so please don't jump to a conclusion that i'm attacking you and please avoid any claims about me or in my name in the future. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Pedro/1948 Palestinian exodus - talk page

Why don't you use the talk page as all other did ? You just replaced his version by yours, therefore deleting former material. Alithien 06:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok for your explanation :-) Concerning Pedro being the "arbitrator", I don't like the word. I think he is recognized as somebody neutral enough and knowing the topic enough to gather the information and write something good on the topic. But arbitrator... ;-) Alithien 08:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Ok, seen like that, he is the "arbiter" of his page. But he is not "arbiter" on the topic and the main article. Alithien 08:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Good :-) We will see when Pedro and Jordixtei come back. 4-5 is a good number of contributors to have a constructive work on a topic. Alithien 09:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

massacre title

You found 2 cases of civilians being killed and the said event being labeled a massacre, albeit controversially. I will not waste my time finding the literally thousands upon thousands of cases in which multiple civilians have been killed and the event has not been labeled a massacre. This is just silly. I find it surprising that these low-level unsupportable arguments are even being discussed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joebloetheschmo (talk • contribs) 07:38, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Entebbe talk page

I'm not sure why you reverted my signing of your contribution. ([17]) --Dweller 20:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Two thoughts. 1) Did you use five tildes? The absence of your username from the sig implies to me that you may not have done. 2) If you did, the instructions indicate that a bot will finish the job for you, which may take some time. Btw, this approach is very sensible and is worthy of some virtual applause. --Dweller 21:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm bothered that the 5 tildes isn't generating your sig properly, but it's quite possible the bot will take longer than 2 hours to turn up. If you solve the problem, let me know. I'm curious. --Dweller 21:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

FOUR tildes give username and time. FIVE tildes gives just the time. THREE tildes gives just the username. -- Avi 21:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. It's worked. --Dweller 12:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Operation Entebbe

I find your attitude to including the views of the British Government about this incident extremely puzzling. Judging by the reports of the Times "Diplomats suspected Entebbe hijacking was an Israeli plot to discredit the PLO" and the BBC "Israel hijack role 'was queried'", there were quite serious suspicion that Israel had helped a splinter group of the PLO (in order to discredit the main organisation) and their help had contributed in some fashion to the hi-jack.

I don't know whether it's true or not, and neither do you - but it's clearly a significant viewpoint, amply supported by two very good RS's. What's your objection to putting it in? PalestineRemembered 21:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My objection is that there is no evidence that anyone believes or believed the theory besides this single unnamed contact of Colvin's. There are obviously plenty of reliable sources that reported how Colvin wrote down this contact's beliefs in his log, but no sources have actually shown that anyone else believes the theory. Thus it would be astounding undue weight to prominently display this anonymous person's claims as if they have any credence amongst historians. The minute I see evidence that the theory actually enjoys support among experts, I will be for mentioning it in the article. nadav (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have high regard for your dedication to policy, but I find this assertion from you puzzling. We cannot say who believed it - but the RS's certainly imply (one of them states in the headline) that there was fairly strong suspicion in the relevant parts of the British Government. Diplomats suspected Entebbe hijacking was an Israeli plot to discredit the PLO, The London [18] and "Israel hijack role 'was queried'" [19], the Times and BBC respectively. The logical understanding of these reports is that the Times and the BBC each spoke to one or more people in the relevant places and were told "Yes, we had a strong suspicion about this". Or even "Yes, we can prove what Israel did, it's just that we decided against having an international incident over it". I don't believe this was a "slow news day" (these papers are released in blocks to try and make sure the trivial stories are not picked up).

We have corroborative evidence from the period (Pro-Israel reports denounce British government for being mysteriously un-gracious towards Israel - I know I provided the standard excuse for this, but it expired in one week. Uganda was a relatively recent ex-colony and Britain considered carefully it's collaboration with the hi-jackers, rating it very serious - so we have no reason to think it's treatment of Israel received perfunctory attention and was somehow over-sighted. Palestinian society is/was? riven with collaborators).

When (some) RS's scream "No massacre" about Battle of Jenin, we accept what they say (against the sense of what we know and the cover-up behaviour very clearly on view, and despite allegations of war-crimes in the same articles). When two top RS's say "Suspicion" about this case, I think we should follow their lead.

(There are two problems going on with this RFC, we have an odd vandal who has been targeting this page for days and has now done the same to the RfC, and I cannot get it to show in the correct place, this partly explains why I'm putting this part of the discussion on your TalkPage). PalestineRemembered 07:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed many of the sources that covered this story (and I was the one who originally added the Times ref). Not one of them say that the theory was actually discussed further by the Brits beyond Colvin's writings (a longer excerpt of which is given in The Scotsman[20]. The original is at [21] if you want to pay £3.50 for the privilege.) Indeed, despite the sensational title used by the Times, it explicitly says later in the article that "There is no indication that the theory was taken further". So all we are left with is an entry in Colvin's writings detailing the claims made to him on the telephone, with no indication that this was taken any further. nadav (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am confused about why the RfC isn't appearing. I recommend we directly insert it into the central RfC list manually (unless this would somehow obstruct the bot's function?) I didn't notice the problem with the talkpage, but you've made me very curious so I'll check. As for the Battle of Jenin comparison, I haven't been following that article (I've had less time for Wikipedia in the last month) so I don't have anything to say about that. nadav (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought, and think, that the policy of the encyclopedia is to report 'major viewpoints', and this is one of them (even though we're unsure how major it is). Someone almost certainly spoke to the Times and the BBC and the Scotsman and said "You still can't publish the real story in this case, but it'll all come out one day, and in the meantime here's a portion you can report". Otherwise, we'd be implying that these 3 sources are prone to bad-mouthing Israel on flimsy evidence, and I'd be quite astonished if that was the case. (The BBC examined it's own bias, and found it was pro-Israel in April 2006. Same report in PDF here).

Alternatively, if your take on policy is correct, then I can see it having far-reaching effects on the use of Reliable Sources in all sorts of other articles. The only "oddity" of any kind here is that the original informant is anonymous - which I believe lends credibility, suggesting that Colvin thought this was an informant worth protecting. The Scotsman clip details the big possible (and likely accrued) benefits to Israel of encouraging the hijack, so neither Colvin nor the informant are fools. Arafat's PLO indeed came to dominate, and (I think) everyone now agrees did less than nothing for the Palestinians. So this claim is very different from eg a journalist saying un-named people alleged "lots of killings" (though we'd probably report the latter too). PalestineRemembered 09:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like the news sources were just looking for something interesting to report, and this extraordinary claim written in a government report is certainly interesting. I do think my interpretation of policy is correct; whenever there is a case of an unnamed source making an extraordinary claim with no indication that experts are taking it seriously, then I would be very hesitant about mentioning it in a main article. We are not a tabloid, so we are not duty-bound to report on every single conspiracy theory that pops up.

Also, I don't even see any proof that Colvin himself believed the theory. Indeed, after he explains the contact's reasoning that the operation was meant to weaken the PLO and prevent Israel from having to concede territory, Colvin writes his own opinion that "If the incident does lead to a re-appraisal of French Middle East policy (which seems unlikely), it is likely to lend weight to the arguments of those who call for an early resumption of moves leading to an overall peace settlement, including the creation of a Palestinian state on territory to be evacuated by Israel. Unless this is done, the indiscipline of the Palestinians will become more marked and incidents of this kind will become more frequent." His own analysis of the consequences of the plot thus contradicts those given by the contact: he thinks Entebbe will not have much influence on French policy, and if it does, it will only increase pressure on Israel to give up land. (By the way, notice the contact blames the Shin Beit, which is a domestic security force. We would expect Mossad to be the ones behind an international false-flag operation.) nadav (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Bringing you reluctantly round obviously wouldn't help me getting articles edited "to policy". And I'm not sure how or whether I may use analogies in "argument" in a case like this. But please spend a minute considering the following 2 examples:

1) The "Pat Tillman was murdered" allegations. News-Google "Tillman + Murder" and the first significant RS hit is the IHT 1st Aug 07 saying "decided ... not a murder even though ... report suggested ... might have been inflicted at close range.", and there are several more using the same words. I can find just one report (from the No.1 British anti-war paper!) which says "may have been murdered". Even Democracy Now (2nd Aug 07) doesn't mention it. Yet the word "murder" now appears twice in the WP article as "suspected" and "suggested". This article first references Forbes Magazine, surely far less significant than the Times and the BBC. And the article it references doesn't use the word "murder", it has only a single mention of "crime", under "investigate whether". The other direct reference used in the WP article is a bit more damning, Editor and Publisher headlines "Was Tillman Murdered?". But they're not quoting anyone, and they don't use the word murder in the article. They only once use the same "investigate crime". In Tillman's case we don't know who said "3 bullets in the forehead", their names are blacked out. We don't know whether either of the writers thinks it was murder (apparently not). Might you object that "Tillman murdered" is just too believable? I'd find that very hard to accept (US forces never previously accused of covering up a fragging, that I'm aware of). Whereas the Entebbe allegation is not particularly "surprising" - deliberate or reckless Israeli actions have killed Israelis and UN personnel and westerners, including Americans. Pro-Israeli sources tell us there are billions of people around the world only too eager to believe any old tat about Israel - so "Israel did it" is a "major viewpont" almost by definition. Remember - all I need is a good case (perhaps backed by an experienced editor like yourself) that it's a "major viewpoint", and then policy says it belongs in the article. The more I think about it, the more "Israeli involvement" looks like a "major viewpoint". (Just to make it clear, I thought Tillman had been murdered as soon as I read the first reports, but I never expected to see it in WP until it came from RS).

2) I'm struggling to fashion a similar (explosive but currently "far from proven") assertion for a story that has not yet broken and may never break. How about a report that a (frightened and) un-named structural engineer had claimed (say) that the 911 Towers were fundamentally defective, and would have fallen in any significant multi-story fire? (I'm casting around to think of an allegation as damaging to US interests as the Operation Entebbe allegations could be to Israel's interests, I'm not suggesting that the above is the case). I'm pretty sure allegations like that would belong in the encyclopedia, whether the RS or their source reporting them claimed to believe the claims or not. (In fact, something approaching this claim is in our 911 article already - "fireproofing ... was blown off by the initial impact ... stairwells were not adequately reinforced"!)

So - I've presented a way that would genuinely convince me these new "Operation Entebbe" details should be excluded/ignored from articles (despite the Times and the BBC refering to these claims). But the existing balance (in the two roughly similar cases I can think of) is very much in favour of publication. Please scratch your head for examples that would swing the other way (or suggest ways my examples don't fit!). PalestineRemembered 18:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Arguments by comparison to other articles can be treacherous—I am sure you are familiar with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nonetheless, I am still trying to understand the analogies you raise, though I am unfamiliar with the Pat Tillman events. I looked at the articles, and in both cases, the extraordinary claims are attributed to experts who are definitely in a position to know what they are talking about. In the case of 1), it cites the opinions of the army medical doctors who examined Tillman's body. Moreover, notice that only two lines are devoted to these experts' opinions, not a whole section as was the case with the Entebbe article. As for 2), I don't know about your hypothetical; I would probably be against including some random opinion. However, the parenthetical example you gave is definitely OK: it refers to an official engineering report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology! Recapitulating, arguing by example is not so useful on Wikipedia. Across the board, though, I feel that we should never give much space in main articles to fringe theories advanced by unknowns that have not been taken seriously by experts. In the particular case of Entebbe, perhaps I could be convinced that we should have one or two lines about the theory (just because it was widely reported), especially if you find a source indicating it's now widely believed in certain sectors. nadav (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Mentor has been blocked

[22] I suppose you should start a thread on WP:AN and ask for advice on how to proceed. nadav (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears I was to be "mentored" by a known mis-behavour. Your ball, I think! PalestineRemembered 17:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your personal attacks against me

I've posted an alert about your personal attacks against me on WP:WQA. Please stop. Dlabtot 18:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If you do want to make the accusation, the correct place to do it would be WP:SSP, not my talk page. Dlabtot 18:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but the very limited nature of this users contributions log (2 or 3 days of posting) strike me as highly suspicious. The edits of this user have defended the Palestinians (as I'm sometimes inclined to do) and are very welcome. But they're not welcome if this is a sock.

Look -- I made AN ERROR in one of my edits to the Battle of Jenin page. I mistakenly thought the HRW report did not say there was no evidence of a massacre. (or maybe it was the other report, don't exactly remember)... Mea culpa. I made a mistake. That doesn't mean I'm a sock puppet trying to discredit your viewpoint. My polite suggestion is to please stop making accusations of sock-puppetry on my talk page. Observe my behavior, if you are so inclined. If, after you've cooled down a bit, you still think I'm a sock puppet, register the complaint in the appropriate place: [[WP::SSP]] Dlabtot 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If this user was originally acting in good faith, and was handed out long and completely unwarranted blocks (as happened to me), and has retaliated by creating new accounts (as I refused to do), then I'd consider raising their case and getting the original block lifted. It's your call, User:Dlabtot. PalestineRemembered 18:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No offense intended, but I don't even know what this comment means. Dlabtot 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

May I ask, what did you attempt to accomplish with this edit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHamas&diff=154032196&oldid=153147498

What gain did you intend for there to be? The puppets are indefblocked, and cannot affect the article anymore? Outside of trying to impugn someone's reputation, I am unsure as to the net benefit. Correct me if I am mistaken. -- Avi 21:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So, if I may respectfully play devil's advocate, if you were to be banned for disruption and/or personal attacks (as was discussed recently), it would be proper for Isarig to post notice of the bloack/ban on article pages to help restore editor confidence in the project?

Personally, I disagree with both. Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia. "Keeping score" ala the Hatfield-McCoy feud, in my opinion, only serves to further distance the collaborative spirit, not strengthen it. -- Avi 21:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Per the topic discussed with you earlier, I have opened up a section on the admin noticeboard to facilitate implementation the suggested mentorship. -- Avi 21:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Isarig

I'd have to say that it probably isn't very proper to go around like this and put this note on article talk pages. Having said that, I probably would not have known that all that was going if I hadn't seen Avi's revert. Just went over to chime in, so it was good to see in that sense. But in my opinion, you should probably not do this, and you should revert that msg you just restored. Its just going to cause more trouble than its worth. Tarc 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered, as I mentioned above, it is edits such as that one which led to suggestions that you be mentored. -- Avi 21:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

With regard to your comments on User talk:Dlabtot: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. This notice is in reference to your accusations of sock-puppetry at that user's talk page, and serves to close the WQA that references you. Please note that an accusation of sock puppetry made directly to the editor in question is considered by many Wikipedians to be a form of personal attack. As noted in the discussion on WP:WQA, the correct venue for reporting such suspected behavior is WP:SSP. --Darkwind (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)