User talk:PalestineRemembered

Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, Oct 2007, Nov 2007, Dec 2007

Re: mentorship

I've responded at WP:AN. east.718 at 15:20, 11/5/2007

Israeli-Palestinian conflict

hey there. i appreciate the fact that seem to want to contribute to this article. however simply stating on the talk page that something is wrong doesn't really achieve much. i would encourage you to make edits to the article itself, so that real progress can be made. cheers. Suicup (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I know getting your edits reverted is a pain the the arse (happens to me too), however perhaps if you try again but a little differently. eg in the Dershowitz example, rather than just removing the reference, put a new one in its place. That will make it much less likely that your edit will be reverted. And if it is, you will be in a much better position to argue on talk page. cheers Suicup (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is that sometimes you just have to play the game. Replacing a reference, rather than just removing it is a much better way of going about it. You said on the talk page that you believe the claim to be true anyway, and you sound knowlegable enough about the topic at hand, so how hard is it to find a source to put there? That way, the article gets the citation and not an annoying <fact> tag, you don't get reverted, and all is well. Suicup (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if you are knowedgable enough to remove a reference, you are knowledgeable enough to replace it, or short of that, remove the phrase with your reasoning on the talk page. Suicup (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that the article is protected, it is difficult to take action, however, i still hold that if you are knowledgable enough to believe that Dershowitz is 'unreliable' than you should be knowledgable enough to come up with another source. After all, how did you know Dershowitz was unreliable in the first place? Perhaps you should propose removing those two sentences which use Dershowitz as a citation? Note i am not necessarily against your opinion, it just annoys me when people come and make statements on talk without any action. Right now, my perception, rightly or wrongly, is that you are doing just that. Suicup (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I will, however if in the meantime you outline your proposed edits on talk (eg state your alternative source for dershovitz) that could be productive. Suicup (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Palestine-Israel conflict

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Which other parties do you feel should be added to the page? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see this. PR^talk 18:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi; rfar case

Hi. errr, actually I wasn't accused in this RFaR case. sorry. I simply wanted to post some comments, right at the beginning. I feel bad if I have placed you in an awkward position at all, by not having clarified that before. Sorry. Anyway, thanks so much for all your supportive comments. It's really great to see your willingness to request some positive actions on this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. just want to let you know, i really aprpeciate your positive sentiments at the rfar page. as the case goes forward, we may find ourselves disagreeing on various issues; just want to let you know, please feel free to express any issues you may have, of course. I don't take your rfar statement as any broad assumption that our various different viewpoints will suddenly find some sort of instant agreement, so that's not a problem. furthermore, I do find myself disagreeing with you on some issues; however, my statement to ArbCom though was sincere. Even when i disagree with you, i noticed that often our disagreements occur only on the article talk pages, not in any form of tactics. So there is a difference between an opinionated, outspoken form of editing like yours, and one which is generally disruptive. i wanted to make sure that that difference was properly recognized. However, i don;t assume that we won't occasionally have disagreements in the future, over various issues. so i wanted to state al this now,. thanks for your helpful input. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered

Hello Tariqabjotu - you seem to be under the impression that there are a mass of really problematical editors contributing to the ANI, and that I must be one of them. I can assure you I'm not. I've been targetted for silencing because my information is (generally) good and well sourced. All my edits, from very shortly after my arrival, have been examined very, very closely and, apart from some possible conduct issues (incivility? soap-boxing?) have a nearly clean bill of health. Edits for which I was indef-blocked (took 6 weeks to properly lift) are now in the articles where they belong. Serious, diff-laden accusations of edit or revert-warring have turned out to be totally unfounded, since other editors, once they're aware of what I've found, have insisted the information be included. Allegations of original research or poor sourcing have proved completely unfounded - the three examples last bandied around were from my first arrival (Sept 06), and still look like excellent material that should be in the articles (though they're not, they're eminently credible and non-surprising, but from non-RS sources).

Whether I'm actually a very productive editor is hard to say - I'm quite slow. But that's because I check everything very, very carefully (I have to). I promise you, the articles I've edited are (overwhelmingly) better for my attention. PR^talk 16:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The ends don't justify the means. If the means are seriously problematic, the last sentence in your comment above is not correct. -- tariqabjotu 20:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere I've seen "Product is more important than process", I trust you agree. PR^talk 09:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

A case has opened in the WP:Mediation Cabal and a user has listed you as an involved party, related to edits/comments at Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The case is located at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-09 Israeli-Palestinian conflict‎, please feel free to comment on the article talk page. Thank you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. I felt like it was time to open a mediation case, since in spite of all the contention, dissent and new proceedings curently going on, as well as edit-protections on several entries, there are actually very few active mediation efforts for any articles right now. so this is a step in hopefully a right direction. by the way, did you know that a single MedCab case can cover a few articles at once? so this seems like possibly an appropriate way to go. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Weizmann

Not back. Only updating my file, and occasionally checking around. But if you wish you know where the Weizmann quote comes from in that diff, it's Lenni Brenner Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, Croom Helm, London 1983 p.37. The book is on the net in a free downloadable version. Best wishes Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem

This wasn't very nice.[1] Durova^Charge! 03:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) Please PR, try to be WP:CIVIL. An open ArbCom case is just about the worst place for you to vent like this. You really need to be on your best behavior. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)