User talk:Dajudem: Difference between revisions

Hi Dajudem, welcome and thanks for your kind words. The best place to start is at the article's talk page: bring your encyclopedic arguments there. If those args are of high quality, they may even make it into the article later. More personal messages may go to the editor's talk page (like this one). If that doesn't seem to work, you may want to follow WP:DR processes such as WP:RFC or WP:ArbCom, etc. Earlier, I kept my own policy of not engaging into RV wars but found that this does not always work well: while most people are reasonable and do listen to sensible arguments, some just won't listen. In any case, it is imperative to act within WP:RULES, assume good faith and WP:NPA. Best regards and happy editing! ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 01:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Jews

Hi - I noticed you reverted yourself in regards to some Jews being considered Palestinians. I was going to fix a comma issue but wanted to make sure you did so intentionally and not by accident. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

=how to put up a disputed label

Welcome to WikiProject France

Welcome Dajudem, to WikiProject France! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on France-related topics, please list them at our announcement page and tag their talk page with our project template, {{WikiProject France}}.

STTW (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

Hello, I noticed that 2 years ago you added this link [1] to Philip Mendes which is clear, neutral and of good quality on the topic.
If this topic interests you, you are welcome to contribute to this article which becomes more and more pov-ed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.197.147 (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gelber

Hi, you can find Appendixes II and III here. At the end of the list of documents. This more pleasant to read than through google books. Ceedjee (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I think you misunderstand something

You don't like Morris but you like Gelber ?

Do you know they are very good friends ?

Ceedjee (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Please review this, and weigh in here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby_campaign#New_evidence_surfaces Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty obvious to me they caught you.Your best course of action now is to be contrite, apologize, learn WP ethos and spirit, and accept a quite generous topical ban. Then contribute to other articles unrelated to your pro-Israel agenda.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol 'caught me' at what? I don't have an "agenda," unlike you, whose agenda seem to want to get those who are pro-Israel off the topic, imho. People who have opinions do not necessarily have an agenda, only to have their side fairly heard, instead of banned by association. Collective punishment, McCarthyism, Big Brother.... it's all there. The wiki spirit? You're a fine one to talk! Why don't you find a distortion or NPOV that I've put up and deal with that, instead of witch-hunting the enemy! Juanita (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I took a quick look and found almost all of your edits to be clearly POV. :) And, your "associations" and membership of a group with a very clearly stated goal provides a pretty good definition of what an "agenda" looks like. It's just happens to be one that is incompatible with WP norms.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A small sampling if your edits confirms your POV disposition. In fact your account looks like a single purpose only account along these pov lines: [2] I found this a little disturbing, as it shows an artificial division along ethnic/religions lines, applied to WP editors!: "I find it amazing that non-Jews want to define Jews. Seems like Arab Palestinian sympathizers want to define Mizrahi Jew for the Jews. Isn't that weird? Are Jews over in the Egyptian section telling them what their history is about? And who they are?"'' Here are some other edits, taken pretty much at random that clearly shows POV editing: [3] [4] As far as I can see all edits you have made serve to advance a single POV. This doesn't make you unique, however, the connection of your account to the off wiki organizing agenda does puts it in a completely different context, supporting your role in such an enterprise. Why not improve articles on other subjects? Just the fact that there is evidence connecting you to this should make you want to voluntarily avoid impropriety giving yourself the topic ban. This will allow you to regain the trust of the community. Giovanni33 (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict mainly. I read a lot of books and histories about it. I am interested in history and the middle east conflict and politics. I have a POV of course, but not to distort or falsify anything intentionally. Good luck finding editors about the issue that don't have an opinion. Also I do not buy your contention about the user group, ie that it was intended to undermine wiki. That was a spin that was put on it. I did not read every email but I wanted to contribute if there was something that was unfairly or wrongfully represented in wiki I would be able to help correct it. It is a shame to paint everyone with the same brush. None in the group is responsible for what others have think or have written but the original intent was a simple and honest one that has been given a nasty spin. Juanita (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC) I[reply]

I'd hate to imply it's a foregone conclusion

But in light of the crap that jew hating website has stirred up, are there any minor articles you think need an eye kept on them? My email feature has been enabled. John Nevard (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No comprende, por favor. which jew-hating website are you talking of? What exactly is a foregone conclusion? confused Juanita (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess it should be obvious now. Pathetic. It always bothers me that the burden of protecting the articles on Judaism and Israel from the anti-semites falls on so few shoulders. My consolations. John Nevard (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going to answer

Are you going to answer any of my points on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby_campaign or have decided that your only option is to claim your being discriminated against. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about you, buddy, but I have a life and do things besides sit in front of the computer breathlessly waiting to answer your charges. Your 'points' have now been answered, but your grammar still leaves a lot to be desired. Juanita (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of grammar, you write: "dumped the Allon quote. It is supposedly "aleaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, pub in the New York Times, 23 October 1979" Unless verified, it is more slander than anything eles)" (SIC)[5] There seems to be some similarity with errors I've noticed, although I don't necessarily make anything out of it, without looking at a larger sample of your writing.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah so you are beginning to look for some facts instead of indicting me for my group membership. That's a start anyway. Typos are not the same thing as errors in grammar such as confusing 'your' and 'you're'. What is interesting to me is that you are picking up on what you consider an error made in 2005, but want to ban me for membership in a group started in 2008, lol. Let's face it. It has only to do with the fact that my bias is not your bias, doesn't it? You are one of those who would like to ban anyone who might believe that Israel is a good country doing the best it can in a bad neighborhood? Or are you one of those rare editors with absolutely no bias at all? lol Juanita (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. Attacking everyone like this does not help you. I started with your most oldest edits. That is why I found that one. I did not look at more than a few, starting from the oldest. Naturally, I don't think you joined this group by happenstance. It flows from your goals on WP, as can be seen from your very first edits up to today. You don't edit that much anyway, so its not a big deal for me. I just tried to help you come to terms with the issues and advise you as to what would be the best course of action in your own interests, if you wanted to become a trusted participant and put these issues behind you. Unfortunately, your responses have not been conducive....Giovanni33 (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith? I am not attacking everyone. I am only attacking those who are attacking me. I will tell you again and again. I don't have 'goals' on wiki other than to have a fair and accurate representation of facts on an issue on which I am fairly knowledgeable. I have nothing to apologize for.

I found this on your talk page:

By the logic used to support this block, all I have to do is create an account, follow you around, adopt your vernacular, and support your POV, then someone can claim "socketpuppets!" It is too easy, hence do not unilaterally block on such flimsy grounds. An admin can, but is that justice? That there are other users who simply share a similar POV is no crime. To say I am connected to them, or they are one in the same, is, but then there should be solid evidence, not negative, bad-faith speculations, prompted by people who edit war with me over content disputes. (Giovanni33 (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2008 )(UTC)

 Sounds a bit like the way they railroaded Zeg, and how it is planned for me. See my new notes on CAMERA the other pageWhy is this stupid thing in a code box??  Juanita (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. The crucial difference is that in the case of Zeq, there was solid evidence. It was not mere speculation, and coincidence. Also, there is evidence of your membership to this wiki-lobby effort. In fact, I do not believe you even deny being a part of this volunteer group? Do you understand that this group's goals are antithetical to how Wikipedia is supposed to function? There seems to be a failure on your part to grasp this quite essential point.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my notes on CAMERA? the other page Bottom of the page. Not antithetical. Signing off now Juanita (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine

Per WP:ARBPIA you are banned for a year from all articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The length of this may be reduced if you show conclusively that you really understand the principle that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Please note that this topic-ban will be enforced by blocks if necessary. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dajudem

I don't see any solution for you except asking for an ArbCom with all involved editors but you should prepare your argumentation because what you are accused of with the others is not anecdotical.

From my pov, the only argument in your favor is that you didn't disrupt wikipedia (even if in the email what is written is a preparation for that...)

Sorry for the situation and good luck... Ceedjee (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - arbitration on Israeli Wiki Lobbying

I have filed an arbitration request in regards to the Israeli Wiki Lobbying and attacks uncovered: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Israeli Wiki Lobbying. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 122: / Line 122: @@
 :From my pov, the only argument in your favor is that you didn't disrupt wikipedia (even if in the email what is written is a preparation for that...)
 :Sorry for the situation and good luck... [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 14:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
+== FYI - arbitration on Israeli Wiki Lobbying ==
+I have filed an arbitration request in regards to the Israeli Wiki Lobbying and attacks uncovered: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Israeli Wiki Lobbying]]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">[[User:Lawrence Cohen|Lawrence Cohen]] § [[User talk:Lawrence Cohen|t]]/[[:Special:Contributions/Lawrence_Cohen|e]]</font></span> 16:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)