User talk:Jaakobou

edit count | edit summary usage

Wednesday

15

May

15:19 UTC

• notes

stuff i'm reading

• Wilayah
• Sanjak
• Medina
• Caliphate
• Iudaea Province - Judean Mountains
• Damour massacre
• Muhammad Ali Pasha
• Greater Syria
• Hamlet
• Merneptah Stele
• Reporters Without Borders
• Hama massacre
• List of ethnic slurs
• Hurva Synagogue
• Arab Revolt
  • Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca - Ali bin Hussein
  • House of Saud
• Syrian Jews
• Revolt in the Vendée
• Cairo Geniza
• United Monarchy
• Unitarian Universalism
• Karantina massacre
• Damascus Protocol
• Bilad al-Sham

Eleland

I am sorry if I have placed this note in the wrong spot. I m very inexperienced with Wikipedia. I was enthralled by Wikipedia. Initially. That is until I met Eleland. I noticed that you had some interesting discussions with Eleland. Eleland engineered a small article which I contributed some information to be deleted. He organised a "kangaroo court" made duplicitous unfounded claims and then set up a false consensus.

The Article was on Ed O'Loughlin Fairfax publishing MidEast correspondent. The said individual has a unfortunate habit of mixing reporting and commentary. He was amongst the candidates for this year's HR.com dishonest reporter award - despite being in the Australia only catchment area - so you can imagine the quality of his journalism.

Anyway Eleland did a great job of protecting him and got the article deleted.

So I studied Eleland a little.

I've looked at over 100 of his posts on the Arab Israel conflict. More than 95 were directly anti-Israel. His modus has been generally to unfairly rubbish the references of the pro-Israel side. In this way he has undermined many many articles.

Personally I don't care what his opinion is, but when he uses his editorial power and influence at Wikipedia to falsely invalidate, delete, manipulate etc. I think there is a problem.

Wikipedia is, I am afraid, beginning to read like Eleland wrote the script.

Who is Eleland? What power does he actually have?

Can anything be done?

Adon Emmet

If you post a reply here I will contact here or even by e-mail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.88.235 (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've had my share of clashes with Eleland but it seems that we've managed to de-escalate the situation before it got too heated. I suggest you create a username and then i'd be happy in guiding you to a better understand the policies and guidlines. cheers. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It is Adon Emet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.88.235 (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2008 (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.^[1] 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)

I hope that Joebloetheschmo doesn't pick up the disruptive practice of using other people's TalkPages for rambling, confused and badly formatted edits about things that were not worth commenting on in the first place. PalestineRemembered 15:21, 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)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:City of Jenin and refugee camp.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:City of Jenin and refugee camp.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin

I have corrected my change in the intro. However, I will not change your self revert as I believe the original text is preferable. The first section of the sentence, i.e. "Palestinian initial estimates were of a delibarate campaign to level Jenin" makes no sense. Number 57 13:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

it makes perfect sense if you scroll down 3-4 rows and read the April 6 Nabil Shaath statements and the April 6 and April 7 statements on the Camera reference. seeing that your edit cut off my 3rd edit (incremented) for the day, i request you reconsider fixing it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Palestinian initial estimates" must be about numbers of something, estimates cannot be used for anything else. It could be rephrased "Palestinians intially claimed that it was a deliberate campaign to level Jenin and estimated that X people had been killed", but as it is originally does not make sense in English. Number 57 14:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm only asking you correct it, never told you how to go about it.

p.s. 'estimates' is not just about numbers. see: [2]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, having read the section, I don't see how the bit about it being a campaign to level Jenin is relevant in a "body count" section; therefore I have left that bit out, but otherwise phrased it how you did before reverting. Number 57 16:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

PR's Mentor

Just got indefinitely banned for being a sockpuppet. Interesting, eh? Kyaa the Catlord 07:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

very interesting indeed. is this under serious investigation somewhere? (links?) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

so

You are Israeli...Jewish or Arab? AniChai 01:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

i don't make it a habit to give personal information on open web, however, you can email me. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

sigh

i don't mean to be disrespectful, but could you please take some type of steps so that this issue which you archived would be properly resolved and not repeated?
p.s. i'm watching your page so you can reply here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jaakobou. I think you are unaware of this block and the discussion which was going on at this board. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

no offense, but a 15 minute block and a note that he should select a mentor is really not what i had hoped for after all the breaches he's done since he was assigned the sock mentor. to be frank i'm at the point of exhausted patience and think that, if not some type of deterrent block, at the very least he should be given a proper warning by a user that is not me... so he will not keep stretching the boundaries of good taste checking how far he can go. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The situation is heated Jaakobou and everyone got its share in all this. We don't really punish Jaakobou. Whenever people can find a better solution the better. Let's suppose i'd have blocked him for 48h but what i did is much more better. He'd really think about it in a different way. I remember your case when you apologized and went on. This is how it works and the most important thing here is not the period but if one is going to do it again and again. If you think otherwise, you can undo my archiving and wait for other admins but the last comment was at 18h. So why no one dared to intervene. Maybe because they thought there was no need to escalate problems when we can deal w/ them otherwise. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

please read my comment again and notice i did not request a ban but rather something else (far more effective than a mere 15 min(?) block). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I read it Jaakobou. What i was saying is that we were in the middle of a discussion about mentorship for users. So think about this. Blocking him or looking for a mentor for him? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment - it's most certainly not PR's fault that the assigned mentor was a hoax, however, during this time he has not taken a step back but rather continued pushing the envelope. i'm asking that at the very least he'd be given a proper warning by a user that is not me. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Jaakobou, i see you insisting now instead of requesting. Have you got my last message? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

i received it now, and i note you that while you are looking for a second mentor, i'm a free target to insults, false accusations and chasing around with irrelevant accusative questions on multiple subsections. i hope you understand that also when you shrug off my request that at the very least a warning be issued. if you wish to read some personal vendetta into this, then i have nothing to do but accept the fact that when these breaches reoccur, he could claim it was the first time someone else noted this issue to him. :/ Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh no we will not take ages to find a mentor. In fact we already found nadav and likely that me and Avi would do it. But let's wait for a Avi to see if he'd help. Now, this is what we can do and hope you also show some helping efforts by avoid escalation. Think about the outcome and not about the instant. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

very well, i hope things will work out for the best so i can look back at this moment and chuckle at myself for this request. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin

Hi. i need to ask you what you were referring to with your last comment. Could you please respond to the multiple quotes which Palestine Remembered posted? He seems to be missing the basic point that every single one of those quotes uphold the ISraeli point of view. it's obvious from the quotes themselves, yet he seems to miss that. I'm getting nowehere. Could you help? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 19:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Jenin dispute tag

Please stop removing {{TotallyDispted}} tags from Battle of Jenin. These issues have been discussed extensively and nothing approaching a resolution has been reached. There is no requirement for a certain number of postings per day in order to indicate a dispute. You've been very prolific on talk and you've managed to address, partially, a tiny fraction of the issues (which IIRC are not the same issues that led to the tag adding anyway). You've also managed to wear down and drive away other contributors with your sheer intransigence. Good for you. Don't confuse exasperation with consensus. Eleland 12:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

start the desired subsections on talk and we'll see if i'm convinced that these problems require such an intrusive tag... obviously, there are always points for conflict, but this article most certainly has it's body well established as factual (is there anything that's unreferenced?) and that tag is inappropriate. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have posted an extensive summary of the problems with one paragraph, to indicate how severe the problems are. Just showing how badly distorted and counterfactual this paragraph is took a very long talk page post. Please don't focus laser-like on one or two ancillary issues, post until we're sick of arguing with you, and then claim that the issues are resolved. This is an example of the problems which permeate the entire article. Eleland 13:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

sometimes focus is needed to resolve things. btw, i find your "call" about sickness amusing considering some of the things i've had to put up with on said article.^[3] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing the "Totally Disputed" tag is a breath-taking mis-reading of the current state of consensus regarding this article - because there is none atall, every facet of it is highly disputed.

And you must know that that is the case, because you asked whether the kind of "context" currently appearing in the lead belongs there. You were given the unambiguous response "No it does not". So what's it doing still in there? Even the rabid Pro-Israel sources quoted say things like "reports that a massacre did not occur have received scant attention in the Western news media" - so why is the whole article written around the proposition that "there was no massacre"? It would be massively undue weight even if this were the "Majority View" - and it's not! PalestineRemembered 20:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

i'm well aware of the points of view in this topic, but i really don't understand why this is being written on my page rather than the article's talk page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because the TalkPage of Battle of Jenin makes it clear that the entire article is disputed in almost every possible way - I'm personally convinced it's the worst article I've ever come across at WP. There are huge POV problems (starting with the lead and the title), and all the best information has been edit-warred out. PalestineRemembered 20:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

i think you've been noted on what's pretty clear. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Apology

Copied from my talk re [4]:
I'm genuinely sorry that this has become so heated; and I believe I have never quite apologized for implying you were an "incompetent hasbara-pusher" whose "broken English and manifest ignorance of policy make you look silly". In retrospect, this kind of behavior is a prime reason for the "circular discussion" which I now decry. I'm sorry. It was stupid, uncalled for, and violated WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Eleland 13:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jaakabou

I answered your questions on my talk page. All best,--G-Dett 01:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey look at the minarets on that editor!

		The WikiProject:Islam Barnstar
		For long-suffering on Battle of Jenin. Isn't this the coolest barnstar. Hahahah. :P Kyaa the Catlord 15:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Seen on G-Dett's page

Hi Jaakabou, thank you for posting this apology, but please understand that I have no hard feelings about the sockpuppet thing. I thought it was funny. It is my personality to make the most of such things.

Regarding the revert, my edit summary referred to the material I was reverting, not to its author. That material was indeed verbose, ungrammatical, superfluous, and well-poisoning; that was exactly the problem with it and exactly why I was reverting it. All of those problems were, moreover, related: the material had become verbose and superfluous in the process of poisoning the well, trying to predispose the reader to be receptive to the ADL's commentary, reminding him that the anti-defamation league opposes defamation (a bit like reminding readers that Mothers Against Drunk Driving consists of mothers who oppose drunk driving), indeed reminding him of this multiple times ("defamation of the Jewish people," "demonization of Israel," etc.); and it was ungrammatical because its verbosity had created a run-on sentence with its clauses all out of joint. You obviously have an excellent command of English. If I thought you were struggling with the language (as opposed to struggling with NPOV), I'd never have posted an edit summary like that.

Now, to your question about why I don't think your sunny description of the ADL as "an organization intended on advocating against the defamation of the Jewish people" belongs here. First of all, because it's well-poisoning (one can poison the well with positive information as well as negative). But "surely," you argue, "it clarifies [my] earlier concerns about partisan commentary?" Well, no, it doesn't. The ADL isn't regarded as partisan because it opposes the defamation of the Jewish people. It is regarded as partisan because it aligns itself – with absolute, unwavering and unreflective consistency – with whoever is currently in power in Israel, with whatever Israeli policies currently are, and with powerful domestic Israel lobbies such as AIPAC. And, finally, because it regularly and indiscriminately denounces anyone critical of Israel, with a vehemence (and not-infrequent dishonesty) that verges on outright character assassination. The ADL is a political organization; do you not realize that? Why do you think they deny the Armenian genocide? Because of Israel's strategic ties with Turkey. There are many, many intelligent people on all sides of the political spectrum who are passionately opposed to defamation of the Jewish people, who are just as passionately opposed to the poltical and lobbying machine that is the current incarnation of the ADL. I stress "current"; the ADL has done extremely valuable work in the past, and was not always so corrupt and cynical an organization.

Finally, it is gross exaggeration to describe an ADL press release as a "case study." It's bad enough that we're including a statement produced by ADL staffers surfing the internet in a section on "post-fighting investigations" produced by human-rights experts on the ground at the site of the battle; let's not compound this poor judgment by engaging in puffery.

I hope this answers your questions; if not, do post again.--G-Dett 01:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) i find your commentary in the 1st paragraph increasingly uncivil. i'm starting to wonder to the type of explanation that you require in order to stop as this is not the first time i've given you a notice.^[5]

(2) you'll pardon me if i disagree with your presentation on paragraph 2 and note that the ADL describes their document as a case study and that is how i registered this: "commented in a report which presents their case study"^[6]. (this objection, which should be on talk, could be touched up)

(3) i haven't seen you object to "puffery" when the sources had the opposite perspective and i remind you that you ignored both points in this notice. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou - it's easy to forget that we participate here in the company of some really serious academics, Ph.Ds and the like, the sort of people who deal with references and research on a daily basis. Their experience is immensely valuable and their presence is what makes this whole project worthwhile to readers (and contributors). We may disagree with these people, but we should never treat their considered words with such disrespect. PalestineRemembered 18:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes... We should treat G-Dett like the saint she is. Yeah, I'll do that after she finishes raising Israeli babies from the dead. Kyaa the Catlord 21:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

helpme

{{helpme}}

I believe User:Avi has just recently adopted User:PalestineRemembered as a mentor (or as a personal advocate) as a result of a WP:CSN case that suggested PR would be completely banned from the community (Avi suggested mentorship instead of a ban). I'm not sure on how to regard his dismissal of a 3RR^[7] (WP:COI?) (and previous issues also) and i do wish to take this issue for a serious/further review.. some help would be appreciated. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I respect the concern about a conflict of interest, though I think it is the appearance of one instead of any actual conflict. I don't see a technical violation of 3RR either. PR has a limited block history related to 3RR violations, so I would not block on the basis of the "electric fence" introduction to the rule for this tagging dispute. A thread about mediation just started on the article's talk page. I suggest everyone involved pursue that.--Chaser - T 21:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

thank you for your input. i've decided you are correct and, considering many editors were involved in minor reverts and edits, that it's reasonable to let this 3rr issue go despite his "activities" on the talk page. as for the mediation which you mentioned, in all honesty, it's starting to look like the usual and i don't hold high hopes on it to solve even one issue from the article... albeit you are welcome to give it a serious look. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Response

Jaakobou, as a sysop, I have to ensure that I treat all members of wikipedia equitably. This means both people whose ideologies are closer to mine, and especially those whose ideologies are different. I have no issues with you taking PR to dispute resolution, or reopening the WP:CSN notice. But blocking for an incorrect reason would make me no better than the people whose flaunting of wikipedia policy I am duty bound to prevent as a sysop. -- Avi 19:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

the reason should be edit warring/4 edits within' 24hrs, something he vehemently denies of ever been doing. i'm not accusing you of anything, only that perhaps in your attempt to remain neutral, you've acted on a case that you should have been avoiding. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Note

It's simple. I've seen the two of you chase each other around, in a matter of speaking, on WP:AN3, WP:ANI, WP:CSN, his talk page, your talk page, my talk page, and many article talk pages. It is obvious that the two of you have issues deeper than a content dispute. This needs to be handled by dispute resolution, otherwise, one, or both, of y'all are undoubtedly going to cross a line which will have consequences. There is no threat, only the reasoned expectations of someone who is, or has been, a parent, a teacher, a mentor, a counselor, a sysop, and an internet community administrator. Take what you want from it. -- Avi 14:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

i sent you a note. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Responded. -- Avi 00:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Your email

You sent me an email saying "i've been referred to you as a possible person who might be able to help". I'm sorry, but I don't respond via email (or IRC chat) to an email without details. If you want to continue the conversation, please send me another email to let me know (a) who referred you to me and (b) what sort of help you think I might need.

Thanks.

-- John —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Broughton (talk • contribs) 21:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

i sent you a second note. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. I misunderstood your initial email. To respond to your second email: Unfortunately, I have very significant real life commitments for the next couple of months, and here at Wikipedia I'm concentrating primarily on improving the editor's index I've created. So I'm afraid I can't be of any help. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning

Mostly separate edits, and hopefully not quite near 3RR yet. Though I do sometimes get carried away. -- 146.115.58.152 00:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

POV wording

Jaakobou, please try to keep your POV out of articles. The wording of your latest edit to Pallywood was frankly ridiculous - I mean, "dramatic pseudo-events"? That kind of wording simply isn't compatible with our neutral point of view policy. -- ChrisO 01:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I think he invented a very cool new word. I think I'll use that in my company documents. "Today's morning conference call was a pseudo-event, half the staff was actually awake.". :P Kyaa the Catlord 01:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for all the many comments you make on my talk page regarding tone, phraseology, and so on. I wonder though perhaps if you aren't obsessing a little about this. Discussion on I-P pages is frequently rough-and-tumble. I think if you focus on bringing your namespace edits into compliance with policy, especially WP:NPOV, the talk-page turbulence troubling you will tend to subside.--G-Dett 01:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You must not have a cat

I do, plus six three and a half week old kittens. A cat will toy with a mouse for a long time before going in for the kill, and in a few weeks momma cat will begin bringing mice or birds (a pigeon once a few litters back; you ever wake up to an apartment covered with feathers??) home for the kittens to learn to hunt with. It's something else to see these innocent little creatures gobble up some hapless mouse a third their size. But I digress. I know G-Dett well, and I know G-Dett shoots from the hip on talk pages and I admire that. Sometimes, for the sake of brevity, it's better to be quicker on the draw than to have the most perfect aim. Not everyone appreciates the difference between being curt and being rude, and that's all I meant by the mouse allusion. I really don't want a long stageplay about hurt feelings, anymore than I want to wake up to my cat flinging a half dead mouse in my face at 3 AM. I just want to have a rough idea of the history and the players, without having to dig through it all myself. -- 146.115.58.152 01:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Attempts to manage discussion at Talk:Battle of Jenin

Jaakobou, this edit is the latest in a long list of attempts you have made to restructure the discussion at Talk:Battle of Jenin. I already objected on that page to your use of "For, Against, Offtopic" headers and your fairly aggressive moving of comments to conform to this scheme. ([8] [9] [10] among many others) I also objected to your presentation of misleading headers such as ===Validation notes - result:source validated=== which seemed calculated to give an appearance of an official credibility which wasn't there. You also closed a discussion which was by no means over (last post made 4 hours before you closed it!), in what seemed suspiciously like an attempt to manipulate discussion.

It is clear that many of your refactoring and reorganizing efforts are not intended to influence discussion through underhanded means, however, I do not believe that it is appropriate for an editor involved in a heated dispute to refactor others' comments. WP:REFACTOR states clearly: "Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted."

I have no wish to see more fallout from the talk page winding up on [{WP:ANI]], WP:WQA, or anywhere else; but if you refactor any more discussions I will escalate the issue.

Eleland 18:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleland, here is the list of links you provided as example and my reply:

1. (1) - this talk has nothing to do with you, it is a talk related comment for User talk:PalestineRemembered and i don't see the reason for you to re-factor it here.
2. (2) - is a link to a related previous conversation, User:G-Dett raised concerns regarding it and i've decided, after some thought, to remove it due to the emotions is seemed to evoke - once again, this has very little to do with you.
3. (3) - i was moving your disruptive talk from the pallywood talk, instead of allowing for the talk to advance, you've chosen to attack me with polemics on a subsection dedicated for stating a general position. i believe that the i clearly noted that "for generic commentary/questions leave your comment on the proper subsection" with a link included.
4. (4) - User:PalestineRemembered chose to discuss a different subsection on an unrelated talk, and he did this with soapbox chasing me around on numerous sections "demanding" i explain after i've already did and "noting me" of how he perceives policy and my alleged breaches of it, according to him.
5. (5) i find this implication the umpteenth time you've breached WP:AGF after i've already replied you that i validated the information by "phone call."^{19:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)}
6. [11] - i'm afraid i havn't a clue to what you're talking, since all i can see is talk "from [the] first quarter of 2007".
7. regarding your note that "if you refactor any more discussions I will escalate the issue." [sic], i'd be very much grateful if you take the time to involve sysops or establiched admins to review everyone's behavior on this article.

i hope that covers this, if you don't mind my saying, erroneous warning and that you avoid further disruption on said article to my sincere attempts at leading the discussion away from polemics and personal insults.^[12] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The last diff was supposed to be this one, that was a copy-paste error on my part. I will not address your justifications; rather I will re-iterate that WP:REFACTOR applies here, and note also that WP:Etiquette says "editing the signed words of another editor on a talk page or other discussion page is generally not acceptable, as it can alter the intent or message of the original comment and misrepresent the original editor's thoughts. Try to avoid editing another editor's comments unless absolutely necessary." Eleland 00:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

it's funny you, of all people, should mention this issue considering you deleted a verification notice i've made to a source you claimed was impossible to verify.^[13] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Eleland - you need to know that Jaakobou has a long history of disruptive behaviour on TalkPages. Here are two admins claiming he's harrassed them at this AN/I and been blocked for it. See also [14] and [15], from the same day. These further two exchanges are action against editors who (I'm pretty sure) are careful and productive - yet it includes posting their personal details into public view. PalestineRemembered 08:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Enough time wasted, put your evidence to the mediation

as the person who raised concerns regarding "systematically mis-stated" death tolls and stated the issue of:

UN report is quoted as saying "52 dead in total" when it actually says "at least 52"^[16]

you're expected to leave a serious comment on this subsection or delete the issue from your list of concern. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not wasting still more time on that TalkPage when several matters have been decided there and the changes to comply with decisions have not been made, in fact they've continued to be edit-warred out of the article (eg the atrocious use of CAMERA references, the decision on the lead).

Furthermore there is a mediation on that Battle of Jenin article (and it was not me that asked for this mediator, despite the nasty personal allegations made, it was Steve, Sm8900). It's time you and others presented your evidence on the page set up for that purpose, and removed the material placed there to deface it. There has been serious anti-policy game playing going on at this article for months now - and further wriggling is only making it more and more obvious.

PS - I don't know what it is that Eleland says you've re-factored yet again, but I can tell you that I'm sick of that kind of disruptive behaviour and have recentlyi reported another user in ArbCom evidence for it. PalestineRemembered 18:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: notice

I'm sorry, I don't see where exacly User:Burgas00's edits and mine overlap. -- 67.98.206.2 21:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep that guy aint me... I don't quite understand what you are (not) accusing me of--Burgas00 23:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

i think you understand the situation perfectly well. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested comment on Talk:Battle of Jenin

Hi Jaakobou, thanks for your note. As I'm sure you realize, I'm trying to play somewhat of a facilitating role on Jenin. Since we haven't conversed before, I rather appreciate your asking me to comment ("state your observation") on that death toll discussion. Still, maybe you could clarify what you would like from me by way of commentary. Are you asking for my evaluation of the sources or data? Do you want my impression of the ensuing argumentation (and/or argumentativeness)? I guess I'm not quite sure why I should focus on this item -- while I'm inclined to trust your judgment that this is a key issue, it doesn't look like a current thread and I haven't yet heard folks eager to sustain a discussion on this in particular. Look, I don't really know you and I fear I may sound like I'm dismissing your request -- I'm not, I'm just asking you to think about the context of my participation and how you might yourself continue to constructively guide the Talk toward identifying and resolving disputed issues. Ok? Thanks again for be open to my observations. HG | Talk 16:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

my personal perspective is that the complaint of "systematic misrepresentation of the death toll" is frivolous. i wish to get this minor complaint issue fairly well addressed to before i archive it as history and we can move to the second issue raised by PR. considering my aim here, i would like you to either agree that it is a mistaken complaint (as i and kyaa noted here) or state concerns regarding this raised issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Inborderline

I must have typed the word "in" not realizing that my cursor was somewhere else. "Inborderline" is not a word in any language that I'm familiar with and I certainly didn't intend to edit your comments. Eleland 16:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

based on AGP, i accept your explanation. however, i don't believe the cynical phrasing was related to the location of your cursor. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jaakobou

I think discussion of the inclusion of Pallywood has tapered off while the AfD is in progress. If the article itself is deleted, the appropriateness of linking to it from Jenin is a moot point. If the article is not deleted, then I think we can expect the debate to resume; it certainly will as we move to a holistic solution to this article's POV problems.--G-Dett 17:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

i was aware that we might want it back on discussion and noted it on my archiving. i just didn't expect we want it back so soon. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion (archival) of live thread

You archived the thread "Mediation" at Talk:Battle of Jenin for reasons which are unclear to me. You also archived the "Pallywood" section although you seem to have given up on that. I have previously issued strong warnings about this kind of behavior. The thread is only a few days old, yet you have removed it without removing much older threads. Please restore the section, or I will take it to WP:ANI. Eleland 17:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

i don't mind returning it, but if you don't mind my asking, i'm interested in knowing your reasoning for this request. best i was aware, that thread was (a) filled with going nowhere arguments and stricken insults, and (b) there was a high volume of comments in the span of 3 days (5-8 of the month) but nothing afterwards (and it didn't look like there was going to be more either).

- link to pre-archived version Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel the need to explain myself further. The thread was only a few days old, yet you removed it without removing much older threads. Please restore it. Eleland 12:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

i'm afraid this really doesn't persuade me that the thread is nothing more than an intrusion to the talk page, have you looked at it lately?^[17] it matters not that there are older threads and unless you have something more substantial to add, other than "I don't feel the need to explain myself further", then i only see reasons not to return it such is it being a possible WP:POINT,^[18] and it being totally unproductive for the article. if it matters so much to you, you can start a new subsection with the same introduction, hopefully this time it won't turn into an "insult n' strike fest". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have restated my concerns at WP:ANI#Archival_of_young_thread_apparently_for_POV_reasons. Eleland 22:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I#PalestineRemembered_IV

Per WP:AN/I#PalestineRemembered_IV are you prepared to accept me as PalestineRemembered's mentor?Geni 01:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

i have one question.

what do you intend to do if you see that PR is unresponsive ?

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Bring the failure of the mentorship approach to arbcom's attention.Genisock2 01:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

P Remembered

Hi.

Just back from a few days off and saw your message. I'm afraid that when you play with fire, you end up getting smokey. Even if PR were as bad a user as you believe, your repeated postings to the noticeboards is beginning to give your own name a stain.

Don't let yourself be drawn into any taint of wikistalking. I suggest you give this user a wide berth and if you run into specific problems (ie reversions of your edits, incivility on talk pages towards you, inappropriate edit summaries aimed at you), notify their mentor (now that they have one), or an active admin skilled in mediation, rather than posting to any of the noticeboards.

I strongly recommend that you turn a blind eye to any general infelicities committed (in your eyes) by PR, unless they are utterly egregious, in which case I'd suggest (again) you consider dropping a note to PR's mentor, to me, or indeed any admin, rather than noticeboards. You'll be able to tell what I mean by "utterly egregious" - it'll be something that requires no background information, and just one diff (the one with the bad behaviour).

With best intentions... your's, --Dweller 10:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

thank you for the note, the mentor issue was the issue i had to get fixed, and it did get fixed only after the AN/I was opened. your comment is actually a tad late on the issue, but a well intended one and i couldn't agree more, i can't open any more tabs about him (not that i intend to) unless it's something truly "utterly egregious" (your explanation was good). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. And sorry, I have no access to chat. --Dweller 11:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Pallywood

Now I'm using the term :) I've answered your question on my talk page I expect given the shear volume of discussion that others will also comment. Gnangarra 15:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

replied to email -- IRC? Gnangarra 15:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Archive thread

I'm glad that you accept that a three-month-old thread which nobody but you commented in should be archived. The reason for archiving "out of order" was to preserve a roughly chronological archive structure. I might be mistaken, but a glance through the archives seemed to show that they were archived in a very haphazard order, and I did not want to contribute to this. Eleland 20:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

i understood your motives, i only notify you to please keep the archiving, in the future, in the order in which we archive unless there's a special reason (this case fits the special reasons). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for Special Barnstar

Thank you for the Special Barnstar. I will cherish it forever. :) But please praytell what was special about the link I followed? Has there really been nobody else that clicked that particular link? Sbowers3 03:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

i had insider information about this story and was waiting in anticipation for someone to write about it... you made my day. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So it wasn't something special inside Wikipedia, it was that I noticed the JPost story and brought it to the Muhammad al-Durrah‎ article. Well I'm glad I could make your day. I wish I could do that more often. ;) Sbowers3 03:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Any feedback if appropriate

Hi Jaakobou. Feel free to give me feedback or offer advice on my editing the AFA article whenever/if you feel it is appropriate. Use my talkpage, the AFA talkpage, or my email, whichever method you prefer. I'm still fairly new here and climbing the learning curve. I'm open to learn from any admin input. Regards Hal Cross 07:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

i mailed you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Jaakbou. Thanks for your message of congratulations, and I hope we can have a more productive relationship in the future. See you around, Number 57 16:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Incident of Jenin

In line with say Indian Rebellion of 1857 alturnative names should be mentioned in the opening.Geni 21:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Cartoon

Please don't make specious arguments. Kaufmann's article is presented as an example of a more general position; you know as well as I do that he's not alone in his views. CJCurrie 02:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pallywood cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Pallywood cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Picaroon (t) 01:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni

Jaakobou, you may have an obvious point that escapes me, but nothing in the Abdullah I article supports your text, which is not in very good English. I think that the problem may be that English may not be your first language. I think you are misreading what is there, and writing something that you don't mean to say. Saying that Abdullah had ambitions in Transjordan doesn't make sense. He already ruled it, what further ambitions could he have there? He had ambitions in Palestine, and he was successful in carrying them out, conquering and annexing the West Bank. The point about Palestinian - well, what you write is just bad English, and what I wrote has no different connotation or implication, it is just better English. You used "Palestinian Arab" just as I did, because without it one is forced into clumsy circumlocutions for no real reason. We are talking about the Arabs of Palestine, the only people Husayni ever led - and what other phrase was ever used for them? (Excepting the similar "Palestinian people" or "Palestinians" which I think you would like less.) (Also your phrasing could imply that Husayni led the whole Arab side, which is just not true.) Cheers,John Z 01:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

i sent you a note, hope to hear from you soon and fix the conflict. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have much to add to what I said above, (slightly amended). I don't use anything but Wiki email and discussion pages, sorry. I am going to revert because I think it is very clear - and not only to me - that you simply misunderstand the sentence. Everybody agrees about the facts. Abdullah was the King of Transjordan and wanted to rule some of Palestine and conquered the West Bank. I am sure we agree on that. That is NOT the impression given by what you wrote, which sounds more like King Abdullah of somewhere (Palestine?) wanted to conquer Transjordan! So what you are saying in the article is the opposite of what you mean, and what I think you think Ian and I incorrectly believe. No one is trying to be argumentative, but please listen to native English speakers about English usage.

(I am sorry if I gave that impression, but I am not ignorant of the history of the area, nor is Ian - you might look at my talk page or ask other people.)

Cordially, John Z 04:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

i sent you an email, we'll perhaps discuss it more when i find a little time. for now i'll allow the wiki-error to stay (and it is an error). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciat eyoru support at CSN. Regarding your recently created Template:Talk page, the proper procedure is to AfD such non-templates. Isarig 02:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

See ya

I'm tired of fighting the deletionists and crusaders. I'm leaving. Have a good one. Kyaa the Catlord 07:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Re sources

Re your request for sources, I have now added two new ones to the article. Regards, Gatoclass 19:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No problemo. I think the section is probably reasonably balanced now, although I might take another look at it in a day or two, I can't be bothered doing any more on it today. Regards, Gatoclass 19:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to protect Battle of Jenin

in your recent edit you've mass reverted all the issues that don't relate either to the POV tag or to the "also known as Jenin Massacre" issue.

(i.e. (1) "three", (2) "prompted"+"IDF" and (3) "at least")

considering our prolonging history and my belief that you are more than aware to what's going on with the page - i request you fix this issue promptly. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your changes because they're nonsense.

• "Three" is consensus (three editors in favour of editing to policy, yourself against).
• "Prompted by" is opposed by native English speakers, as has been made clear to you.
• "at least" has got to be in there, otherwise we're publishing a flat-out lie - as you well know. The perpetrators are the *only* people who claim the death toll was 52 in total (other than a few reports apparently deliberately misled by the IDF PR dept falsely telling them what the UN report was going to say). PR^talk 13:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

1. wikipedia is not a democracy or a soapbox, it matters not that three editors are in favor of the number three when the information on talk indicates it should not be used. (and these editors are clearly avoiding proper discussion)
2. your claim in regards to the prompted by is supposedly "roundly rejected on talk", according to eleland, however, no such indication has been supplied and you've seemed to have ignored the IDF issue... "i wonder why".
3. you can discuss the at least issue on talk rather than make a fairly blatant mass revert.
4. please correct the issue promptly and participate properly on the discussion.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I note your understanding of consensus, it might be interesting to compare your understanding with WP:POLICY.

I note your reluctance to edit to what the source actually says.

Everyone notes your difficulties with wording and language.

The "52 deaths" has been extensively discussed - that figure comes from the perpetrators (who lied to the world media that it was going to be the one in the UN report, when it was not). How many times do I have to quote you what is actually in the UN report, is in the Amnesty report, is in the HRW report, is in the Jenin Inquiry report and is in the RS's?

I do participate in discussion - though it's questionable why I should, when you're systematically tampering with it over our protests. PR^talk 14:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

i'm aware that you're (1) avoiding the issues, and (2) ranting on my page, linking to a failed ANI attempt against me.

please, if you have further issues, i suggest you follow them up properly rather than harass me aimlessly with them. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You went to my TalkPage with your nonsense, you mess with my Talk contributions to Battle of Jenin, but it's me harrassing you ..... hmmmm ..... weren't you blocked for harrassment of people on their TalkPages not long ago? PR^talk 14:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) i belive i've noted to you around 10 times already that this statement of yours is innacurate and false. (2) this does not in any way justify your mass revert. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Which part is false? That you harrassed two admins, were taken to AN/I and blocked for it? Two more admins took up the case, letting you off with these warnings "If Jaakobou is promising to mend his ways and only crap in the litter box in future (metaphorically speaking...) I think he should be given the chance to prove his sincerity." and "The important thing is to see a change in behaviour and it is clear now that Jaakoubou is apologizing, explaining and promising not to do so in the future".

Question for you - have you or have you not carried out extensive harrassment of people on their TalkPages since you were handed those warnings in April?

And that particular case of harrassment on TalkPages only exploded because you were simultaneously harrassing two other editors, including publishing the personal details of one of them, see here and here. PR^talk 17:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

i told you already that you are misreading into a complex issue that you were not involved in. try to assume good faith and please stop mentioning this fairly old clash that indicates nothing regarding this content dispute (and your improper mass revert). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to PR and Jaakobou

<sigh> You two really can't help yourselves, can you? Suggestion to you both. PR has agreed to being mentored and, to the best of my knowledge, has a mentor. Why not use that mentor? Jaakobou - if you have a problem with PR's edits, please in the first place discuss them with PR's mentor. If you're unsatisfied, go to a forum for mediation or to request a formal ticking off. All you'll find here is an argument. PR - if you're going to make contentious edits, especially direct reverts etc of Jaakobou's edits, please use your mentoring workshop page first.

You should both remember that none of your edits, no matter how radically they alter an article will bring back to life one victim of violence. Wikipedia's not a battleground... there's enough real life conflict out there in the bad real world. Yours hopefully... --Dweller 15:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

1929 Hebron massacre

General practice on wikipedia that the burden to find a reliable source for something falls on the person wanting to include it.Geni 00:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

you are 100% correct, i added a clear cut ref and hope the issue is now fixed and over with. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your reference appears to come from the people whom an Israeli "senior military man" accused of carrying out "a pogrom against the Arabs of Hebron, with no provocations on the Palestinian side." It beggars belief that you could remove (from the reference listing at the bottom of the page) an excellent eye-witness account of very good Jewish-Arab relations in 1929 Hebron and then, in the very next edit, put a hate-site reference into the lead. (And of course, your reference is non-English and incompatible with verifiability, a core principle of the encyclopedia). PR^talk 13:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

PS - you appear to claim that Rabbi Baruch Kaplan's words "no one in the yeshiva ever told me it was dangerous to go by myself among the Arabs. We just lived with them, and got along very well." come from a hate-site. Or at least, that's what appears in the summary? Are we speaking the same language, does the word hate-site mean the same to me as it means to you? PR^talk 22:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

1929 Hebron massacre

I was under the impression that the Hebron massacre was triggered by reports that gangs of "demonstrators", many of them carrying batons had seized the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. This had been threatened for many years, a Palestinian delegation had travelled to Mecca in 1922 warning of the danger, and in 1928 the British had been asked to defend the Muslim ownership of the wall and the passageway. In the event, the British Commissioner and many of his forces left Palestine in August 1929, allowing the takeover to take place.

Do you have information that contradicts this account? PR^talk 19:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

i'm well aware of the arab narrative and rumors. do you have any proper citations that validate this account? (p.s. please do this on the article's talk page)Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm posting here rather than at the Talk because it's bulky, and in the poisoned atmosphere I'd only be accused of copyvio and another attempt made to block me. Please delete the following as soon as you've seen it. I know you hate long postings so I've tried to keep it short for you. Morris, Righteous Victims, p.112.

... The contention that the Jews were bent on taking over ... had long been a theme in Arab propaganda. For example, the Palestinian delegation to Mecca during the hajj, or pilgrimage, of 1922 had declared: "the Holy Places are in great danger on account of the horrible Zionist aggressions"

On September 23-24, 1928 ... the SMC complained that Jews had set up a screen to separate men and women at the Wailing Wall (or Western Wall) in Jerusalem's Old City.

The screen violated the status quo principle ... Failing to persuade the Jews to take it down, the police forcibly removed it.

In 1928 the Muslims sought British confirmation of their traditional rights at the Wall, after all, they owned the Wall and the adjacent passage where the Jews worshipped.226 ... Right-wing Zionists began to demand Jewish control of the Wall

On August 14, 1929, some 6,000 Jews marched in Tel Aviv, chanting, "The Wall is ours"; that evening, three thousand gathered at the Wall for prayer. The following day, hundreds of Jews-some of them extremist members of Betar, carrying batons-demonstrated on the site.

If the aim of the rioters' leaders had been to shake Britain's commitment to the Balfour Declaration, they succeeded, at least in the short term. Sir John Chancellor on September I ... The Balfour Declaration, he wrote, had been "a colossal blunder."253

Shaw Commission ... recommended that "excessive" Jewish immigration be halted; that eviction of Arab peasants be stopped; and that the government look into the issues of land sales to Jews immigration, and the Western Wall. The panel said the evictions were giving rise to "a landless and discontented class" of evictees.257

Whitehall sent Sir John Hope-Simpson, a retired colonial official, to look into immigration, Jewish settlement, and land sales. "... The helplessness of the fellah appeals to the British official. The offensive assertion of the Jewish immigrant is, on the other hand, repellent:"260

On October 21, 1930, the British government issued the Passfield White Paper, seriously reducing its commitment to the Balfour Declaration. ... By early 1931 well-applied Zionist pressure in the press and lobbying by Weizmann in London bore fruit.

I'd fill in the rest of it for you - except I'd be accused of soap-boxing and more efforts made to have me blocked. For 47 years the immigrants had been robbing the natives, and getting away with it. 1929 was the first time the natives make enough of a fuss to recover one part of it. (Well, best as I know - where else had Palestinians ever had their property back between 1882 and 1929?). PR^talk 16:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

thank you for the text, it would have been better placed on the article talk in a new subsection. but i don't mind so much on this occasion. (p.s. i think you misunderstood the issue of copyvio violations)

to the point, your position has a little bit of merit regarding this issue considering the timetable. however, it is still missing a note about the information in the mufti's letter or more notes regarding the messages that the arabs sent in order to incite violence necessarily the next friday. still, i note you that these rumors were still false being that the jews did not actually take full control over the western wall. to be frank, i read somewhere that the incitement messages did not include any special mention of the western wall, but rather stated that the jews were planning a surprise attack on al-aqsa... which is indeed a false (pending on a revelation of information i'm not aware of). please, if you wish to continue this, do it in a new subsection on the proper talk page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll be slammed for soapboxing if I spell out to you any more specifically the violent ways of the immigrants, their arrogant determination to seize (not buy) whatever they wanted, and the difficulty Muslims had even opposing this particular gross violation. (We know property was being seized with violence since at least 1891 - they'd been threatening the Western Wall since at least 1922).

The Muslims, failing to get justice from the British, responded in the only fashion they knew how, with a call from their imams to strike back against the robbers (defined in an entirely racist fashion - but then Sharon was doing the exact same thing 73 years later, a month before the Jenin Massacre). PR^talk 11:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

yes, you will be slammed for soapboxing because you refuse to keep to the available references and the actual issue and expand (almost) every conversation into something derogatory about current day israel. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin sandbox page

Jaakobu, would you mind removing the categories from your Battle of Jenin sandbox page please? If you don't remove the categories, the sandbox page ends up being listed in the mainspace under all the categories listed. Thanks, Gatoclass 11:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

i'm a tad conflicted about this one. i can see your point, but i'm wondering on the damage it will create with my future edits (and it's obviously listed under my name, not on it's own).. is there some type of policy on this issue? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to but in, but you can fix this by adding a leading colon, i.e. changing [[Category:XYZ]] to [[:Category:XYZ]] (the same trick works for [[Image:XYZ]] too if you want to link to an image without diplaying it). That makes this easy to change back later too. -- 67.98.206.2 19:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is nothing about it in policy pages, but I think it should be obvious that it is an undesirable practice. I might canvas the subject at wp:categories, but in the meantime I trust you will see the logic of deactivating them on your own sandbox pages. In future though, I am just going to deactivate any categories on sandbox pages I come across. Users can restore the cats if they so choose, but I am going to assume most won't object. Regards, Gatoclass 23:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

i'll make the change sometime soon, thank you for the civility.. it's become a rare thing in the territories i tread in. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks J, appreciate it :) Gatoclass 00:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, turns out the guidelines do cover this after all. Gatoclass 08:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

good link, thank you for sharing the find. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Burgas=

Hi Jaakobou, we discussed at length the issue of "martyrs capital" and I felt that you finally conceded that it should not be in the lead. I personally do have a slight sympathy for the Palestinians generally but I will try to be as neutral as possible, as I hope you will. Nevertheless, I am sure that that one sentence though, was wrong regardless of ones political persuasions.

--Burgas00 11:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) we can maybe leave it out of the intro (pending consensus) if the context of militancy is properly mentioned.

(2) i really don't know why this is on my talk page and on an irrelevant subsection.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I will try and act as a mediator from now on in the Israeli-palestinian conflict-related articles from now on rather than take one side. Good luck. Please try and reach consensus with G-dett and PR. They may be biased from your perspective but they seem to discuss issues in a constructive manner with you and other pro-israeli wikipedians. --Burgas00 00:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

i'd be happy to see you embrace a less one-sided approach to the material.

p.s. i'd rather you avoid advocacy on my page.Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The image you re-added to Kingdom of Israel is mislabeled -- I made notes about the image being mislabeled on the image's talk page and with all edit summaries. Please don't launch accusations without doing your homework first. As for the image itself -- it is based entirely on the bible, which is fine, but it needs to be labeled as such. The issue is that the label of the image states the sources as 'historical' -- which implies the rigor of a historian. Since it's impossible to change the caption of the image used, it should not be used until it can be fixed. I would suggest the image author simply remove the caption from the image so that it can be properly labeled in each language required. -Quasipalm 14:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

AN/I comments

Jaakobou, you just don't get it, do you? You decided to break up one of my comments with snippy remarks like "you weren't involved in this dispute" [so you can't comment, go away], making it completely unreadable. And now you're whining to me about "changing the context" of your comments? And in the very same edit which you claim restored your precious context, you wholesale deleted a comment of mine!

PR is, yet again, facing a lynch mob based on totally spurious allegations. I demolished those allegations thoroughly; none of your comments had anything to refute what I've said, they just focussed on irrelevant crap like whether you thought your side in the content dispute was right. I don't care about the content dispute. I care about proving that PR should not be banned, and you're interfering by breaking up my rebuttal post, making it impossible to read. Will you please abide by talk page policy, which you haven't done for at least six months. <eleland/talkedits> 00:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

i'm sorry, were you involved on 1929 Hebron massacre?

anyways, i don't think you should change the comments i replied to, it creates a false image. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

To quote Sam Jackson; ENGLISH ... DO YOU SPEAK IT?

It does not matter whether I was involved on 1929 Hebron massacre. As I correctly noted in the comment which you deleted, the entire point of having a noticeboard is to bring in un-involved editors. As for the rest of your comment, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Maybe you should write it in Hebrew, and then refuse to translate it but insist that it proves your point. <eleland/talkedits> 01:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

yes, i speak english. no, you are not an uninvolved editor. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize

I have been watching you for a while now and honestly I do not think that you need to be encouraged to go farther on saying that the whole thing was faked. You have been pushing for this at any moment and using all your will. I have thorough experience in reading IDF statements and the fact that they admitted the posiblity of having shoot the kid from the first moment is paramount. You also know the stuff so for you should also be paramount. But you completely dismiss this fact and you keep filling the article with irrelevant quarrels about how the media reflected the shooting. The whole article have been constructed by you as a debate about press coverage and you have lost no opportunity of intoducing doubts and inuendos in it. The probability that you are doing this because you are consciously pushing you POV is enormous. However you are right in saying that wikipedia rules do not allow me to comment your behaviour. My comment was certainly not a violation of WP:NPA since is not included in any of the cases written there. Perhaps it can be considered WP:NPA of the WP:ICA kind and was certainly a violation of ["assume good faith"] since the rule explicitly says that "Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute". I must confess that I have dificulties to stay cool when we are speaking about a dead kid and this was the reason I gave up editing that page and the reason I cannot aggravate a dispute that does not exist. In any case, since whatever my reasons, I should have not commented on you, I formally apologize. If you want, you can erase my comment and then I will substitute for a comment about content not about contributors.--Igor21 12:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

if i'm not mistaken, you just echoed your belief in the accusation; try not to repeat it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Forum shopping

Would it be possible for you to go a day without a complaint about PalestineRemembered? Catchpole 14:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

are you an admin? if yes, then i respectfully request seriously going over the last ANI instead of jumping at me for asking his repeated harassments and violations addressed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about Catchpole but I'm an admin if that makes any difference for you and I also find it rather tiresome to see you starting threads on various boards every couple of days to complain. I did delete a template which Palestineremembered had blanked more than two weeks ago so I'm not sure why you'd come and ask me to comment on it now. If anything, it shows that he has toned it down. I wish you could do the same. Pascal.Tesson 21:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

1. i had not opened the original ANI (but did open a new one when i saw the conversationwas completely sidetracked).

1. i would not have started anything had he toned it down and stopped harassing me, i assume no one jumps into each and every one of your content dispute talks with accusations about "your long history", so please give me some benefit of the doubt that i am truely in distress at the lack of response from the community (2-3 months already) only because he has some frineds to make discussions very big and hard to follow.
2. if you do decide to go over the threads (and the links provided), you might grow to agree with me.

with respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not exactly easy to be oblivious to the fact that you have a problem with PR. Indeed, you have started a thread on WP:AN, one on WP:ANI, extensively participated in an ANI thread two days ago, and started a thread 10 days ago on WP:VPA. Perhaps it's time for you to consider that this obsession of yours with PR's edits is not entirely warranted and that there may be more productive ways of resolving the conflict than asking for his head every week on a different forum. Pascal.Tesson 21:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Pascal.Tesson,

thank you for mentioning tha VPA case in which i asked for directions on DR with User:Eleland. PR was not part of the conversation, but he attacked me on that thread regardless^[19].... so maybe i'm not the obsessed one? please consider that my issue has not been dealt with rather than assume bad faith.Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith. But I am assuming an inability to deal with conflict other than by asking that the other camp be disciplined. Both you and PR edit articles on highly contentious subjects which are prone to edit warring, overstatements, accusations, etc. From what I gather, you have also been guilty of such excesses in the past. That's not to say PR is a model wikipedian, far from it. But many agree that he's toned it down and is more measured in his edits than he used to be. Pascal.Tesson 22:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"sure you're not assuming bad faith".. you're only comparing me (based on what exactly?) to the person who accused me of being a war criminal,^[20] and created Hated Google Test after he accused me of "tampering" with the structure of an RfC i opened in order to get rid of his long standing attempts at changing the article title to Jenin Massacre and make it seem as though hundreds were killed in jenin and israel covered it up.

either go over the material seriously, or don't - but please stop making gross comparisons if you have no intention to get into this seriously. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point entirely. Nevertheless, I have deleted User:Jaakobou/GeniVolunteering which is clearly meant to be an attack on Geni's work as a mentor. I do realize that you feel Geni has done a horrible job as a mentor but clearly, that page is not part of a solution to your problems with PR. Pascal.Tesson 06:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Jews Against Zionism

No, it's jewsagainstzionism.org that is registered in my name. A completely different organisation, secular rather than religious. So I really can't help you on Baruch Kaplan; try contacting יודל, who I believe knows about this.RolandR 00:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look

at seplling and other issues at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni Thanks. Zeq 08:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hebron zt"l

Jaakobou, how are you? I hope that you're at least moderately comfortable with my effort on Hebron. Hopefully, other 3rd parties will contribute too. In any case, I just added a note there to ask you guys to knock off the edit warring. As always, feel free to contact me if you have any further q's or issues that you'd like me to address. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 18:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. fyi, I'm replying w/an answer to your question at Talk:1929 Hebron massacre and, as you might imagine, replied at PR's AN/I with specific questions for you. I suspect you'll help move things forward through your responses at both spots, thanks. HG | Talk 08:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ok, replied on my page, give a look, thanks. HG | Talk 09:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Gideon Levy

I have removed most of the extremely large criticism section you inserted into this article; whilst there is no doubt that the criticism is a valid part of the article, giving such weight to the Linur letter just seemed a bit OTT. As well as being OTT, it was also a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight, as around 80% of the article was given over to criticism, 65% of which was the Linur letter. I don't want this to turn into another spat, so I hope you can accept that the criticism is ensconced into the article, but doesn't need expanding beyong it's current proportions. Thanks, пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. I have actually rewritten the criticism section so it goes into more detail about why Linur criticised Levy, but without expanding the section much. The section is still a little large, but I think it is now as succinct as it can be. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

i'll give it a look, but from our history, i tend to think you should have written on talk and find out that my suggestion was to expand the article rather than censor it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have also written on the talk page, though effectively what I have written directly to you (I was hoping a more personal approach might stop the nascent flame war which is happening on that page in its tracks). Anyway, even if the article was longer, the Linur letter does not deserve more than the couple of sentences that it has now - censoring it is not, just something which does not deserve so much space - it's not the declaration of independence! пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

i agree, however, the suggestion made by the other two, was unacceptable censorship. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did the big revert which you linked to, but then I realised that I had removed some worthwhile stuff, so I made a couple of edits that put it back in and reworded the original (this diff shows both edits). пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

please take a deeper look at the diff i gave you rather than assume haven't went over the changes. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, then I don't believe it is a blind revert - I haven't blindly removed information - I've kept everything in there (apart from the Glazin bit which I really thought was irrelevant) but just reduced its length. I also believe that calling him a commentator is preferable to an advocant (which a few people will know what it means, most will probably think it means lawyer). пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

you've removed quite a number of things (go over the diff). also, lookup the term "פובליציסט" and tell me if you have any better suggestions than my own. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I still can't see anything else that I removed except the Glazin bit. There is still the bit about him opposing the Lebanon War, criticism from Plaut and the bit about Ezra/Shabak, but I just reduced the amount of text on the Linur letter - I don't believe it is necessary to mention every single point she brought up - saying that he "owns" the Palestinian department, is amateurish and prevents negative reporting on the Palestinians is enough without mentioning the settler/Bargouti bits. Mentioning every aspect of any criticism that Levy has ever recieved would probably surpass the 30kb limits on the page!

Also, I don't understand what you mean by פובליציסט - publicist? I don't think it is used in the same context in English. Having just looked it up, "advocant" is not actually a word (it isn't in the OED, though I guessed your meaning from the context) - "advocate" is the correct term, but I think "commentator" also conveys this and has the benefit of not being able to be confused with "lawyer" - perhaps you could say that he is a left-wing commentator - few people could argue against that. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As I have made it quite clear, it was not a blind revert. I did not remove any sources or information which you added, but merely reduced the unnecessary weight given to one criticising source (which was also a clear violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight). And as I have made it quite clear in the past, I do not have an allegience with POV pushers whether it be yourself or pro-Palestinian ones. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)
repeating yourself, doesn't make you correct, try reading the text instead. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop inserting the overly-long criticism section to the Gideon Levy. It is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Thank you. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

i shortened it myself (after re-inserting all the blanketed material)^[21] and we can discuss shortening it further - your warning is more than ridiculous - you've removed information and sources^[22] from the article with a blind revert and now you give me a warning notice?! Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

btw, your unexplained source removal here, resulted in the removal of the term "left wing" in the folowing edit - please fix this issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No, what is ridiculous here is your claims. The one that you "shortened it" yourself still resulted in the Linur letter accounting for 51% of the article, and criticism as 73% of the total article. The current version has 42% devoted to criticism, which is still too high, but contains all the valid points. As for removing sources, do you really believe that www.iransolidarity.endofempire.org is a reliable website? I certainly don't, and I'm sure you would go mental if someone tried to use it in an anti-Israeli way (say on Battle of Jenin). I said I have no problem with left-wing being used (note that I left it in; so much for blind revert), but you'll have to sort that out with Nishidani (and you can tell him that as a neutral, I support its inclusion). пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

1. apparently, you think that if any criticism segment is constructed too early then it must be deleted. if you would have went over talk discussions, i clearly suggested we expand on his political beliefs and activities - maye you're not aware of this - but his political activity and the criticism that follows are a major part of the public perception on him (i.e. his otability). i expanded some on both - but mostly on the criticism, i leave it to people who prefer his POV to ADD materials to the article ('ADD' being the key word). note also that the article was marked as a stub - so the "deletionist" attitude (personally, seeing exactly who edited before you came along - nickhh, G-Dett, Nishidani, Abu Ali - and made your first ever edit on the article. i tend to interpret it as a bold group effort of promoting the POV shared by you and your friends) seems counter productive to the encyclopedia in my opinion.
2. i'm not against any website when it's mentioned by name. i'd be opposing that website if it were supposed to be considered 'the accurate WP:RS on israeli affairs', yes, but i would oppose most material by gideon levi as 'the accurate WP:RS on israeli affairs' no matter what website hosts him - even Haaretz's own website. however, i've already allowed some funny sites when the report was on topics they'd be considered reliable, and in case you was not aware, Gideon Levi indeed both wrote for "hostile contries" media sources and his words were also translated on them - i find no exceptional reason to feel that article was a fake Gideon Levi article - and it seemed like a good english source to back up the (not contenteous at all) note that he's considered a leftist.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Junk mail

Please don't use my talk page as a scrawl space for junk mail and bogus warnings.--G-Dett 15:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

i believe you've made a fairly disruptive edit, nothing bogus about this note or the previous notes i've given you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop harrassing me

I'm sick of your incomprehensible warnings showing up on my talk page. In every forum ([23] [24]) you've taken this to, you get told that Wikipedia is for big boys and girls, and that a certain back-and-forth on article talk pages is inevitable when working with controversial subjects. You refuse to engage in dialogue on article talk pages, and you rewrite article-space to reflect your personal views of a subject, without regard to proper sourcing or even proper spelling. You use incivility, real or imagined, as an excuse to avoid normal dispute resolution - and repeatedly, you have moved, edited, or deleted my comments in neutral forums to further short-circuit DR. Numerous independent editors have expressed their concern over such actions. Finally, you don't even deliver your warnings in a single edit, thus causing the "new messages" box to popup repeatedly for no reason.

From now on, I will be removing your complaints as soon as I see them. You are, of course, free to take your indignation elsewhere, as you seem to do in any case where you don't get your way. But do know that if you insist on making this an administrative issue, I will feel free to discuss your disruptive conduct at length. And I actually read and write English at an adult level, so you may be at a disadvantage in such a case. <eleland/talkedits> 17:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

removing them means you've seen them. that is all that matters if you escalate a step further and i am forced to take the matter to an ANI. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

p.s. i'd much rather have you address issues with some civility than so many times^{sample 1, sample 2} asking nicely (and now with notices and warnings) that you stop treating wikipedia like a battleground to lash out at others in. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop

Have the decency to respect the policy(WP:Words_to_avoid#Extremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fighter) regardless of how you might personally feel. Believe or not we cant change the rules for you. If the ploicy gets changed then fine, call them terrorist. Also remember one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. IP198 19:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

i'm afraid you need to learn to distinguish between militant operations and terrorist operations - there's a difference between a militant and a terrorist. look it up, and try to be reasonable when reverting attacks on children into "militant attack". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be reasonable about it if Israeli attacks against children were also called "terrorist" attacks. Or do you believe that Israeli blood is worth more than Arab blood? IP198 20:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

you must be new to the concept of "encyclopedia" and very familiar with the concept of "bash israeli crimes forum". i will answer your question though... however, it'll be in a private note so that i won't be using this space like a forum. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That wont be necessary. I have better things to do, and im sure you do as well. I wont change your views and you probably wont change mine. I will try to avoid Israeli/Palestinan for a-while, but lets say in a couple of months i see the word terrorist in a article and its violating the policy, i will revert it. If you wish to prevent that from happening, i strongly encourage you to have this policy changed or altered. Have a good one. IP198 20:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

some people, especially israeli, don't respond well to threats. think about it during those couple of months. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Tell me your problem

Hi Jaakobou - I wondered if you'd care to tell me what policies of the project you really think I've contravened? You seem to have gone to an enormous amount of effort to get me either muzzled or blocked and it seems such a shame to come out with so many accusations of me breaching policy, but with virtually no meat on any of them. Your participation seems positively blighted by this irritation you feel.

The problem you have is not just with me, of course - you've done similar things to at least three other editors quite recently, each of them (I think) professional academics - or certainly word-smiths much more skilful than me[25][26][27]. Such is the scholarship of those three editors, I'd barely even think of contradicting any of them (despite multiple disagreements with each). It's as if your anger towards me is overflowing and taking over your participation. You were recently told off for "Forum Shopping", so you're clearly just making a fool of yourself.

I was particularly sad to see here "I request he'd be blocked from editing until the community finds him a replacement mentor (this time, someone with admin options)"] - because this came about after you'd harassed poor volunteer User:Geni into silence with User:Jaakobou/GeniVolunteering. If you'd only tell me what irritates you so badly, I'm sure it would be possible to make your contributions less problematic and stressful to you. I'm trying not to go back into your history of harassment of admins and so forth because I know that's not the way to move forwards - but it certainly seems as if I'm doing something that's making your problem get worse and worse. PR^talk 16:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, i suggest you find a new mentor fast. otherwise, i might be "making a fool of myself" on Arbcom. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Yidisheryid

I must say, I get this feeling that you are User Yidisheryid (talk · contribs), correct me if I am wrong. IZAK 11:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

you are wrong. i've absolutely no idea on who that user is and i don't recall even encountering his/her edits. mind my question, but what made you think i might be that user? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The way you (mis)-spell and type (so poorly) and make the whole world crazy wherever you edit and your determination to destroy articles about Zionism. Just a few small things like that you know. It reminds me of my friend User:Yidisheryid, oh and he is known to abuse sockpuppets, and I haven't seen much of him lately, so I thought maybe he went over to Israel/Palestine and attacked the Jewish homeland (articles) directly since he hates the Zionists so much he will even destroy himself like a peaceful ("Yiddisher") Japanese on a Kamikaze mission. But then again, I may be wrong since I have met such a peaceful man like you. IZAK 12:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

what do you mean "determination to destroy articles about Zionism" ?

p.s. i don't make the "world" crazy. only people with heavy POV that don't get a free pass in pushing it.

p.p.s. "met such a peaceful man"... i don't know, but it seems i should take this comment as a cheap shot considering the content heading it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh don't be silly, you asked me to give my reasons and now when I honestly do you throw accusations at me, you know, that's not fair and it's just what Yidisheryid used to do. Are you sure you are not him? IZAK 12:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not try to give the antisemites a hard time instead of bothering some Israeli and Judaic editors? Turn your gun-sites on the right targets for a change. IZAK 12:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

there's explaining things, and there's acting guile. perhaps i'm misreading you, but the latter is how your comments come off.

p.s. i don't target any editor for his ideology and i've no idea what you're basing your assessments on. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ariel_Sharon_by_Latuff.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ariel_Sharon_by_Latuff.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. IZAK 12:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC) IZAK 12:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your user page

Following this discussion in which another editor pointed out that it may have been inappropriate to create it, I have deleted your user page (as I was its creator and only editor, I assumed that I was able to under WP:CSD#G7). If you want to reinstate it or tell us a bit about yourself, feel free. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

why on earth would you do that after i already said i don't mind the edit? (plus it sat there for a few months) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I do remember you saying it was no big deal, IZAK has suggested it was inappropriate to do in the first place and that I should remove it. No harm done anyway, пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

indeed no harm done, have a groovy day. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Got your email

I got your email, but I don't use any of the IRC chat like tools. Long before instant messaging were widely available, I learned I had the choice of using them or being productive. I choose productivity. You've already commented in the IfD discussion and can do so further; take a look at the commons category now linked directly above your comment, as that will address at least half your comment. GRBerry 14:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

in the time that passed since the deletion notice came up, i found 4 out of the 5 images with links that mark them clearly as copyright free. regardless, i thought about the comment that perhaps we should only chose one image to represent the (quite large) series, and thinking about it, there are far more interesting images created by the propagandist. i was hoping to go over some of them (public domain images) with you to hear your thoughts on what would work best. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know this editorial cartoonist at all to know which of his work is most significant/well-known Go look at the references for the article. If they consistently use the same example(s) to discuss his work, we probably should also as those are likely the most well known and/or significant examples of his work. If they don't, pick from among the examples they do use, assuming at least some of those are available under an appropriate license. Given the size of the category on commons, I'd bet at least some are. GRBerry 04:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

List of massacres during the Second Intifada

Talk:List of massacres during the Second Intifada Looking for outside input into a long-term controversy over the naming and scope of this list. As you participated in the afd, please help us out. Thanks. <<-armon->> 11:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding NPOV on Operation Defensive Shield

Please review WP:NPOV. This policy does not justify the deletion of content which you keep performing on that article. To quote: The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The correct approach under our NPOV policy is to add content which balances the view you believe is being given. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

i believe that if you are unable to deal with this issue properly (COI per being part of this dispute), then you should refer it to the other mentor.

p.s. there's nothing to counter pov pushing, out of context, out of time line, WP:OR connection of a cafeteria quote from march 5th to the reasons for Operation Defensive Shield announced early morning march 29th after a full month of suicide bombings culminating with the Passover massacre late night march 27. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, that comment was during the first wave of Israeli attacks, which the hotel bombing was in response to. It seems to be part of the overall timeline of the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered edit-warred over a POV cherry quote - not over "time line".

considering you've made a similar edit Nov. 3 but haven't expanded on talk after you've been reverted, i would (again) suggest that, "if you are unable to deal with this issue properly, then you should refer it to the other mentor." Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

nevermind, i've taken the liberty and did it myself. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is you might want to actually try reading Rees, Matt (2000-03-18). "Streets Red With Blood". Time Magazine. It provides a reliable, contemporary report of what was going on in the weeks prior to the operation. You can quibble about what parts exactly belong as a part of the article background, but there's no reason to keep removing it as a source. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

well then, it seems that we both missed each other's points. i have missed your point, that you are discussing your edits of time line events (which are in dispute with tewfik); and you have missed that i am discussing a quote inserted repeatedly by PalestineRememebred, out of context, in an attempt to push the POV that sharon is an evil war criminal.

maybe you should go over the diffs [28] again?

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s. sample edit summaries from the 5 provided diffs:

"Sharon's original goal was to "hit" the Palestinians", [29]

"Sharon intended "to hit the Palestinians" before any of this", [30]

"Sharon's intended mass killings" [31]

these comments (diffs listed [32]) and the quote have little to do with time line; esp. when PalestineRemembered was notified twice of terror attacks on 2,3 and 5th of march [33][34], the quote being referred to march 6th.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You do have a point about PR's POV being beyond what the sources said, and his choice of inserting this information is temporally in the wrong place. I suppose I'm as guilty as anyone of not using the talk page to foment discussion. All of us need to stop edit warring and attempt to discuss compromise edits at Talk:Operation Defensive Shield. Back and forth accusations about edit warring aren't being productive here. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

the back and forth between you and tewfik is not very interesting to me (even if i tend to think your version minimizes the background to the operation) and i suggest you indeed handle it on the article's talk page. The PR abuse of the quote was moved to the other mentor due to your COI. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

offtopic

Let me butt in, although all of this really belongs on the article talk page. Both the Palestinian Authority, in their submission to the UN on Jenin, and Amnesty International, in their overall report on March and April incursions culminating in Defensive Shield, chose to use the Sharon quote as an epigraph to introduce the Israeli motivation. Now, obviously we can't write articles solely to Palestinian or AI POV, however, excluding their POV while keeping the official Israeli POV is just as bad. We should mention both the officially stated reason, and the conjectured true goals. If AI and the PA are not considered to be notable enough, I can also provide a great many sources from the Israeli and Western left which are in the same vein. <eleland/talkedits> 23:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

this comment is irrelevant to the issue raised and indeed should be made on the article's talk page; regardless, thank you for your perspective on how both the palestinians and amnesty (echoing the palesitnian claims) regarded/used this quote. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You claimed that a quotation is irrelevant to Defensive Shield, I show that notable POV's treated it as not only relevant but crucial, and you come back saying it's got nothing to do with the issue? What IS the issue, then? The fact that you don't like PR? <eleland/talkedits> 00:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

i request that you make your (belated) case regarding content on the article's talk page and avoid personal attacks. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The quote from Sharon is considered absolutely central to the progress of Operation Defensive Shield, even the pro-Israel Time magazine reported it 2 weeks later in these words in the first paragraph of "Streets red with blood": "The Palestinians must be hit and it must be very painful. We must cause them losses, victims, so that they feel the heavy price" He went on to do just that, unleashing a broader military offensive than anything seen so far in the past 17 months of fighting". Amnesty International and the PA treat it the same way. This edit-war has been going on for well over 6 weeks now, over a simple, straight-forward edit that properly adds necessary information to the article. How are we ever going to deal with really difficult edits if this one causes us so much trouble? PR^talk 16:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

am i seeing correctly? are you soapboxing on my page again? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

note

I read the discussion and decided the appropriate course of action was to delete the image. -Nv8200p talk 02:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:HeilIsrael.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:HeilIsrael.jpg. I noticed 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 {{di-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 even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

no. i havn't quite seen a fair use replacement for a "sharon with the hitler salute" comic by latuff. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote mining again? There are several images by the same artist. // Liftarn (talk)

Image:HeilIsrael.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:HeilIsrael.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Liftarn (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Liftarn (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Carlos Latuff

A request was made on WP:RFPP to protect the article due to the edit conflict. TSO1D (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Your behaviour with regard to Palestine Remembered has crossed the line into disruption. I am warning you that if continue to interject yourself into discussions about him by seeking topic bans without any demonstration of having actually tried to work together with him, I will block you for disruption. Let the mentors mentor him, stop getting in the way. GRBerry 16:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

i won't assume anything, but this block warning is over the top and uncalled for. i'd go as far as saying i don't believe i have not tried working with him - on many accounts i tried explaining and finding a common ground... (example:) the story behind Hated Google Test. are you aware it is a result of an RfC i opened [35], which came after many attempts of finding a consensus?

p.s. i also don't quite believe i've interfered with the work of the current mentors - i did refer one note to Ryan after it was more than clear that Kendrick has a WP:COI on said article. but that certainly is no call to block me or even warn a block. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Hi Jaakobou,

I've started a WP:RFAR regarding the repeated deletion of the term "occpuied territories" by yourself and others here.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 28.11.2007 16:01

"Incivility"

I have replied on my talk page. --Nickhh (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of entire article

You are kindly asked to refrain from blanking List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada by redirecting it to List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. Four editors have expressed their support of this move while not one has articulated a valid rationale against. Please engage in talk to build consensus for your changes. If you blank that page again, I will be asking for a User RfC to be opened against you. Thank you. Tiamut 10:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

please try reading the edit summaries. an article about non combatants was split in half with no reason other than WP:POVFORK; so i reversed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, if you refuse to use the talk or edit summaries to justify your change, I will revert them.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 29.11.2007 17:29

Jaakobou please desist from blanking articles because you do not like the content. thankyou.--Burgas00 (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

i'd appreciate a diff or two. thank you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

comment - anyone interested in knowing a few of the pro-palestinian, anti-israeli editors, can simply take a peak at this subsection. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

comment - perhaps you meant to write:

"anyone interested in knowing what an anti-palestinian editor who violates wiki policies can expect to encounter, can simply take a peak at this sub-section."

no? Tiamut 00:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither Jaakobou's comment nor Tiamut's response is appropriate. Tone it down, both of you! GRBerry 04:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

i'd be happy to "tone it down". i think a good first step in resolving this issue would be you asking these three editors to not abuse my page like this, though, just because they want to keep a WP:POVFORK.

p.s. there's been extremely "revert this person at all cost" atmosphere lately around me, even though at least some of the edits were well based on talk. i suggest to the "secret revert jaakobou society" (who's most undoubtedly watching) to tone it down also so that an arbcom can be avoided. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

sample - [36] edit per Talk:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#taken_hostage_vs._captured (noted in edit summary).

reverted by Pedero.

pedro's response: "if you refuse to use the talk or edit summaries to justify your change, I will revert them." - Pedro Gonnet, 17:32, 29 November 2007.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

How disingenuous of you... I made my comment after reverting this edit of yours. Not after your bogus claim to some kind of consensus in the talk. pedro gonnet - talk - 30.11.2007 08:22

clearly, you've ignore the complaint itself. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Hi Jaakobou,

I re-factored the RfC here and hope that you will now be able to participate.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 30.11.2007 09:33

Hello again,

You might want to re-consider your latest edit at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I copied the comments out of the previous, ill-formatted RfC discussion, not from the discussion at large, as you did. I'm no specialist on Wikipedia policies, but that could be interpreted as vote-stacking.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 30.11.2007 15:16

Please

I would appreciate it if you would hold off on editing Iman Darweesh Al Hams while I merge the two articles and format the refs. You can make changes afterward if you still feel it necessary. Thanks. Tiamut 14:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

please pay close attention to the last rewrite i inserted. [37] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Tantrums

Jaakobou, if you reference a guideline in a manner which indicates you haven't even read it, you're wasting everybody's time, and calling you on it is not a "tantrum". You claimed that WP:NOTCENSORED justified the insertion of information from Arutz Sheva's website, an unreliable extremist source. But WP:UNCENSORED is about images of faeces, racist quotations, and the like, not about source reliability. The guideline explicitly states that content must "not violate any of our existing policies (especially neutral point of view)", and it's those policies you should be discussing, not irrelevancies. Baseless accusations of censorship are far more problematic than the "tantrums" which they incite. <eleland/talkedits> 11:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

that is very much your own perception, and should be discussed with civility on the talk page. not with uncivil revert commentary.

p.s. i hope you remember that this is not the first time you've used this aggressive mannerism and i request you go over Wikipedia:Civility#Examples and take notes. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict (2nd try)

Hi Jaakobou,

I've suggested a compromise and it would be nice to have your input on it.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 08:12

Media & online sources

Thought I'd make a general point to you here as it seems to be a bit of a theme that comes up in a lot of your editing, in my view. I'm also a bit surprised that this has to be spelled out to you, but there you are - anyway the point about sourcing is to verify and show that events happened or that certain people said certain things, not so that editors here can extract their favoured interpretation of events and claim it as "sourced" in an article. That's why Wikipedia should limit itself a) to mainstream reliable media sources; and b) to lifting only straight facts from those sources.

The New York Times, The Jerusalem Post and yes even the BBC are large organisations, who employ researchers, fact-checkers and editors. Their journalists will also have good contacts with official organisations and their spokespeople, and access to press briefings and the like. They don't publish accounts of things that happened or were said unless, generally, those things did actually happen or those things were said. Yes they make mistakes but they are usually caught out somewhere down the line. Most also tend to strive towards at least a semblance of balance in their reporting, as well as even on their op-ed pages. These are some of the differences between mainstream media outlets and a lot of blogs or other self-published or avowedly partisan websites, whichever side they tend towards.

However at the same time different media do of course have their own biases and editorial rules (whether acknowledged or not), and also tend to write in quite descriptive language even in straight news items. Eg The New York Times might report that "the IDF launched a devastating raid into the West Bank" or that a "horrific attack hit Tel Aviv yesterday". It would usually be inappropriate to carry these phrases over into a Wikipedia article. Equally, different media sources will use different words to describe the same situations, so there is often no consensus in any event. This means that editors here cannot use that aspect of media reporting as if it were a definitive judgement on something and insert it into Wikipedia articles, claiming that they have therefore "sourced" their favourite turn of phrase.

Apologies for the lecture, but it may save having to point this all out to you again and again on separate talk pages. --Nickhh (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

i agree with you 100% on the stated "lecture". however, the dispute is over arafat politically motivated action and that was the consensus we reached a while back. the first phrasing was 'symbolically donated blood', based on a number of sources and also the text of the image in the BBC article (right click that picture and click properties). however, there were objections to the term symbolically and we ended up agreeing on the text used in the article body. started here: [38] and ended here: [39]. anyways, i'm open to suggestions that stay true to the notion that it was a politically motivated action. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Rule of the Gaza Strip by Egypt" vs. "Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt"

Talk:Rule of the Gaza Strip by Egypt#"Rule of the Gaza Strip by Egypt" vs. "Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt"

Go, knock yourself out. pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 17:00

Well, are you going to defend your move or not? pedro gonnet - talk - 12.12.2007 09:17

my move is just as defensible as yours. however, i was hoping to see a comment or two by less involved individuals than us both. please answer me this question does the term "occupation" imply foreign army in a land not their own? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As stated in Military occupation, the definition given by the Hague Conventions is

“ Art. 42: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. ”

and

“ Art. 43: The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country. ”

I'm curious to see how you're going to try to parse this to your advantage... pedro gonnet - talk - 12.12.2007 10:02

pedro, we have opposing opinion regarding this term - but i'm trying to keep an open mind, please do the same. my question was: does the term "occupation" imply foreign army in a land not their own? and from your given text i see that, "the authority of the hostile army" which would support my notion that the answer to my question is "yes". do you accept that it is indeed the answer or no (explain why)? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not support a strict "boots on the ground" definition. Occupation is when you exercise control. If this control is achieved by having troops there (as in the West Bank or Iraq) or by threatening to move troops there (as in the Gaza Strip) makes no difference.

What is important is that the occupant has authority over a territory which does not belong to him/her. How it is effectively enforced (troops or no troops) is not important. pedro gonnet - talk - 12.12.2007 10:15

And by the way, this is a discussion, not an RfC. We should try to work this out ourselves before calling on the community. pedro gonnet - talk - 12.12.2007 10:19

"by threatening to move troops there"? i'd appreciate a WP:RS for this addition/extension to the original definition. if someone would apply the same logic in reverse form, than all of israel is occuppied by the arabs/muslims and also the city of mecca which used to be jewish. try to keep emotions/pre-conceptions out of the discussion and keep to what the reliable sources say, please, so we can avoid turning this debate into a facebook style give-and-go.

to quote you: "which does not belong to him/her". so, do you agree that the definition of "occupation" suggests that the "occupier" is a foreign force? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

My source is the Hague Conventions. The phrase "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army" means just that: authority is important.

Regarding the ownership issue, no part of the British Mandate of Palestine was ever given to Egypt (the Gaza Strip was to belong to a new arab state, as stated in the article in question), hence it did not belong to them.

Look, I'm no big fan of word-games and entrapment. If you have a point to make, make it. pedro gonnet - talk - 12.12.2007 10:36

i agree that 'authority' is important, i also subject that 'hostile' is also important. you are avoiding the question - please answer it in relation to the sources and words you've already used - so that we can move on to the ownership issue.

to repeat, the question was: does the term "occupation" imply foreign army in a land not their own?. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what you don't understand about my answer. "Occupation" implies foreign authority in a land not their own. To answer in one word: does the term "occupation" imply foreign army in a land not their own? No. pedro gonnet - talk - 12.12.2007 11:09

thank you for answering the question - per, "foreign authority in a land not their own." [40].

now the question rises, who owns these strips of land called gaza and west bank. and that is where the real complications begin. according to the balfour declaration, it's jewish land. according to the arab rejected 1947 UN proposal, it's arab land. according to the pan-arab movement and the islamist movement, it's arab/islamic land. according to the zionist/jewish movement, it's israeli land. these are obviously conflicting narratives, and the UN is rejected by both. i agree that the term "occupied" can be used to some extent in this conflict... but not everywhere. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

$\leftarrow$ The issue of ownership of the Mandate after its dissolution is a rather large and prickly issue... To make the whole thing easier: It doesn't matter who the "land" (i.e. the Gaza Strip) belonged to exactly -- what is important is that it definitely did not belong to Egypt. Hence, it was occupied by Egypt. pedro gonnet - talk - 12.12.2007 12:32

User:Pedro Gonnet,

"what is important is that it definitely did not belong to Egypt." - pedro gonnet 12.12.2007 12:32.

- i agree with you on this 100% (glad we agree on this), although they certainly have a stronger case than Jordan over the West Bank considering the history of Albanian Muhammad Ali.

"Hence, it was occupied by Egypt" - pedro gonnet 12.12.2007 12:32.

this is where WP:OR comes into the picture (again). have you ever given a look to land ownership laws of different countries? what about ownership laws of non countries? ever heard of the "Galactic Government"? (not related to star wars). on point, you are definitely 100% incorrect with your statement that, [if it] did not belong to [anyone]...then it was occupied.

false perceptions are hard to correct, but i trust you will agree (at least on this semi-point) if you explore this issue based on reliable sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So your point is that although it didn't belong to Egypt, and Egypt took it by force, it was not an occupation because, perhaps, of "ownership laws" in Egypt? I did not say, as you try to mis-quote me, that the Gaza Strip did not belong to anyone -- I said it did not belong to Egypt. Can you give me a quote for the legal basis of the non-occupation status? Or for "ownership laws" that invalidate the occupation status? pedro gonnet - talk - 13.12.2007 09:02

How about "Annexation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt"? This seems to be much more neutral than either of the others. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, they didn't annex it. If they had, they would have had to make it part of the state of Egypt (which they didn't) and give all inhabitants political rights (which they didn't). pedro gonnet - talk - 13.12.2007 10:02

P.S. I took the liberty of copying this discussion to Talk:Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt, where it belongs.

Media coverage IPConflict

Please lay off the "undo" button there. You're up to five reverts in the last 18 hours or so. <eleland/talkedits> 02:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

if i'm not mistaken, each is a separate issue and mostly resolved - only that a couple of disruptive editors insist to revert without discussion and attempt at compromise. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a big "if I'm not mistaken". Your insistence that everybody else is disruptive and reverts without discussion and compromise juxtaposes oddly with your own actions on that article. <eleland/talkedits> 03:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

what acts, my opening of a subsection explaining the issues whith a reference based breakdown [41] and requesting comments? [42][43] oh noes! Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Chat

I would be glad to chat. You can find me in #wikipedia on IRC, probably until around 5:30 UTC tonight. I'm often online there between 2 and 5 UTC; my IRC name is carl-m. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

hopefully we can help resolve a dispute or two on the jenin battle. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Former Students of Easington Community Science College

Category:Former Students of Easington Community Science College, was decided to be kept. Whether or not you voted for this, your contribution to the CFD was valued.Thanks.--Sunderland06 17:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary usage

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Saeb Erekat has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

appreciate the note, it shows that you've been watching. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Isr-Palest article

Hi. good to have your help recently. just want to ask, do you agree with the compromise which i laid out recently? If so, can we offer it as a way to achieve consensus? Would just like to get your input on this.

(Please reply on my talk page, if not too much trouble.) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm taking another try at a compromise, at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#Possible_solution. please feel free to go there, and to post your response and comments. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

File:Hanukiyot.jpg

Jaakobou, Happy holidays, and Happy New Year See you next year.

Yahel Guhan 23:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-19 Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Hi, I want to try and help, therefore I offer to take this case, and have contacted the other involved parties inviting them to summarise their opinions on the matter. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Blind reverting

At Second Intifada. Please engage in talk. Jumping in as a party to an edit-war without reviewing the material and offering cogent arguments for the deletion of sourced material is frowned upon. Thanks. Tiamut 23:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

thank you for the note - all the needed reply is given here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, yeah, that was Tewfik's comment, not yours. He is not your representative in the talk, and that was a non-response as I pointed out in my reply there. You please use the talk to defend your edits.

You're also deleting sourced information at Arab citizens of Israel without talking about it (twice now) and making the same edits twice now at October 2000 events that I cannot understand. Please talk Jaakobou. Thanks. Tiamut 03:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

don't overdo the notices. start a talk page section yourself if you feel the material is reliable, neutral and worthy of inclusion - it is not. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues

Hi. please help! The category Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues has been nominated for deletion. this is a category which is meant to be simply a conveneient non-partisan gathering-place for all entries which are general overviews of various issues, as opposed to being related to a specific event or location.

The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 21#Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues. This category is beneficial to all of us who habitually edit these articles, regardless of whether we may be more affiliated with Israeli concerns or Palestinian concerns. The category's deletion is being advocated by editors who rarely edit any articles on this topic, and have little involvement in this topic at Wikipedia.

Your help would be greatly appreciated. please go to this category's discussion entry, and express your opinion. Hopefully, you will be willing to advocate keeping this category. thanks for your help. Thanks, Sm8900 --207.10.186.39 (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

email

Hi. I just emailed you. let me know what you think. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR

It is not a breach, as the first edit was not a revert. As for making threats to report me, you are the one at serious risk of being reported to WP:ANI for being a long-term POV pusher and TE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

reply given: [44]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest you go over WP:NPOV and reconsider all the edits you have ever made to Wikipedia. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Having given it a bit more thought, I have re-worded the article to include the Jewish death. Thoughts? пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

i've made a minor addition after your edit. if you intend on preventing bad blood, i request you strike-through parts of your comment above from 11:27, 28 December 2007 and avoid similar accusations in the future. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

regarding your idle threats

i answered you on my talk page. Tiamut 13:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:V

WP:V says "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source". This means that you must provide reliable sources for content you add to wikipedia. No, its not optional. I have said this to you again and again. Why do you keep ignoring this fundamental policy by re-inserting unsourced content? The above policy applies to all content, not just content about living persons. However, it applies more strictly to content about living persons.

The content you re-insert is a BLP vio. How? Because it is talking about living persons. For example you accuse Walid Shoebat of defining the word Jihad to mean "the struggle to impose Allah's will over the earth, resulting in holy war against the non-Muslim world in order to bring it under the rule of Islam." This is a contentious claim. You need a source for this claim.

Again read over WP:V and WP:BLP and you should understand why you need to provide sources for all content related to living people.Bless sins (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins,

walid is in the movie explaining the term jihad. please watch the film and feel free to raise your concerns afterwards if you still have them. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable and published source that says what you claim Walid is explaining?Bless sins (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

just watch the movie, this is getting boring real fast. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here to entertain you, but only tell you to follow wikipedia policies. It doesn't matter if you've watched the movie, or you made it. You need sources for all content, particularly contentious content about living persons.Bless sins (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR for House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

You have reverted text 3 times in less than 24 hours, and you have removed the reference link 3 times for Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. You have violated 3RR. See WP:3RR. Please quickly self-revert to Eleland's version to avoid being blocked. You can be blocked for less than 4 reversions in 24 hours. This is a courtesy warning requested by the text of the WP:3RR article for newbies to 3RR. But it looks like I am not required to give you this courtesy warning since from looking at your talk page you are well aware of the 3RR rule.--Timeshifter (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

you've made an error, please re-examine the explanation of the policy and the edits i have made. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been reported

You have been reported for breaching WP:3rr on House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You can find the report here. Bless sins (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of eighty-four hours for edit-warring and persistent reverting across multiple articles. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 21:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Copying from WP:AN3: "Blocked for eighty-four hours, for edit-warring across multiple articles. I see a pattern of edit-warring behavior – at House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian, Second Intifada, Islam: What the West Needs to Know, and, to a lesser degree, at other articles – that simply needs to stop." -- tariqabjotu 21:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment regarding block reasoning:

Following this [45] (static version) WP:3RR complaint by User:Bless_sins.

I admit of being involved in a high volume of edits on a number of articles and also admit to what could be construed as an edit war together with User:Eleland on House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

However, inspection into my '"edit warring on a number of articles"'[46] reasoning stated by User:Tariqabjotu is superficial and incorrect as well:

1. Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian - My recent conflict with Tiamut, was by no means an edit war. He had a misunderstanding regarding the history of the region and we resolved it (I believe) quite quickly when I added the reference/source to my correction of the error-ed text ("Palestinim, Am Behivatsrut," by Kimmerling, Baruch, and Joel S. Migdal - Keter Publishing, ISBN: 965-07-0797-2).
2. Second Intifada - There was a multiple user conflict, which consisted of as many as 6-7 participants. After an edit war was already ensued between two very different versions - I've engaged in the article with a major attempt to resolve the disputes [47]. After resolving two of a the many disputes the discussions devolved into reverts once the issue of "intifada (uprising)" was a bit stuck but I have again reopened, a second discussion attempt on that issue [48] and it seemed to be moving quite reasonably. I don't believe that my attempts to resolve the disputes on said page should be portrayed as an edit war and stand against me on other article disputes.
3. Islam: What the West Needs to Know - In this article, for some reason, User:Bless_sins (same editor who opened the 3RR) claims that it is a BLP violation to re-write what a participant in the film stated and to support his BLP theory he removes the entire synopsis section. [49] I don't see my objection to this as an edit-war at all.

Considering this overview of the disputes and my efforts to resolve them, and considering that Palestinian-Israeli articles are filled with high emotions [50], incivility [51], pov accusations [52][53][54], and pov violations [55].

I believe, just as the first admin who inspected the 3RR notice believed [56], that if 3RR rules are to be applied to me regarding this dispute (where I have reverted 3 exactly times), then they should be applied evenly.

Lastly, if the descision is made to block anyone, and because I was given 84 hours. An inspection into my block log shows that apart from one 3RR mishap in July, my 3RR blocks were all rescinded. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to clear some things up. On the article, House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I never said your editing was illegitimate. It was wrong in the sense it violated WP:3rr. Whether you were following WP:NPOV, or eleland, (or both or neither), I can't say.

You are, however, wrong in inserting unsourced material about living persons in Islam: What the West Needs to Know. I've asked you numerous times to source your edits.Bless sins (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"is a BLP vio. How? Because it is talking about living persons...you accuse Walid Shoebat" - User:Bless sins, 02:58, 30 December 2007

Walid Shoebat is featured in the film giving commentaries... even for a moment, assuming "i accused him" of something he had not said in the film (watch starting minute 31), it does not justify a complete blanking of the film's synopsis.

p.s. it is not a sign of good faith now that your friend, Eleland, is repeating your justification after you've reached 3 reverts.

p.p.s. further comments should be made on the article's talk page, not here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

SALTing

To answer your question, salting the earth is done to ensure that once a crop has been uprooted or destroyed, nothing else can grow there. Hence WP:SALT, the wikipedia practice of not only deleting a page but protecting the page in its deleted form so that a new article cannot be started. Reggie Perrin (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the input. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Saeb Erekat

This edit was not vandalism. Even if you disagree with it, please refrain from characterizing good-faith edits as vandalism. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Stifle,

1. i believe the user should have asked guidance from his assigned mentors rather than address someone who's not aware/watching his conduct history.
2. repeated removal of well established and very well referenced information from articles, without any edit summary or discussion, after all the discussions and edits already made (including two of his mentors) is disruptive vandalism.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Well established," in this case, means that you edit-warred it in until nobody could be bothered to waste their time fighting you over it. And your "very well referenced" information includes references which do not name or discuss Saeb Erekat. PR should have used an edit summary, but his was a legitimate action, unlike your prolonged highly tendentious editing. <eleland/talkedits> 18:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You (and others) might be amused to peruse this, where you'll discover that Jaakobou has managed to drive off every other interested editor (eight in total) throughout the whole 16 months of TalkPage discussion about this article!

You'll already know that none of his claims are referenced atall - only blogs and the perpetrators of the killings (of which there were 497 according to the official International figure) have called Erekat a liar. His career is long and really rather distinguished under the very difficult circumstances. There is a huge amount of interesting material that could go into this article, but this poisonous edit-war has driven off every other editor interested in improving the project.

Another thing you might find astounding is that Jaakobou has only just come back from a 3.5 day block for edit-warring (across a range of other articles) and immediately (2nd edit) set about the exact same activity, on an article where he's done so much damage for so long! PR^talk 19:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Mass blanking at Palestinian Fedayeen

I have asked you on the talk page there to restore the over 17,000 bytes of sourced, attributed and in-line cited material you deleted. I am deadly serious Jaakobou. I will report you to WP:ANI for a pattern of disruptive editing if you fail to heed this request. You used the same tactic at Second Intifada, mass blanking over your objections to one sentence in the introduction. This is not good faith editing and I will not tolerate it. Tiamut 18:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

dear Tiamut,

i explained the main issue with your use of sources to "rev up" the "resistance" narrative and explained where the problem lyes. instead of addressing the issue, you've went on with a similar direction. removing sources and revving up the "sharon is a killer" (strike 15:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)) plot-line. you may start an ANI case, accusing me of mass blanking... but it doesn't change the facts that this is (a) a content based dispute. and (b) that you've made a huge number of edits in 2 days while ignoring my talk page raised issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jaakobou,

I have reported you to WP:ANI. While you claim that your edits on the talk page raise real or specific issues with the edits I made, they in fact, do not. I have tried to respond to any specific concerns you have raised, but I do not understand how the material you blanked is related to the one source you seem to have a problem with. It is not my job to read the sources for you or review the content I posted in detail for you. You have to read it and raise specific concerns or make edits to the material accordingly. You cannot mass blank two days of work that is based on reliable scholarly sources and claim that you are justified in doing so based on your vague assertions that my edits are POV. That amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and it's not fair to those of us trying to improve articles. Tiamut 18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Solomon / Shalom / Peace

Hey Jaakobou, I noticed that a little while ago you removed the claim that "Solomon" or "Sulaymin" are cognate with "Shalom" or "Salaam" meaning "peace". You said that whoever wrote that must have been unfamiliar with old Hebrew. The American Heritage Dictionary thinks that Solomon = S-L-M = peace, and so does Aryeh Kaplan, ([57]) who I'm pretty sure is familiar with Old Hebrew! <eleland/talkedits> 00:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

i wasn't aware that americans are suddenly an authority on hebrew and it's structure. the root S-L-M means whole, the extra meaning of peace is not the original one, and it most certainly was not the meaning of bible day names who are all (almost all) refer to god in some manner... shlomo (solomon), means the wholeness of god or god is complete, or god made me complete with this child... it has nothing to do with peace and anyone who writes that it is, is making an error, even if they are supposedly a serious scholar. the root S-L-M is older than the hebrew language and it's been used for example in jerusalem at its creation -- i just now went over [58], and to be frank, i'm shocked at how much room is given to the peace interpretation of the "Some say it means" compared to the Midrash one.

p.s. the root can mean peace, but not in a biblical name. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, Aryeh Kaplan is obviously well aware of Hebrew and its structure, being best known for his English translation of the Torah. I'm really not going to take this on your authority alone... have you any references? <eleland/talkedits> 16:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

i looked a bit for references on the web and couldn't find a proper one (just yet). after that, i went over the biblical text - per samuel 2, chapter 12 verses 13-25 (first mention of solomon in the biblical text) bible - going over the context, i can now understand why someone would attribute the term "peace" to the name - however, i don't believe this to be the correct meaning of the hebrew text (there is no implication for such an interpretation), and plan on calling a friend of mine (tomorrow) to help me out finding the midrash related text (i don't have the related books). i'll keep you posted. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. where does arieh kaplan say this root means peace? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In the commentary attached to his English translation of the Bahir, on page 130; the details are all in the citations on Solomon, and if the Google Books link given above isn't working for you (it decides what you're allowed to see based on what you've already read) I'll transcribe the relevant portion. <eleland/talkedits> 22:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for repeating the input in the link, I missed it in your first comment. Going over the extra input, and discussing it also with a "talmid chaham" (smart student) friend of mine, I can now completely understand where the Peace translation comes from... apparently, there is a "source" attribution by scholars to the 'chronicles' mythology text... this text is believed to have been written some 100-200 years after Solomon died and in it David is saying that god told him he'll give Solomon peace and that should be his name... a less religious scholar than Aryeh Kaplan, would go by the "original" text (from the actual period) in Samuel 2 where it is told that David lost a previous son because of his sins (and despite not eating anything) and afterwards attests to the greatness of god by naming his son Shlomoh... anyways, even though i still believe the orthodox peace interpretation to be incorrect, i am faced with a serious referenced perspective. I won't contest this interpretation in the future. cheers. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

You should know about this. Arrow740 (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your e-mail

A few notes from your e-mail - I choose to reply in public rather than hide on messenger.

• "I have noticed that recently you have constantly been lashing out against my edits and assuming that I'm a bad editor doing harm on purpose"
  • I have been "lashing out" against your edits since I came into contact with you. You know full well that you are a "bad" editor and that not only are you one of the biggest POV-pushers around, you are guilty of being probably the worst violator of WP:TE that I have come across. The evidence I put on WP:ANI (multiple instances of blocked for breaking WP:3RR, of reverting "vandalism" of others ^{[59][60][61] [62][63] [64][65]}, accusing others of censorship ^{[66][67][68][69][70][71]} and violations of WP:UNDUE (constant reinsertion of a massive criticism section at Gideon Levy)) is only part of what I hold against you.
• "I believe you are a sensible editor involved in much more on wikipedia than the Israeli-Arab conflict, therefore more neutral than many of the other editors involved"
  • How two faced are you? You constantly accuse me of having "POV issues" and telling me to adhere to WP:NPOV. Then coming to me in private and saying that I am a "sensible" and "neutral" editor?!? What is up with you?
• "I can probably explain my overall position to you by instant messaging"
  • I know your overall position. You are an unashamed anti-Palestinian POV pusher. I might describe you as pro-Israel, but that is an insult to good Zionist editors who do not let their personal opinions affect their work. Your entire purpose on Wikipedia is to denigrate Palestinians. Whilst on a very few occasions you may well have a point (I also believe the Muhammad al-Durrah "killing" was most likely staged), you take it way too far and I personally do not believe that you can ever be a productive editor on controversial Middle Eastern topics. Yes, there are also unashamed anti-Israeli POV pushers on here. However, on occasions where someone has come in to a disputed article with an actual WP:NPOV stance, you will still push for a more pro-Israel slant, whereas the Palestinian POV pushers tend to leave it at that. I would suggest the only way to redeem yourself is to leave such topics well alone and work on something such as getting rid of all the redlinks at List of kibbutzim or something similar.

пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

sent you a reply. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Detwinkled

Due to persistant misuse of the tool; [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] - I've removed twinkle from your monobook and protected it for two weeks. When you are able to readd it, please be more careful with the tool. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

i'm not sure why this de-twinkle was implemented (the large amount of diffs say very little) and would appreciate some explanation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't be using automated reversion tools in content dispute - all those diffs I point to above are you using the tool whilst in a content dispute. When you decide to revert another user in the future, please do it manually and give a fell explanation for doing so in the edit summary. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware that the tool cannot be used for regular reverts (when a a full manual explanation is given). If this is supported by some manual of use (that I've missed), I'd be more than happy to correct this error and not use the tool.

I'd appreciate some further discussion/explanation on my use of the tool for reverting vandalism, such as the cases on saeb erekat, islam: what the west needs to know, and operation rainbow. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If I were you I would leave vandalism on those articles to people who do not have a strong POV, since the definition of vandalism has been stretched in the past with these subjects. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why someone shouldn't use automated tools in a content dispute if they provide a full manual edit summary, and I'd appreciate an explanation and link to a guideline or instruction on that, since I occasionally use automated tools myself. However, the third diff given above (re "Stalemate") appears to be a revert of a good-faith edit referred to as "vandalism" in the edit summary. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If "( do not change this)" [87] in the body of the article is not vandalism, then I apologize. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I've opened a WP:AN query regarding this question - here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism, it was misguided, but not vandalism. He added some numbers that he didn't want people to change. Yeah, it should probably have been reverted, but it shouldn't have been labelled as vandalism. We don't use twinkle in edit wars for one key reason, it lowers the decorum. Users are asked to make manual revert in edit wars, this was not the case here. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree: "do not change this" was not vandalism. It was apparently added in an attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Reverting the "do not change this" part of the edit was the right thing to do, but calling it "vandalism" was not. What if "do not change this" was vandalism? That's not the only thing you reverted. You also reverted "Stalemate" -- the thing the user asked not to be changed -- and labelled it "vandalsm" too. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I can agree on the "labeled that vandalism too" perspective.. that's already in the content dispute realm (I objected to the content change also). Any suggestions for how to handle similar issues if they reoccur? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bascially, if it's not obvious vandalism, then you should revert it manually (e.g. go to the previous revision, click edit and put an explanation as to why you're reverting). In a content dispute, you should also do this and it's always good practice to post on the talk page giving the reasons for the reversion. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's a content dispute, I suggest not reverting, but discussing on the talk page until a consensus is reached. If it's vandalism on a page in which you're involved in excessively heated content disputes, I suggest leaving the vandalism for someone else to revert, as someone else suggested, (maybe even discussing it on the talk page or bringing it to someone's attention), or else reverting it manually, not using TW on those pages per Ryan's explanation above. Using automated tools tends to put one in a frame of mind not conducive to the most courteous interaction with other people. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:35, 10 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)

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) 23:28, 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) 23:28, 9 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 • 22:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. An uninvolved administrator, after issuing a warning, may impose sanctions including blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. The Committee shall convene a working group, composed of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, and task it with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations for resolving the pervasive problem of intractable disputes centered around national, ethnic, and cultural areas of conflict. The group shall be appointed within two weeks from the closure of this case, and shall present its recommendations to the Committee no later than six months from the date of its inception. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Middle East Textbooks Invite

WikiProject Middle East Textbooks is looking for editors to create, expand, and maintain complete, accurate, and neutral articles on school textbooks used throughout the Middle East, with a focus on textbook controversies and textbook analyses. You can start by simply adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Middle East Textbooks.

Mediation page

Hi. I created a new section for you to use at the Gilad Shalit mediation. i noticed that no one had asnswered you for several hours. hope that is useful. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Question?

Hi Jaakobou. I didn't really understand the latest question you left on my talk page. Can you elaborate at Talk:Palestinian fedayeen so that I can address your concern? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 17:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:(

Yeah, sorry, my ISP is kind of the suck. - Revolving Bugbear 22:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Occupation terminology

Hi. Just wanted to let you know I've tried to describe and analyze what I understand of you views, at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 16:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply. I've responded, w/at least one point of potential disagreement. If you don't mind, perhaps you could ask Durova for her opinion, too. Please reply at your convenience. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 16:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, you haven't replied to my proposed (partial) resolution to the discussion. Since it would seem favorable to your view, I would appreciate the courtesy of your input. Thanks. HG | Talk 09:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Now trying a different tack. Pls look at page and reply. Thanks. HG | Talk 19:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

mediation page note

Hi. i posted a question for you at the mediation page for the Gilad Shalit article. Appreciate it if you could please take a look at it when you have a chance. please feel free to write to me anytime, whether there ot my talk page. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

medcab

Thanks for participating in the medcab case. As I understand it, you wish to use the word "hostage" in the lead. How can we allow for Pedro's wishes? Specifically, how can we word the intro so that Pedro's wishes are also incorporated? Xavexgoem (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. I've been told by a few people that pausing the case might not have been too fair. I felt that with Pedro's absence, it would probably be better; but I'm not so sure, so if this wasn't fair to you, please tell me. And voice general complaints, too; I'm available on e-mail, too. I am new to medcab, so I appreciate any feedback. Thanks! :) Xavexgoem (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian Mujahideen

I have no interest in getting further involved in the discussion surrounding Bosnian Mujahideen. My continuous involvement in dispute resolution such as WP:3O and WP:RFC have given me the insight that as soon as reason is shunned and instead of a proper reaction, the question is rephrased, it is the right time to leave. As a piece of constructive feedback, from a fellow editor, I suggest you look back over your attempts to resolve the dispute and see why they failed. This is usually very insightful, and can help a lot when solving future problems.

To do a bit of problem analysis for you, the core problem here (important parts underlined) is that every single attempt to reach a broad consensus on a high level, such as a dispute surrounding a rename or definition, cannot be solved based on sources, as every solution will undoubtedly violate WP:SYNTH. It is simply impossible to reach a consensus in this manner, because the sources do not agree with each other, and there are sources for both sides, without any being more authoritative (e.g. a UN resolution clause) than the other (random authors). The reliability or availability of sources has nothing to do with this. User:Krator (t c) 08:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at Palestinian people

This comment is fully unacceptable. Talk pages are a public forum and anyone has the right to respond to any comment or question posed there. If you want to have a one-on-one discussion, bring it to my talk page. But if it has to do with article content and you are posting on the article talk page, be prepared for other editors to comment or question, as is their right. You do not have the right to tell other good-faith editors that they are not welcome to participate. Tiamut^talk 13:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I can fully understand your comment being that you've not witnessed the body of diffs. However, Nishidani has been following me around jumping into conversations contributing very little to the discussions while making uncivil commentary. If he decides to join the conversation with an attempt to resolve disputes, I would welcome and salute his input, but that hasn't been the case recently.

Speaking in general, I'm not sure how off topic bad faith remarks and assumptions help the discourse. I'm also not sure protecting such comments is beneficial. The wind will eventually swing both ways and I think both of us prefer a communal editing platform rather than a battleground with barely involved editors making off topic character based commentaries. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I did not find Nishidani's comments at the Talk:Palestinian people to be either uncivil or unconstructive, though I cannot speak for other comments elsewhere since I have not seen the diffs you are referring to. In any case, the point remains that your focus on me, and getting an answer only from me on the article talk page, was inappropriate. I am not alone in my opposition to the changes you are trying to introduce. If my opinion is the only one you are interested in hearing, that is hardly an example of "communal editing", which you profess to prefer. As I said earlier, if you ever do want to discuss something with me alone, you are welcome to do so on my talk page. That would send a clear sign to other editors that their comments are not required. Thanks and happy editing. Tiamut^talk 17:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to hear content based responses, not rhetorics about a supposed consensus among editors on the same side of the discussions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Back off the wagon?

Jaakobou, you seem to have gone back to your old ways — mass POV editing across multiple articles, accompanied by manipulation of the talk page discussion and the use of WP:AGF and WP:CIV objections to distract and silence people.

• Claiming that Zionism is 1000s of years old when all scholarship says it's a late 19th century movement
• Shoveling more mud on Saeb Erekat against massive consensus
• Diluting important factual information with silliness
• etc

Please, cut it out. You barely avoided sanction in the recent ArbCom, solely because the scope expanded to the point where singling you out would have seemed biased. <eleland/talkedits> 05:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)