User talk:Ykantor/Archive 1

wikipedia principles

Hi Ykantor,

Thank you for your input in the different talk pages. I come back on a point on which you didn't answer :

contributors are expected to comply with WP:NPoV. It means they are not expected to unbalance the article in bringing information always in the same direction. What you call errors that you identified are also information that all go to the same pro-Israeli direction. Could you please confirm without ambiguity that you read and understand WP:NPoV and that you intend to look for all information by yourself no matter whatever the picture it gives is good or bad for one side or the other ?

a basic rule of WP:NPoV is WP:Due weight. It means that if you enter information, even true, it must not affect the global picture of what is relevant is not. Eg, stating that the ALA had armored vehicules without talking about those of Hagana is wp:undue (It is also false to shift from "antiquated" to "fighting" to talk about ALA vehicules), talking about the "artillery" of the ALA, without specifying the number of 2-inch and 3-inch mortars of the Haganah, is wp:unde, rejecting the idea that Abadallah invaded Israel because of fights is wpu:undue (it is also WP:OR - original reserch and false) if we would not say that the Yishuv invaded (same word) because of the conquest of Acre and Jaffa. (it is also WP:OR). Do you understand what I mean ?

Thank you, Pluto2012 (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ykantor,

Would you mind answering these questions or explaining why your refused to ? Pluto2012 (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

to pluto: I have fully replied in the Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War, at 20 May. If you search for the word "again", you may find it easily. Ykantor (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer this point : "Could you please confirm without ambiguity that you read and understand WP:NPoV and that you intend to look for all information by yourself no matter whatever the picture it gives is good or bad for one side or the other ?"

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

to pluto: I have fully replied in the Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War, at 20 May.

don't you find it funny, that while you are asking other guys to be objective and neutral, you yourself have not obeyed the rules? (by vandalizing deleting a section in spit of Wikipedia rules) Ykantor (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am totally objective and neutral but you refuse to comply with this : "intend to look for all information by yourself no matter whatever the picture it gives is good or bad for one side or the other".

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

to pluto: It is rather funny that you ,the offender, try to show other editors what to write. It seems that it is much easier for you to personally attack people who doesn't agree with you, rather than come up with sources. Whoever reads the talk page, can clearly see that you always blame in general, but do not say what is specifically wrong. You prefer general blames since it is like a smoke screen for your lack of specifics. Unless you provide specifics to base your claims, I do not see why one should waste his time and refer to you anymore. Ykantor (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy

ARBPIA==

You have continued to make a number of personal attacks on other editors, and continue to misuse the term vandalism against other editors. That is not acceptable behavior for somebody editing in a topic under discretionary sanctions, and if you continue I will ask administrators to sanction you for doing so. nableezy - 20:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is amazing That you defend the offender, pluto2012, by trying to frighten me. He has proven in a couple of deletions, that the title vandal fits him as described: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. However, I felt pity for him, since with his record he might have been banned from Wikipedia. Ykantor (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it up and I will report it. You are saying that another user is intentionally compromising the integrity of articles, a user who has added more to this encyclopedia on the 48 war than nearly every other editor around. Youve been notified of the case, and if you continue to violate the requirements that it set for editors in this topic area I will report it. nableezy - 14:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, You may report it immediately. Bear in mind that it will possibly expose this editor to an investigation concerning his action which fits: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. don't you see the irony i.e. you may expose your friend to possible investigation, while I feel pity for him because of his poor record. Ykantor (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Ill wait for you to do it again. nableezy - 16:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Synthax ==

I don't like you and you don't like me but at least you source your work, which is a very good point.

Please, take note of this mistake (unvolunteer) from your side.

When you write :

<ref>[The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951: Arab Nationalism, the United States, and Postwar Imperialism, By William Roger Louis , 12985, p. 407]</ref>

the brackets are useless and the synthax is not the usual one. The right synthax is :

<ref>William Roger Louis, ''The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951: Arab Nationalism, the United States, and Postwar Imperialism'', 1985, p. 407.</ref>

The brackets [ and ] are used to link to a website. For exemple, you could have :

<ref>William Roger Louis, ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=ATQQ0FMS1FQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+British+Empire+in+the+Middle+East&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=K7a4UbiKC8XQOanFgLAI&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20British%20Empire%20in%20the%20Middle%20East&f=false The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951: Arab Nationalism, the United States, and Postwar Imperialism]'', 1985, p. 407.</ref>

Which would appear in wikipedia as follows :

William Roger Louis, The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951: Arab Nationalism, the United States, and Postwar Imperialism, 1985, p. 407.

Your source is excellent. You should add what proves so : Oxford University Press. So the final is :

<ref>William Roger Louis, ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=ATQQ0FMS1FQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+British+Empire+in+the+Middle+East&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=K7a4UbiKC8XQOanFgLAI&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20British%20Empire%20in%20the%20Middle%20East&f=false The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951: Arab Nationalism, the United States, and Postwar Imperialism]'', Oxford University Press, 1985, p. 407.</ref>

that would appear as follows :

William Roger Louis, The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951: Arab Nationalism, the United States, and Postwar Imperialism, Oxford University Press, 1985, p. 407.

Hope this helps.

Pluto2012 (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas the fact that I explained you the synthax of sourcing, you didn't follow my advices : eg here but that is true for your last edits of the day.

It is obvious provociation from your side but it is also a real vandalism

Please take time to correct this.

I inform you that you deleted wp:rs information on other edits that I will revert right now.

Best Regard, Pluto2012 (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

aua

Disruptive editing & general note ==

Ykantor, some of your edits have come to my attention. I just wanted to remind you of the WP:NPOV and WP:NOSPADE policies. This is the reason most of your edits are being reverted and you're causing friction with many editors. A generally good idea with all Palestine/Israel articles is to discuss all changes on the talkpage before even considering moving them into the mainspace.

If you have questions, I'd be happy to help.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 20:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first case that you do not understand. Whatever I write, is well supported, unlike some of the other editors, and whoever attach the false POV label knows it well. You might not know, as:

you are reverting my edits without any explanation.
when you revert my edits, you do not understand the issue ( e.g. who started the war).

It took you exactly 7 minutes, (from the moment Traherleven opposed the quote in the talk page) to delete this quote. Was it just by a chance?

Your writing here is a pure hypocrisy. I will appreciate it if an editor like you, who does not understand why he revert an edit, would not write in my talkpage any more. Ykantor (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]