User talk:Jaakobou

Sunday

18

August

02:18 UTC

notes:

• {{db-author}} - delete an image request.
• WP:DEL - deletion protocol.
• WP:CITE - <ref></ref> tags and such.
• quickSearch.
• WP:RM - requested moves.
• WP:CIT - citation templates.
• WP:RFC - request for comment.
• Template:Cite news - ref templates.

- Language tags:

• english tag: {{Languageicon|en|English}} (Template:Languageicon)
• hebrew tag: {{languageicon|he|Hebrew}} (Template:Languageicon)
• arabic tag: {{Languageicon|ar|Arabic}} (Template:Languageicon)

• WP:NAM - :D
• WP:3O

stuff i'm reading

• Wilayah
• Sanjak
• Medina
• Caliphate
• Iudaea Province
• Damour massacre
• Muhammad Ali Pasha
• Greater Syria
• Hamlet
• Merneptah Stele

Blocked (for 40 minutes)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing because of your disruptive edits. You are invited to contribute in a constructive manner as soon as the block expires. I left a note on the talk page saying that any user who removes the tag before the discussion on the talk page is complete would be blocked for edit warring. you ignored that Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot, i consider this block a direct breach of protocol and if the block is not removed i will be forced to report this. you are actually aiding and abetting a repeated revert offender.[1] Jaakobou 16:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already reported Betacommand to the admin noticeboard, after warning him that the threat was ill-advised and inappropriate. --Leifern 16:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As indicated, this matter is under active discussion on the noticeboard. FYI to Jaakobou and to avoid any confusion, the blocking admin's name is Betacommand; he operates a bot called "Betacommandbot" that is mentioned in his signature, but that the bot has nothing to do with this block. Newyorkbrad 17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Block removed after 40 minutes^[2], page hijacking issue still unresolved.^[3][4] Jaakobou 17:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Yehoshua Hankin (1864-1945).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Yehoshua Hankin (1864-1945).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

fixed, thank you for the notice. Jaakobou 11:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Libel

This is your only warning. The next time you add defamatory content, as you did to Talk:Shimon Tzabar, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. RolandR 23:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Linking to a website that may or may not contain libelous information (I have no idea as I didn't bother checking the link) does not warrant the sort of "last warning" that was just added to this page. Yes, you guys disagree on many issues and the posting of the link on the talk page was probably out of line but it does not warrant this; RolandR, I suggest you remove it for everybody's sake as there's no need for this situation to escalate further than it already has and the link is already gone. Yonatan ^talk 23:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No way. 160 sockpuppets have already been indefinitely blocked for posting this abuse and linking to this libel, as Jaakobou must know from his own stalking of me. He clearly DID follow the link (even though it was deleted), and consciously decided to post it. I hope that he too is blocked indefinitely for this flagrant abuse of Wikipedia. RolandR 23:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, jumping from warning level 0 -> 4 seems to be a bit quick even though the link is inappropriate. Yonatan ^talk 00:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jaakobou RolandR 10:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this 4th level complaint is down right out of line considering the link was not proveded in a libeleous manner at all^{article history <- will remove this once the complaint is removed}, but to present to you that you should stop accusing me of POV and climing you are a neutral editor while you blatently tag-revert revert.. at best, you could have placed a 2nd level warning although you should have assumed good faith and issued a 1st level warning if you're acutually offended by a ^[2] style link. I tend to think you're glad that you "found a chance" to give me a warning and went a little overboard with the find.. i've given my reply on the AV/I page, and honestly, i think it reflects badly on you more than it does on me. Jaakobou 12:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:RolandR, you will be blocked from editing. My user page is my space, not yours. You have absolutely no right to remove other people's messages to me; particularly before I even have a chance to read them. RolandR 21:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

another overstated warning and this time without even a just cause for a level 1 warning. i removed a personal attack against me. you can easily read it in the history. as a matter of fact, you reinstating it is a violation of WP:NPA policies. Jaakobou 21:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

2nd level notice issued here: [5] (allready reverted by RonaldR) Jaakobou 21:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

RolandR AV/I case

issued to User:SFC9394: i request you don't become an inadvertant accomplice to RolandR's malicious activity by presuming the location of his comments to be the correct one. he has ignored the notice issued under the text (relating to the personal attack on me) and created a seperate out of chronological order complaint to make his complaint be "first" on the read list. however, the history of the page indicates that i reported a personal attack on me[6] and afterwards rolandR has posted his vandalism complaint above the section dealing with the issue[7]. Jaakobou 13:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: RolandR AV/I case

I am not really fussed about whatever the dispute is about - all I am simply saying is don't delete other peoples comments when you are involved in a dispute with them. That is very bad form - please don't do it. SFC9394 13:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not refactor ANI

(edit conflict):You recently moved a comment made by another editor in the ANI report that the two of you are involved in. You are not to alter others comments. In this case, as you are an involved party, it is especially important that you do not even move other's comments to where you feel they are more appropriate. — ERcheck (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

ERcheck (talk and SFC9394. i did 'not delete or edit any comments.. only moved a misplaced comment to the proper chronological order since the other user has placed his "vandalism report" above my previous complaint for personal attacks. however, i agree that i should not move other user's comments which means i will only place links to my comments in the proper chonology. on a jokingly side (i hope you can take it on a lighter spirit side despite the heated situation) i was moving my own comments above rolandR's comments and not moving his comments down. </joke> on the serious side, user RolandR has removed the personal attack warning i issued on his user talk page. Jaakobou 13:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, you "moved" a comment. "Edit" covers moving comments as the context is changed. As you are a party to the complaint, you should let others handle any issues with respect to the out of mis-ordered comments. Let other editors make their own mistakes. If you disagree with where someone else puts the comment, make note of the placement; but, don't move it. In addition, as the editor's original comment that you moved was not in response to the subject line below it, in my opinion, it was in the proper location as a response to the comments above it. I recommend that you let the case speak for itself, rather than escalating it further by making the ANI itself an issue. You have been asked very nicely not to edit other's comments in the ANI case. If you do this again, you are subject to being blocked. — ERcheck (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

i've managed to resolve the situation in a better way thank you. Jaakobou 14:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for stepping back and agreeing to leave the other's edits alone. Working this issue with civility is appreciated. — ERcheck (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

i do try to resolve disputes, this one though is a unique and very much problematic case. you're more than invited to see the entire thread and weigh in on it. Jaakobou 14:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

As there seems to be a long standing conflict described in the ANI case above, I want to be sure that you are aware of the dispute resolution process. It seems not to be single incident, but a long string of incidents. — ERcheck (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

ERcheck, thank you for the link - i've went over it for a bit, but i think i could use an outsider's opinion with some advice on the next step i should persue to resolve this long standing incident. I'd be appreciative if you help me out with moving this thing foreward. Jaakobou 10:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that the situation still needs outside intervention, then step through the dispute resolution process . I'm guessing that you are at the "Further dispute resolution" stage (Have you tried Request for comment, informal mediation via the Mediation Cabal, or formal mediation through a Request for mediation?) I recommend that you read up on each process, decide where you feel you are in the dispute resolution process and what step you want to take next; further, no matter where you are in the process, taking a breather when things heat up is usually helpful to keep things from getting out of hand. If you choose to move forward, it is helpful to all involved if you document what dispute resolution steps you have already taken. — ERcheck (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel you would like a neutral party to help you with process, consider Requesting an advocate, as indicated on the dispute resolution page. — ERcheck (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

ANI discussion

I have closed the ANI discussion because it's ceased to be productive. That said, your constant accusations of personal attacks against RolandR and others are getting disruptive, and I suggest you stop. – Steel 12:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

i don't think you have any right to close that case - and i'm reopening it. Jaakobou 12:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked you. We've been patient enough. – Steel 12:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

1. i think you've been most uncivil with your entire approach. per: "I'm in half a mind to block you, but I'm holding off in the hope that you start being co-operative."^[8]
2. i think this block is unjustified as i've both managed to solve the previous "moving comments issue" and a single revert might constituate a warning - but not a block.
3. i've happened to miss your comment for the reasoning for the archivingl - you could have stated that a reasoning is on the page - or give me a reasoning beyond "it's ceased to be productive"... i'm not quite sure who are the "others" - ChrisO? we've solved our differences on good terms last i checked.
4. besides your approach, I also think that the conduct of User:Kingboyk by replying "enough allready"^[9] and removing my question from his talk page^[10][11] and then claiming to have explained it to me allready^[12] (since when "enough allready" is an explanation?)

We don't need to see the diffs again. You're such a victim aren't you? "Enough already" is a perfectly adequate explanation. It means, you're exhausting the community's patience by constantly complaining. --kingboyk 14:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

the entire handling with this ban and where you don't show even a sense of civility/AGF is very much disheartening. Jaakobou 13:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Use {{unblock}} if you wish to request an unblock. --kingboyk 14:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that my revert was a mistake (on the archiving). Sorry about that, you have my word I won't do it again. please unblock. while I believe my accusations were definitely warranted, apparently opinions differ so i think it will be helpful to refrain from such accusations in the future. Regardless of whether or not they're warranted. Jaakobou 15:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a very positive response, thank you. I'll ask the blocking admin what he thinks. --kingboyk 15:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You've been unblocked :) Please keep the promises you made. Cheers! --kingboyk 15:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

thank you, autoblock still on. Jaakobou 16:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, looking into it. --kingboyk 16:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Should be removed. If it isn't, please use the unblock template as somebody with more technical knowledge will have to look into it. --kingboyk 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Image Delete

i couldn't quite make out why the image of Aliza Olmert was deleted, sorry if this is not the correct way to inquire about it. Jaakobou 15:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is because the uploader of the image didn't specify the copyright details, nor any information about the image, thus the image was deleted. Curran (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that might be a mistake, i seem to remember to have placed some info about the image. Jaakobou 15:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Sometimes that (annoying, but don't tell it) bot deletes things that don't belong in the garbage. Try re-uploading it and adding correct details. Whether this will work-- I dunno? Might be worth a try. Curran (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seen somewhere a notice that deletions can be reverted without reuploading (an old upload of mine)- whoever, i cannot see the deletion history so i wouldn't know who to contact. Jaakobou 15:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there are any bots that actually delete things, they just tag them for admins to delete. You could look at Special:Log/delete to see who deleted the image and ask them to restore it. Just enter the image name into the "Title" box. If you don't remember the exact image name, you can look at your upload log. Mike Dillon 22:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Azmi Bishara2006.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Azmi Bishara2006.jpg. I notice 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 {{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 any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. -- Y not? 23:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please self-revert Battle of Jenin

Please self-revert at [13]. The original of this article in Hebrew is at [14] of the Yediot Aharonot article on May 31, 2002. Gush-shalom provide a translation at [15]. While Gush Shalom is a campaigning web-site, it is not a blog, and would normally be considered a Reliable Source in its own right. It is certainly an RS for translation purposes. PalestineRemembered 08:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

the hebrew version might be an accurate copy of the ynet article, however, the english one is full of defamation and one sided "the truth!!!" style bloggish narratives that are not by any means accurate or encyclopedic. if you want, we can include some gush shalom refrence to the ynet article, but you must find the ynet article, and you must find a gush shalom article that doesn't plagerize(sp?) from ynet. you should also find a way to write things without copy-pasting. Jaakobou 09:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Students

Hey Jaakobou! Why not write about the Students. [16] ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Article: Ex-Islamists

You recently created the article Ex-Islamists, however it seems from the text of the article that you meant for the creation to be a category (maybe Category:Ex-Islamists). If this is the case, and the article was mistakingly created, you should probably add {{db-author}} to the article so it can be removed. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

fixed, thank you. Jaakobou 04:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed Walid Shoebat from this category as he was formerly a secular Palestinian nationalist (PLO) not an Islamist. I now believe the category itself was misnamed, and suggest it should be renamed to Category:Former Islamist and/or Arab terrorists. --GCarty 16:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, while the PLO is "secular", they are anything but secular.. they are simply not as ultra-orthodox as some of the others, shoebat was educated in Ilsmic ways and there's plenty of information about that; there's nothing wrong with the current title of the category. Jaakobou 07:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The PLO's ideology was similar to Nasserism or Ba'athism. Did Nasser's Egypt or Saddam's Iraq use Shari'ah law? (Clue: Islamist = supporter of Shari'ah law). --GCarty 08:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

if you quote the quran while trying to kill jews and then change your mind and attack this ideaology... you qualify as ex-islamist. the comparisment to saddam is irrelevant. islamism, is not only about sharia law, it's also about dar al-harb and "resistance" jihad martyrdom concepts. Jaakobou 09:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

talk:Jerusalem

I wrote what I did on the talk page because I didn't want your words to provoke an argument with our visitor "friends" that could only cause harm to the article in the end. nadav (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Do you mind if I remove your last comment? I really don't want them to be pulled into starting an unfruitful argument. I think the best policy is to ignore any incoherent or unenlightening comments by IP editors. nadav (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

i don't think most of them are intelligent enough to make an argument... if they try, they might end up learning something and it would actually make them better people. thanks for your concern though. Jaakobou 00:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please Help with Yhoshua Leib Gould article

Hey, there are some of the usual suspects trying to whitewash an article about a Neturei KArta guy. Can you please help out? Yoel23 13:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Faith Issues -- Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks

User:Liftarn, It's beggining to feel that good faith is under suspiscion in regards to your edits on Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks^History. I'm making this note due to a few edits which seem to censor information from the article - such as:

• this edit: explained as "I think the caption got mixed up." in which you ⁽ⁱ⁾remove the name of the woman on tape and both the ⁽ⁱⁱ⁾ref and info to on her beying quoted as cursing the USA and ⁽ⁱⁱⁱ⁾the link to the criticism.

- this edit btw destroyed refrence no. 11^[17].

• this edit^{repeated here} in which you attach the hosting webdomain name (freedomdomain.com) as the "reporting body" in what might be an interpreted as an attempt to discredit the actual reporting body of the refrence, i.e. Times Newspapers.

While i try to assume good faith, and i havn't objected to this edit in which you discredit sources by noting they are on a "personal website". there is a fine line where i'm loosing faith due to promotion of dubious unrefrenced notes and making page moves while claiming there was a "Propaganda" or "Fraud" where it might seem to suit a possible agenda and censor-reverting and tagging refrences as "propaganda links" where it doesn't.

please note!

please remember to maintain WP:NEU in future edits to this article so that good faith suspiscions won't turn into allegations of WP:TEND and contribute to unnessesary soapbox situations and/or edit warring where you "discredit" a source and another contributor might "NPOV the situation" by "discrediting" another source. Jaakobou 11:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Was that the name of the woman? Ok, I just noticed that the caption had changed and changed it back.
• Btw, are Youtube videos useable as sources?
• Unless we fins the actual Times article it is no more reliable than any personal webpage and should be reported as such. How do we know it is an accurate description of the original article?
• The text was copied directly from the Westboro Baptist Church article (or thereabouts). Now I only found a passing reference in Targets of Westboro Baptist Church. A quick googling found http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/6/22220/02926 Just look at the signs saying "THANK GOD FOR Sept. 11"[18]. And in other media[19][20][21].
• Yes, propaganda and fraud. Fake (fraud) celebrations being brodcast as propaganda.
• I removed the links that was already used as sourced and those with an obvious bias. Then there was no links left.

// Liftarn

1. i see no problem with an article about the Westboro celebrations, i don't think they are worth much more than a "see also" in regards to this article which is heavily dedicated to palestinian celebrations.
2. i don't know if you're aware on how the international media buissness works if you call the usage of these images "propaganda".. they were not propagated by israel, but AP - an agency blamed many times for being a tool in the hands of terrorists who threaten the lives of it's reporters so they comply on many occassions to make a buck and were heavily under fire for proven photoshopped images and arranged scenes... the life of a photojournalist is about as vicious as the one of the paparatzi(sp?) if not more (you know, photography under fire and such) and to be honest, i think -- knowing pictures of celebrating palestinians were taken not only in israel (and west bank) but also in lebanon and that perceptions in the arab world about the US cultivate this behaviour (to some extent) -- that the handing out of candy is more probably part of the cultural ceremony rather than an induced staging... although, i'm not intending to add such POV into the article.
3. these video links i provided are based on the only current sources availabe for these newscasts, luckily for us they seem to be at full length and unedited. sadly we have no better source (yet) and it's here for obvious encyclopedic reasons. if you can come up with better refrences to the video that would be great.
4. for the same reason, we have no reason to suspect that the Times article is distorted.. similarly, the der spiegel source was allowed also when we have no availability of the actual full article. i believe there really shouldn't be any contention at the moment that the refrences are of shoddy reliability... i do think there is room to find better links for all the articles mentioned in the Tripod page.. that one bothers me a little, but it's there because we have no reason to believe the articles were falsified and also for encyclopedic value which is IMHO the most important part of our contributions here at wikipedia. Jaakobou 13:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent Revert on Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Cool beans. Screen stalker 14:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Mass demolitions in the Negev.

I'll try not to wantonly trigger these[22] breaches of Wikipedia civility with anything I can't prove. It was Israel's minister of interior Roni Bar-On who announced in Dec 2006 that he will destroy 42,000 homes of 2nd-class Israeli citizens in the Negev.[23] Well, unless you're going to tell me that Israelis lie, of course. PalestineRemembered 17:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

(1) note the article (from January 10, 2007) uses the words "42,000 illegal structures in the Israeli Negev.", your statement is misleading at best.

(2) note that the article by the "israeli committee" asks the question: "When will Israel create options for 80,000...", accusing israel for not creating options. which is, at best a white lie and at worst a blatant POV pushing. see these articles to note that "israelis can lie" *shrug*:

• The government discussed setting up two permanent communities for the Bedouins (note the misleading title) (2006)
• YNET Hebrew article, mentions presented option, rejected by WAdi A-Naam, to be settled at [[24]].

as you can see, a few options are presented and discussed, the people in the Ynet article had a reasonable reason.. they say that the southern part of that town is close (10Km) to a waste dump and they are worried it is dangerous.

regardless, the article also notes that in 2003, Ariel Sharon made a plan allocated 9.8 Billion NIS in a span of 10 years to upgrade and recognize 8 places of beduin concentrations and upgrade them in a manner that fits the beduin lifestyle.

User:PalestineRemembered, if you're not very knowledgeable about a certain issue and you have certain worries because of materials you've read (selectively in this case). it would be best to look for less politically motivated organizations to fact check your assumptions and avoid uncomfortable allegations of libel. Jaakobou 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find you supporters of Mugabe attempting to justify his mass demolitions. I know the excuse he made was "slum clearance", but I don't think anyone (other than people enjoying his hospitality) ever accepted what he claimed, or thought his behaviour anything other than criminal. PalestineRemembered 19:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered, so now you're planning on comparing between two situations you havn't explored seriously? .. don't you think you're stretching out a bit too far with this soapbox?? i don't know much about zim, but last i checked the life expectancy was 37!... not really a place that should be compared with israel. Jaakobou 20:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

My humble apologies. It would be quite wrong of me to compare House demolition in Zimbabwe for slum clearance purposes with house demolition elsewhere for ethnic cleansing. People might think I deplored what Mugabe is doing and was soap-boxing against him. PalestineRemembered 12:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

House demolition

I was wondering about why you changed your mind about whether the Israel Palestine stuff should be on its own article or moved back into the main one. You don't have to answer if you don't want to. nadav (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

i'm a bit ambivalent about it, but i don't remember changing my mind. *scratches head*

could you please link me to this change? Jaakobou 09:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Here's what I was thinking about: [25] nadav (talk) 09:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

lol, caught flipfloping. well, at first i thought the article deserves it's own article, but later i read the comment by Gabi S. on the AfD page and figured he had a point and that not only that this makes for a perfect POV pushing situation and considering there's no similar expantion on other countries/conflicts and that many of the words were repetative. plus it caused many unnessecary and time cunsuming edit warrings for the project. i'm still a bit ambivalent and figure there is room for such an article in the future of the project, but for the moment - i think that a Redirect, it the best solution. Jaakobou 09:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. (obviously, I have counterpoints, but you've cleared up my question) Best, nadav (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

direction of text

{{helpme}}

i need the wikicode for making a text appear from right to left. Jaakobou 12:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You can use the {{rtl-para}} tag. Example: {{rtl-para|he|שלום!}}, which prints

שלום!

nadav (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

thank you, i allready found {{Hebrew|שלום}} which makes for a better font, but the <p align="right"> formatting did not look very nice, so i settled with your suggestion. thanks again. Jaakobou 13:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

p.s. pun intended.

Allahdad incident

Hi, I removed those categories since i made a top category Category:Crypto-Judaism which is now a sub-category of those categories. Misheu 05:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew for Lion

Hi, would you be able put the hebrew characters for Lion on the Lion etymology section. Would be much appreciated. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks

The consensus from the discussion was that the source of Image:PalestinianWoman.jpg was not reliable per the nominator's reason for deletion.

I agreed with Quadell ^(talk) that having two fair use images in the short article Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks violates WP:NFCC #3a against minimal use. After readingWikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_25#Image:PalestinianWoman.jpg and Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#25_June_2007, I felt the consensus on that issue was to use Image:PalestinianChildren.jpg in the article. -Regards Nv8200p talk 14:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I reread the discussion and still believe the consensus is that the sourcing is not reliable and the image has other fair use issues. If you wish to have this decision looked at again, please request a deletion review. If my decision to delete is overturned, then those editors interested in the Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks article can figure out which image is best to use - Regards -Nv8200p talk 22:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You can try re-uploading the image and summarizing the new info you have and see if it passes the community's scrutiny. You need to document on the image talk page your rationale for re-uploading a deleted image or it will probably be immediately deleted. You can pursue getting permissions from AP for the image too if that id the copyright holder. Start a discussion on the article talk page aboput the images and see wha the consensus is. Good luck. -Nv8200p talk 14:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Jenin

Hi, if there are any specific points of the text that need translation, I would be glad to help. Danny 09:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Accurate bible translations

Hi and thanks for your note on my page. There's not really a problem. We're talking about the aerticle Bethel, and the website to link to for the various bible verses mentioned there. I had links to a site run by the Uni of Virgina which gave whole chapters from a single translation (the NIV I think), Sarek changed it to a site that gave only single verses but a wide choice of translations. I reverted because I felt (a) that whole chapters are more useful because the reader can see the verse in context, an (b) that many of the translations in his site are untrustworthy (e.g. the King James - great poetry but a bit outdated); he then pointed out that (a) the verses on his siet are easily linked to the relevant chapters, and (b) my site wasn't available any more. I regarded that point as being a bit of a clincher. Have a look at the Bethel article. PiCo 01:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Offensive post in Jenin talk page

Do not accuse me of "not caring" about the victims of bombings in Israel. I do not take that view and nor has anything I have said or any edits I have made even suggested that I do. Also please don't claim that you speak for the general public and the average wikipedia editor, as it makes you look rather foolish. You might also want to stop lazily pretending that all the people killed in Jenin were militants. --Nickhh 14:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

calling me foolish somewhat defeats the porpoise of this note of yours. regardless, you have little room to attack me after you've just insulted me and i simply noted this fact to you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Help

{{helpme}}

i really need a guide on when it's good to use the {{cquote}} template. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Try looking here I spose - Sorry I couldant be more help Tiddly Tom 21:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please undo this edit if you require further assistance. Tiddly Tom 21:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no consistency across WP when it comes to using templates for quotations. There are {{cquote}}, {{quote}}, {{blockquote}}, {{quotation}}, etc. I am not sure Category:Quotation templates lists all of them. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hebron

Jaakobou, You are over the three-revert limit on this page. Please self-revert now, or I will report you. CJCurrie 07:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User:CJCurrie, i'm not over the limit, but thank you for the heads-up. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you *are* over the limit: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. Please revert yourself now. CJCurrie 07:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

1. if you think i broke the WP:3RR, feel free to report it, i know for a fact that i have not.
2. try to remain WP:CIV, when addressing other wiki editors, bold font could be considered by some people as shouting. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You've made more than five reverts in 24 hours, so I don't see how you couldn't have broken the 3RR. You do realize that the count isn't reset at 00:00, right? CJCurrie 07:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

thank you for the update. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 20 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Hebron. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Anthøny 22:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

yeah i made a technical error, i think that i try to resolve disputes as properly as possible in a very hostile environment and that while this block is technically justified, it is not helpful to the project as it rewards rude behavior by people who are blanketing correct and referenced information just because the phrasing was a little off. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

- future reference, archive.

Neo-Zionism

I've removed for the moment the transclusion {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Zionism}} from the AfD log, since there is neither a tag on the article nor a discussion page. In case you actually want to nominate this article for deletion, please complete all three steps per WP:AfD#How to list pages for deletion. --Tikiwont 14:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wounded Soul

Kind of a stretch, to call what I said a personal attack, unless you take things way too personally, which was my point; fighting over a worthless patch of desert has wounded the souls of all involved. Speciate 21:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please watch yourself

You should not use your edit summaries to identify edits made as part of a content dispute as vandalism, as you did at [31]. This is a tacit personal attack, and may be seen as at attempt to evade scrutiny through misleading summaries. In future, I suggest you say "rv tendentious editing", or "rv as factually inaccurate and POV", or something similar. Eleland 17:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

1) i have both previous and recent history with said user.

2) this is not a content dispute but information blanking from both the intro (reason for notability) and from a resolved issue (kurdi bear) that has been discussed over and over.

3) i have given the user a chance to defend his edit on the talk page.

4) you're hardly the person to talk to me about revert incivility and misleading summaries.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

1) All the more reason for civility.

2) The blanking of information was part of a content dispute. Vandalism refers to edits which clearly have no other purpose but to damage the article, and could not be seen as constructive by anybody.

3) No policy empowers users to give each other "last chances" after which they may violate WP:CIV or WP:NPA.

4) The edit summary you mentioned drew attention to gang-reversions by nationalists. It made no reference to any particular edit or user. POV-pushing from nationalist editors is a well known problem on the Wikipedia. Eleland 18:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

you've managed to distort/misrepresent all 4 in your reply. good job. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Visitors may judge "information blanking" for themselves

Interested visitors should know that what Jaakobou calls "information blanking" (above) and/or "vandalism" is actually the re-writing of his un-encyclopedic, tendentious and wordy edits. (In this case, the article was Battle of Jenin). His version of this paragraph reads as follows:

Israel claimed that a warning was given over a loud speaker before each of the houses were destroyed; However, Yediot Aharonot's "7 Days" editorial released a personal interview with Moshe Nissim (nicknamed "Kurdi Bear", Hebrew: "דובי כורדי"), a problematic army reserve soldier who insisted on becoming a D-9 driver, as stating that regardless of the speaker calls, he personally gave no one a chance and demolished the homes as quickly as possible while thinking about all the explosives hidden in the camp and the Israeli soldiers being in a death trap situation. Nissim added his disregard for the possibility that he could be killed and that despite not witnessing any deaths, he did not care and he believes that people died inside the houses.

The version he insists on reverting out (having failed to edit-war it out of the article completely) reads as follows:

Israel claims that a warning was given over a loud speaker before each of the houses were destroyed. Yediot Aharonot quoted Moshe Nissim, nicknamed "Kurdi Bear" as saying "They were warned by loudspeaker to get out of the house before I come, but I gave no one a chance. ........ Many people were inside houses we started to demolish. ....... I am sure people died inside these houses."

Note that his paragraph replaces the correct English language reference with one in Hebrew, thereby ruining "Verifiability", one of the core principles of the encyclopedia. (I made other changes at the same time in this particular edit, the most significant being the correct reporting of death estimates - "at least 52", not "total 52". So his replacement paragraph is not just very badly written, it also put known falsehoods back into the encyclopedia).

Needless to say, there is a lot more work needs doing on this article, but it is not going to happen until this behaviour stops. PalestineRemembered 14:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

We should have both references included. My understanding of policy is that English-language references are preferred to foreign-language references, but in this case the reliability of the Hebrew source is claimed to be superior to the reliability of the English source (although personally I trust Gush Shalom more than Yedioth Ahronoth). Eleland 15:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered (and User:Eleland), all this information belongs where we've already discussed it, i.e. on the article's talk page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, and I apologize. Eleland 17:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved or not?

Civility is the toughest nut to crack at Wikipedia; people are expected to have thick skins and often harsh words are expressed and editors are allowed a significant lattitude unless there are threats, profanity, or outright name calling. I haven't seen the crossing of those lines from the diffs you linked. Are there others you'd like me look at? FYI, WP admins will not block someone for POV pushing alone even accompanied by strong language. Carlossuarez46 17:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Reopened my complaint as well. PR just doesn't get it. *headdesk* Kyaa the Catlord 10:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Response on the film article

I think that there may be an honest disagreement on how to word the critiques section. Although weasel words like "some" are usually to be avoided, where things are largely a matter of taste (as movie critiques are, basically) "some" and "others" are probably passable. One could say "Some, inlcuding the Chicago Sun-Times, ...". I think the weasel words guideline is best in a factual dispute: some people say the Nile is the longest river, others say it's the Amazon. Who the "some" are there does matter - if every supporter of the Amazon is a Brazilian Newspaper, the reader can draw his own conclusion on whether a bias is present. As for a "quote farm", a phrase I don't particularly like, while it is sometimes important to quote rather than characterize the quotations, like perhaps Barak Obama's recent statements about Pakistan or Putin's statements about the "missile shield" in Europe, and we have lots of articles of the sort "International reaction to [event]" that are nothing but a bunch of quotes. However, in matters of taste (as here) it's less important to repeat what they said: there are plenty of more polite synonyms for "boring" but they still mean "boring" - but most documentaries are boring to most audiences that's why they make lots less money than Harry Potter or Batman or Bourne movies. Carlossuarez46 22:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

i don't mind putting in that reviewers noted that the film is slow paced and some called it boring... however, starting the review section with a statement that "it's a slow boring movie... and incorrect to boot" is certainly not how we should address any film.

the thing is that with political movies that are pro/anti-israel or pro/anti-islam or pro/anti-palestinians. there's always some idiotic attempt to influence the way the film is presented and this case is no different... some wiki editors are simply incapable of taking a step back and simply noting the range of reviews in an NPOV manner. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:CIV

Yes, yes, I have noticed that you like to complain about incivility instead of addressing substantive issues. I find your need to see yourself as a helpless victim, unjustifiably targeted by hostile forces, regardless of how destructive your actions are, to be fascinating: you seem to mirror personally the attitude that your state takes internationally. If you remove material with no justification, or with no more than a passing reference to some TV show you saw on Israel's equivalent of the Discovery Channel, you'll face this type of response. It is extraordinary frustrating to deal with you. Even when you're completely off base, it takes reversions and multiple postings on talk before you — sometimes — accept it. Two cases in point would be your insertion of the term "Big Jenin Lie" in boldface to the lede, and your original research claims of accusations of "genocide" when that term only appeared once in all of the sources you provided. I'll try not to question your motives in future, because ultimately, it isn't helpful.

Now, on a related matter: Do you have a potential conflict of interest related to the Battle of Jenin? Were you a participant in the event? Although you have devoted much bandwidth to decrying this question, you have not answered it, which would be the most sensible way to deal with the issue.

Eleland 13:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

warning issued. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It would appear it was time you answered the question - did you take part in operations described in articles in this encyclopedia, and are there circumstances under which you could be charged with war-crimes and arraigned before the ICC at the Hague? Please consider your options carefully before providing a reply. If there are circumstances under which you might seek asylum in a civilised nation (or indeed, in a western nation), then you might care to consider your response especially carefully. Please note, these questions were originally presented in the context of a Conflict of Interest, and you've not replied to the original question. However, you are welcome to do so now. PalestineRemembered 17:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Libel Take Two

It's obnoxious and it's rude and it's uncalled for (and it's a violation of numerous WP guidelines), but it's not libel, at least in the US.

WP:CHILL and WP:COOL. Admins are looking at it. Further advocacy at AN/I is more likely to hurt the persuasiveness of your case by making the section difficult to read. WP:CIVIL is rarely enforced, and even less so when the complaining party is complaining loudly. THF 23:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm just curious how it's not libel for every type of question to be asked in public if it can be proven that the person asking knows what he's doing and he's doing it repeatedly on purpose, in order to vilify someone he considers to be an opponent.

you don't need to go far up this page to see he adds to his "question" the following phrasing:

Please consider your options carefully before providing a reply. If there are circumstances under which you might seek asylum in a civilised nation (or indeed, in a western nation), then you might care to consider your response especially carefully. [sic] - by user PR.

this was done after the AV/I members ignored my original complaint, therefore giving him the feeling that this kind of behavior is acceptable. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that he was blocked. Like I said, I thought the comments despicable, and I think WP:NPA is underenforced. Throwing around language like "libel", though, hurts your case, which might be why admins didn't notice it; PR essentially hung himself with his AN/I participation by defending the uncivil edit. You would have been more persuasive with titling the complaint something like "NPA: User accuses me of committing war crimes" instead of "Repeated bogus accusations/claims and libel". The former statement is uncontroversially true, an obvious violation, and would have been acted on much more quickly; the latter resulted in a debate over whether something was libel. THF 09:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you for the explanation. i agree with what you said, and in the future i'll do my best to keep it in mind. i was considering to add a comment to the AN/I, using the wording 'close to legal' and noting that a 24hr block seems like a weak deterrent to such demonstrative activity, but decided that i'd only be repeating myself. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

i just saw his page^{static version} and all i have to say is wow. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:30, 12 August 2007 (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.^[32] 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: [33]. 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.^[34] 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 [35]:
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.^[36]

(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"^[37]. (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^[38] (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. ([39] [40] [41] 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. [42] - 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.^[43] 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.^[44] 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 [45] and [46], 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"^[47]

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?^[48] 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,^[49] 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)