Will you be mediating this page? All I would like once and for all is an evaluation of this Cumulus Cloud's actions. I don't think it's fair that someone excavate 2/3 of an article because they disagree with the content. I think it's up to them to justify their actions, because right now, it appears they are the final word on the subject, and that's hardly fair. Please advise, thanks. Ledboots (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I understand this person probably has good intentions, but I find they are obstinant and unwilling to engage in a civil discussion (twice now) and now I'm in a reversion war with them. All I want is a second opinion and if I'm wrong, I'll go away. It would seem to me this person could edit parts they don't agree with, rather than butcher the whole page. Also, they should be careful what they are calling "original research". What is original about quoting authors, etc? Ledboots (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. All I'm asking for is a fair assessment on your behalf, maybe broken down by subsections that were deleted. If I'm totally wrong, I'll accept that, but like you said, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Certain items should probably be removed, but in my opinion, the content adds to the article, not diminishes. Btw, I'm sure things like this are no stroll in the park for you, but you efforts obviously are not unacknowledged. Ledboots (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awarding Barnstar
The Barnstar of Good Humor
Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jaakobou, I was merely clarifying that following the introduction of more sources, removal of this item wouldn't be exempt from 3RR. I wasn't suggesting that you had performed multiple, or indeed any reverts. PhilKnight (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I consider these repeated "per BRD" reverts (by an editor who does not follow BRD) to be very disrupitve and in violation of the assigned principals, specifically Purpose of Wikipedia, and Editorial process.
Hi, just curious as to why you closed this without the controversy ever being mediated. I am trying to handle this in an open way instead of just rushing to some formal battle. If I want to continue with this, what is my next step? Thanks. Larry Dunn (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am new to wikipedia so I actually do not know exactly how to resolve silly disputes. I am creating Vasojevići article and recently I have removed clenup and references signs on the article. User Compwhizii has reverted the change giving no reason (I suppose that some kind of automatic program). So I have asked him to explain the revert (four times), I did not get any more answer than "You are a n00b" and "it just need clenup". Seems he's too zealous and arogant to talk. See for yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Compwhizii or http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vasojevi%C4%87i&action=history . Please sugest what my next steps should be. Is there some kind of administrator I can complain to? If I am wrong I have no problems with that but I need any explanation. Thanks in advance! Drmiko (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks PhilKnight. Just one more question. Once I run through the manual and fix what have to be fixed do I remove the sign hoping Compwhizii will not revert it again or is there some more sensible procedure? Drmiko (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But than again - you migh actually not give the reason at all. Like this time. And again I'll have to look for other editors like Monixide or PhillKnight to tell me what you had in mind...Drmiko (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CWii(Talk|Contribs) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I suppose you remember the fuss over my "Arab funded violence" commentary which led to my being topic banned for 7 days.
As I've previously mentioned, "I've let things get under my skin, and made a few posts that could be better phrased. If that means a week long topic ban I'll take my lumps. What I'd like to demonstrate here is that, from my viewpoint, a number of other editors were acting provocatively. ... I'm not requesting an unblock but believe other editors' activity, specifically Tiamut, Nickhh, Sm8900 and Nishidani, should be given proper examination and possible sanctions should be considered when their activity is placed in comparison with my own."[2]
"[Israeli Defense Force (IDF)]'s massive expenditure of ammunition over the first weeks was notorious"Nishidani, 21:02, 13 March 2008
"indescriminate bombings in which on average half the victims are innocent civilians, house demolitions, land theft, property theft"Nishidani, 17:11, 16 March 2008
"a huge part of the Palestinian population has suffered variously from relentless dispossession, destruction of property ... harassment, starvation, arrest and wounding while under military occupation for 4 decades, on their own land ... Terror begets terror"Nishidani, 10:52, 5 April 2008
''"Several 'pro-Israeli' (ugh!) editors", "the problem for Jewish/Israeli editors here. Nothing I have read in this long thread has struck me as 'rational'" "something I kept thinking 'crazy' 'irrational' 'obtuse' while engaging in this dialogue, had a probity of a deep, if ethnocentric, order" "Were ... Israelis thoroughly informed of what really goes on, in their name, in the territories" "(I shall be taken to task for soapboxing in this last remark, no doubt)."Nishidani 15:37, 7 April 2008
"The technique is to discredit the man, in order to discredit any criticism of Israel he may have made."Nishidani, 09:19, 11 April 2008
Hi Jaakobou, I'm not sure that you understand the ArbCom ruling - it doesn't suggest that editors should be sanctioned purely for being pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian. However, it does allow for sanctions to be applied in order to achieve the smooth running of the project. The "terror begets terror" stuff is soap boxing, so I'll leave a reminder on his talk page, but in all honesty, I don't envisage that a 1 week ban is required. PhilKnight (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight,
Thank you for giving this issue an examination, I made no ban request (I leave administrative considerations to admins) and only presented my own ban to remind you of the situation and my previous request.
Repeated use of 'Linguistic trashing of Zionism' is very much a problem with Nishidani as he insists on repeatedly making vilification/delegitimization commentary, many times accompanied by borderline anti-semitic sources (or) 'Linguistic trashing of Zionism' interpretation of sources.
My first encounter with him was when th made an attempt to lower death toll in 1929 Hebron Massacre because of selectively reading into a Martin Gilbert source saying that 59 died that very day and 8 more died from their wounds in the following days.
I've added above problematic commentaries from his recent "small 19,000 char point" and note that he's used a Norman Finkelstein (borderline anti-semite) article to make anti-Israel commentary. I believe Nishidani to be quite aware of what he is doing, but if he's not, it might be because in the UK it's become politically correct to thrash Israel (Oxford Union "debates").
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk07:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC) small clarification 07:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC) cleanup 07:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC), added Michael Safyn and reformat 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to discuss with an editor who refuses to be civil and avoid personal attacks as he continues to pursue the "value" of problematic sources.
"Jaakobou in his reversion says Klein is some political leftie he dislikes." (this is false information) "evidently Jaakobou's description of him, and the reason for the revert, is not rational ... simply because he doesn't like the author's politics, is another mystery on my Wiki mystery list"Nishidani, 16:30, 10 April 2008
This is a complete follow up on previous bigoted explanations on how racist and criminal the people of Hebron are (7000 people) and also previous debates on the qualities of anti-Zionist sources such as 'JewsagAgainstZionism.com' and 'Neturei Karta International: Jews United against Zionism' (October 2007). It's a clear example on why I eventually, after 6 months of dealing with this type of behavior, lost my calm and made my "Arabs are funding the terror against Israel" comment that cost me a weekly topic ban, even though it's an accurate statement. JaakobouChalk Talk17:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talk with Nishidani
Jaakobou. In your ongoing attempt to get me under some restrictive ban, could you please have the courtesy to notify me personally on my page of your complaints? I only happened to notice this page when checking on my friend User:Ceedjee 's page to make a request, which has now been interrupted. I am, by the way, not, as you endlessly repeat, anti-Israeli. I edit in this area exclusively on those questions bearing upon the people, Palestinians, who dwell in what the International Court of Justice, in a virtually unanimous decision, called the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Anything that happens within Israel's borders is no business of mine. My being pro-Tibetan from early adolescence did not stop me from learning and loving Chinese language and culture. Idem for Israel. Finally, by repeating that I cite 'borderline antisemitic sources' you are both smearing Norman Finkelstein, and trying to tar me with the same brush. You are welcome, it is a liberty, to brand people whose views you disapprove of as antisemitic. You are not at liberty in Wikipedia to insinuate that a fellow-editor may be antisemitic because he quotes a statement from a scholar whom no one intimately familiar with the books and the record has ever found a skerrick of evidence for, to support the ranting political contention that he is antisemitic. Were he antisemitic, Raul Hilberg, whom no one can accuse of antisemitism, would never have said the generous words in support of Finklelstein's work that he is on record as having written in the latter's defense. That is all I have to say. I have no interest in further replying to what is a provocative campaign of innuendo and harassment Nishidani (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani,
You'll pardon me if I disapprove with your repeated "'crazy' 'irrational' 'obtuse'""'pro-Israeli' (ugh!)" editors and their "[notorious Israeli] expenditure of ammunition" and "relentless dispossession" commentaries. Quite frankly, it was annoying enough when you were making bigoted explanations on how racist and criminal the people of Hebron are (7000 people) but when you're using delegitimization "the problem for Jewish/Israeli editors here." rhetoric and keep "suggesting" all Israel are criminals, I have to draw the line.
Finklstein is definitely an anti-Zionist and also a borderline anti-semite. Regardless of your bogus disclaimer claims, this is not the only case as you've previously debated the qualities of anti-Zionist sources. ('JewsagAgainstZionism.com' and 'Neturei Karta International: Jews United against Zionism' [4]).
To quote Nishidani, "provocative campaign of innuendo and harassment". That is all I have left to say.
I think we are intruding on another's person's page. If you would be so kind to address these complaints to my page, and just leave a link here, I will be saved the embarrassment of clogging an administrator's page with my defense, when no formal charge has been laid against my behaviour in the duly constituted venues in Wiki for the charges you are now making. I tend to to be tediously discursive in my own defense, and it annoys many. I'll be quite happy there, on my page, to document every adjective, and every characterization made of the leaders of the Hebron community which you object to in that diff, from the Israeli and Jewish literature critical of that settlement, beginning with the racist theology of its religious founders, their criminal records in Israeli courts to David Shulman's recent book, and Avigai Margalit's comments in the New York Review of Books on what both those eminent scholars call 'sociopathic' or 'barbaric' behaviour. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Puzzlement
I'd appreciate a clarification on your comment that I need to familiarize myself with Wikipedia policies. I think I am actually familiar with the policies you site. Since the NFRA dispute may actually not be about bright-line violation of policies, but rather about questions of judgment as to the appropriate way to follow those policies, simple citation of policies without a discussion of your view as to how those policies are best applied is actually not very helpful here. If your view is that those policies are not being followed, kindly explain how; it's not obvious to me. Maybe I am just missing something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.254.47 (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if you are familiar with policies mentioned, then please accept my apologies. From my perspective, relevant policies to this dispute include, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, however I agree this isn't about a bright line policy violation, but a question of judgment. PhilKnight (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soapboxing?
G'day, PhilKnight. I'd appreciate it if you call a spade a spade, and not use 'possibly'. If something is 'possibly' an infringement of policy, it is, by rights, equally, possibly not an infringement of policy. An administrator should act to counsel when he is sure, not when he is in doubt, unless of course the use of 'possibly' here is a gentle nod towards policies on WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, whereby you mask your judgemental self-assurance in the courtesy of the dubitative. I'd appreciate it again if you are unsure of English usage, to refer your doubts to the Oxford English Dictionary. I say this advisedly because to brand as 'soapboxing' a remark, wholly legitimate on a talk page, that happens to be a cliché in the technical literature, is to classify what discursively is a brief reference to a commonplace as a tantamount to an 'harangue'(soapbox).
'Just as love begets love, so terror begets terror. If one thinks the doctrine of deterrence through to its logical conclusion, it not only plumbs the depths of human instinct on a time scale of perpetuity, but is a frustrating exercise in circularity from a logical point of view. . If terror and security are in a symbiotic relationship with each other, then security, must breed terror just as terror breeds security. All civilization will then depend on intimidation for its continuance, and all the finer instincts and achievements of man will need to function within this framework of terror.’ C. G. Weeramantry, Universalising International Law, Brill, Leiden 2004 p.501
I won't therefore be able to oblige you in the future by 'be(ing) more careful', since, perhaps arrogantly, I think my mode of contributing to Wiki is already one of care for precision of statement, and readiness to underpin what I say by reference to reliable books. What I said was both true, verifiably commonplace, and obvious, and that you take exception to this one nanosecond of commentary by me in an extensive thread full of misapprehensions and personal assertions by others ungrounded in any evidence or logic surprises me. As an old man, I take you admonition as well-meant, but also as suggestive of a certain hurried reading which lacks the circumspection of trained regard for contexts.
Youth's fervour is its own excuse
for errors that it may induce'
to quote a rather sloppily translated distych from Pushkin in Babette Deutsch's version of his great poem. The context was a lamentable attempt to over-egg-the-POV-pud by User:Jaakobou, and waste serious editorial time.
I have several other examples from the technical literature of the phrase 'terror begets terror', if you still doubt that the expression is a commonplace in scholarly quarters. Regards Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
p.s.if anything, I would have appreciated being hauled over the coals for the lamentable expression 'causal attempts', which is nonsensical. Read:'until all attempts at establishing a causal logic assigning unilateral blame become meaningless'. That your repeating my own hurried remark here has made me reflect is cause enough for gratitude. Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nishidani, I apologize for the grammatical errors in my posting, however I'm unconvinced that your statements are especially precise. If they were, you wouldn't express opinions about the world, only articles. If you are making lengthy statements about the world, especially if they resemble political speeches, then you are open to charges of soapboxing. Please focus more on articles in future. PhilKnight (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue to explain in detail on the talk pages why I favour one edit over another. I would remind you I did not, as your remarks imply, express opinions about the world in the post you objected to. User:Jaakobou asserted a conspiracy by a clique to be the cause of the 2nd intifada, in a proposed edit for an article. I, on the talk page gave my reasons why that edit was wrong, in summary fashion, based on extensive reading. This is normal, and I am rather perplexed that, after some years of my editing, you are the first administrator to take exception to it. That is your right, however, and I take no offense, even if I question your judgement Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Query
Hi PhilKnight,
I am not sure to understand. Do you mean that when Nishidani wrote : "terror begets terror", that could be understood as (soapbox) promoting the use of terror ? I think it is the contrary, no ? Ceedjee (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding me of policy, Phil. I am familiar with it, having read that page closely. One small point however should be clarified, I think, in order to keep things completely clear and above board. On User:Jaakobou's request, complaining about my 'soapboxing', you rightly investigated his complaint, and laid a reminder warning about 'soapboxing'. In our subsequent exchange, unless I am mistaken, you were careful to use the grammar of hypothesis (if, then) and it emerged that in the specific passage which engendered Jaakobou's complaint I wasn't soapboxing, but alluding to a series of facts which, I assume Jaakobou dislikes, but which are facts that have to be taken into consideration. I defended my right, on talk pages, to detail my motivations for opposing edits that tend to prime the text with a unilateral POV. You took my talk page remarks as expressive of my personal opinions about the world.
'I'm unconvinced that your statements are especially precise. If they were, you wouldn't express opinions about the world, only articles. If you are making lengthy statements about the world, especially if they resemble political speeches, then you are open to charges of soapboxing'.
For the record, I was not, unlike User:Jaakobou (in his notorious edit ascribing all Palestinian resistance against Israeli occupation and expropriation of land with native title, to an Islamic antisemitic mindset), stating my 'opinions about the world'. You further make an association I am perplexed by in arguing that 'precision' (by which I mean detailed close argument) excludes 'expressing opinions about the world'. I'm afraid I do not see the connection. If one is required at times to remind one's interlocutor, on a talk page, of facts being ignored, this does not constitute making opinions about the world. It constitutes precise clarification as to why one's interlocutor's editorial judgements are deemed by others dangerously lob-sided. To state a series of facts, allude to common technical judgements and information all editors should be duly familiar with, is, in my view, part of the process of editorial rectitude. It does not constitute 'soapboxing', a word Jaakobou invariably uses in my regard when I remind him that conflicts are complex confrontations, involving two narratives, and that attempts to erase one perspective (Palestinian) to favour unilaterally the other narrative (Israeli), which is then promoted as the only true version of the facts, is not conducive to the neutrality to which an encyclopedia must aspire. I happen to edit in this area only to conserve that other perspective's legitimacy in articles that require balance. Nothing User:Jaakobou cites as examples of my 'soapboxing' can be reduced to a 'personal view' on the world, since I take care to use descriptions ('theft', 'dispossession', 'harassment') that reliable sources like Amnesty International, the International Court of Justice, UN resolutions, B'tselem, Human Rights Watch, and distinguished Israeli and Jewish authorities (David Shulman most recently, see the Israeli Settlements talkpage) have consistently recorded as customary facts of the Occupation of the West Bank. It is perfectly legitimate for my interlocutors to refuse to accept these facts. It is not legitimate to run to an administrator everytime they are adduced as a reminder of the other perspective, and complain of rule infringements like 'soapboxing'. This is a very tough area in which to edit, and that I find myself, unlike most other areas where I edit (Japan, Greek Literature, or Jewish intellectuals), constrained to expatiate at length on talk pages, is not indicative of a yen for political speech-making. It merely shows that, unlike many others, I do not edit an article directly (on which I am highly focused) unless I have managed to achieve consensus on the talk page. I might well lament my inability to edit articles directly, without endless reversions and challenges, (what you call 'focusing on articles'), but the highly conflictual nature of the area means extensive argument on the talk pages is required, often on the most commonsensical edits, in order to avoid edit-warring. My experience here is one of having material culled from highly reliable sources, mostly Jewish, edited out simply because editors dislike that material. Therefore to go back to the talk pages and argue at length for a proposed edit is not 'soapboxing'. It is reminding my interlocutors of facts and perspectives their editing, not only in my view, tends consistently to ignore, or hold hostage, or silence. Regards Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, thanks for the explanation. I agree that Jaakobou doesn't appear to understand the difference between soapboxing, and expressing an opinion about how an article should be phrased. Nevertheless, I honestly think your "terror begets terror" comment was a very mild form of soapboxing, and hence my reminder. PhilKnight (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I won't drag this on. Administrators are overloaded as it is with trivial pursuits, apart from the normal onerous duties, and to press my point might only add annoyance to what is a difficult function. Frankly Phil I think you did made a slight mistake - I note, with some consolation, that my amiable adversary User:Ceedjee, with whom I have clashed and collaborated most productively on several articles, can't see the point of the admonition, and neither can I. But rather than contest the legitimacy of your call, I assume my share of responsibility, for you clearly had no idea of the technical literature I was alluding to, and it is not apparent in my original text. As my quotation showed (I collect them, having a long interest in the philosophical distinction between 'terror' and what is deemed to be legitimate state violence), my terror begets terror remark, in that it alludes to an opinion widely shared in the technical literature, can't be soapboxing. It's not quite nice to see oneself as under monition, but I think the new Arbcom rules have functioned in a salutary fashion to make editors far more attentive to the perils of edit-warring and nuisance editing, and there is no harm therefore in being formally registered there as a possible nuisance-editor. I'd of course be happier if the same warning were to be given to all actual or potential editors in this area. But that's neither here nor there. Buon lavoro, then, and regards Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(recently denied speedy) So, how should that have been retagged? I'd posted further evidence on the talk pages, of this and the second copy the editor had uploaded: Image:Madonna-Baumblütenfest-Werder-Germany-2007.jpg. The flickr user clearly doesn't own the copyright (see [5] - this image appeared, with attribution, in the Guardian in 2001, flickr user claims to have taken the photo in 2007). On the one hand, we have a WP:RS, on the other, a user on flickr. It looked like blatant copyvio to me.
Hi PhilKnight, thanks for mediating the NFRA case. I wanted to bring something to your attention, specifically a couple of IP ranges that I suspect are involved in sock-puppetry. Is it appropriate to bring that information forward, or should I just sit on this info until after mediation? I do not want to be accused of ad-hominem attacks or not assuming good faith, but the content of those edits, coupled with suspected sock-puppetry, make that very difficult. The mere facts themselves point in that direction. Your advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated! Thank you, CorpITGuy (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CorpITGuy, if the same editor uses different IP addresses, that isn't necessarily a problem. It would only be a problem if they are pretending to be different editors, in order to claim a false consensus. If you consider there is a problem, then I would recommend posting about your concerns now, rather than waiting until after the informal mediation. PhilKnight (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IMG is kicking back up with a big project for June
You listed yourself as a member of WikiProject Image Monitoring Group. A new project is being planned for June 2008 called "Wikipedia Image Cleanup Month" and we could use your help. Check out the talk page at WT:IMG and see the goals and to-dos we need help with (which you can help decide in this early stage). We would love your help and this positive effort should increase and educate Wikipedia about images which will have long lasting effects. MECU≈talk14:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NFRA Article Mediation question
Despite the fact that this article is supposedly under mediation, two of the people who have participated in the mediation are once again re-editing the article. Despite the fact that a brief biographical sketch of the president is apparently controversial enough to demand mediation, these two posters are adding material that are arguably less valuable and relevant. One poster is adding an extremely long p.r. party propaganda essay. Another is adding links to weblogs that are presumably news events. Could you please clarify whether disputants who are participating in mediation are permitted to be editing this article? 68.46.254.47 (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for notifying me. Yes, I concur regarding the content, and had previously commented on the talk page about this. I'll leave a note on the article talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Armia Krajowa returns
Over a year ago you helped to mediate a case there. Since then the article has been steadily improving - it has passed GA and milhist A-class reviews (I aim to FA it one day). However a recent dispute destabilized the article; I have filled an RfC - comments would be appreciated here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need help in taking a deep breath and having a nice chat over at Talk:Zionism. When you get a chance, can you let me know about the status of my request for informal mediation? Many thanks. BYT (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC
Hi BYT, the case is listed on the medcab and community portal pages, waiting for a mediator to accept. At the moment we have a backlog of cases, so it could be a while before your case is accepted. PhilKnight (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the update. Any idea what the wait time is averaging once people file this kind of request? It's my first time around the block on this. Peace, BYT (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Phil, in reference to the National Federation of Republican Assemblies Website, the user 68.46.254.47 appears to be adding personal attacks about Rod Martin to the wiki page. When I looked at the users contribution page, they have only been interested in this page about the national federation of republican assemblies. What is the best way to stop this user from slandering an living person on wiki. Also, should I try and find Rod Martin bio on the internet and add his bio to the wiki page? Thanks for your advise. it is me i thik (talk) 10:14 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I gather from the commons talk page that you are in the process of an OTRS verification of the image's license, and also of removing the watermark. PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed
Dear User:PhilKnight. I just happened to notice on my friend Ceedjee's page, that there is a consistent attempt by User:Jaakobou to excerpt out of context my remarks and mount a case for having me under some restrictive ban. I dislike having my time editing articles entangled in endless bickering, so I won't reply to the accusations. May I prevail upon you, if you do pursue the matter User:Jaakobou raises, to actually check minutely the contexts he is clipping from. I seem to come in for an inordinately regular accusation of being antisemitic, against which I haven't and will not register complaints, since I don't think the administration here should have its time wasted. But User:Jaakobou's reference to my attempt to distort and lower the death toll in the 1929 Hebron Massacre is disgracefully unfair, as anyone checking the original thread can see. To save you time, I'll summarize. Various Jewish sources say 59,62,63,64, 67 people were massacred, and my point was that the difference is partially due to statistics in the Jerusalem Post the day afterwards, on the number buried, as opposed to statements registered by the Jewish community several days, then two weeks later, as some of the wounded successively died. Two people died of heart attacks, not as a result of direct slaughter (a nugatory distinction, given the horror) but the word governing the number 67 was 'murdered'. Best research shows 64-65. I was endeavouring to get the factual record straight, with as much attention to a large variety of conflicting sources as our friend Jaakobou devoted to the Jenin Massacre (to lower the figure, as it happens). Sorry for the bother, but there is a whiff of vengeance in the air, why, I do not know.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how, because 8 people died from their injuries (people were stabbed and hands were melted in stoves) the lead death toll should have been lowered from 67 to 59. I am also quite discomforted by your repeated use of heavily anti-Zionist sources and delegitimization advocacy "campaign" against Israel. It's gone well beyong the point of discussing the topic when you add an "ugh!" when mentioning pro-Israelis while soapboxing about what Israelis would do if "thoroughly informed of what really goes on, in their name, in the territories".[6]JaakobouChalk Talk14:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read books to satisfy my prejudices. I read everything I can lay my hands on, whatever the source or POV of the author, so long as the work has recognized quality. You can seed this page and any other as much as its owner will tolerate, with words like 'Nishidani's campaign against Israel', simply because I happen to care to get the Palestinian side represented. I would, and this is my last word, ask you to appreciate the nuances of English. I dislike, unlike yourself, categorizing my interlocutors as 'pro-Palestinian' 'pro-Israeli', for the words suggest a committed one-eye partisanship that ignores the complexity of our exchanges. Thus when, for brevity, I referred to 'pro-Israeli' editors, I added (ugh!) to register that I disliked collectively branding the people I disagreed with, like Michael Safyan, as ontologically dedicated to defending an Israeli POV, whatever the evidence be. (Ugh!) here means 'How I dislike using this term', and nothing more. It is apologetic. As you should recall, I have not infrequently sided with strongly Zionist editors (User:Tewfik, for one) against passionate anti-Zionist editors when the evidence at hand suggests to me the former is right. Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd accept your explanation if your history wasn't mired with anti-Israel commentary and sources, and that certain 'ugh' comment wasn't dabbled with "the [ethnocentric] problem for Jewish/Israeli editors here ... [wouldn't exist if] Israelis [were] thoroughly informed of what really goes on, in their name, in the territories"SOAPBOX rhetorics. JaakobouChalk Talk15:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, I disagree with you, therefore I am anti-Israeli. Tonight, I will haul out my Aristotle, and look through the sections on syllogisms, deductive logic and entailment to see how the great Stagyrite would classify your proposition. Good evening.Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You recently nominated this page for deletion, but it had only been created three days prior. I've since started adding more information to this article stub, but it seems kind of premature to nominate it for deletion so soon, don't you think? Qqqqqq (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Qqqqqq, following your medcab request, I thought it could be useful to determine whether the consensus is to delete, merge or keep these articles. PhilKnight (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just a quick query - I provided citations answering your query on the discussion page some days ago, but since then there has been nothing. Is the John Zizioulas mediation continuing or not? Best, Seminarist (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are almost done, Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2006 is down to less the 400 articles to find references for. I would like to thank you for listing yourself as a volunteer at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and would like to take this opportunity to invite you to visit the project again and work on getting the last few articles referenced. We started with 5,572 and we are in the home stretch, please come and try to do a couple a day and we can finish it up in no time. Jeepday (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My RFA has closed
My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e18:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
