User talk:Jiujitsuguy/Archives/2009

Gaza War

Again, remember that less than 4 reverts might constitute editwarring. Your last revert still is one less of 4 as the first in your last serie expired 08:32. I got 2. Shall I join your editwar? 50% chans your favoured version stays during the articleprotection. You can revert again at 23:21 without breaking 3RR. I hope some uninvolved bring this up at WP:AN/EW.

Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I really liked how lean Anon's proposal was. It cut out all of the other emotive this and that. "Inflicting huge civilian devastation" didn't jump out at me but I'm sure it can be reworded. I also only did the lead and didn't touch the infobox or the other small change that came up on the edit summary. (I think, since that is what I meant to do. I will check right now!)Cptnono (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

WTF! I must have been in the revert screen since the edit history shows me removing the text. Reincluding the "status"Cptnono (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would expect resistance but am not sure myself how to word it. I think it needs to be crystal clear that there was plenty of damage to civilian buildings. This of course is already done in several ways throughout but it deserves some mention in the lead. Wording will be a tough one.Cptnono (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I dumbed it down more than that even. I'm sure there will be a few drafts coming up.Cptnono (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Hope everything is going well. I originally wanted to stay off of the page since it seemed appropriate but then "justice" was done for both Stellar and me so I might say screw it. I was thinking about taking the massacre thing to mediation. Is there something on the page you are looking for another opinion on?

I don't know if you saw but after bringing MUAs case back he got blocked so it looks like that is taken care of.Cptnono (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Funny how it sucks you in. Is it full of random allegations and finger pointing instead of military based info, too?Cptnono (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Gaza_.22Wikipedia_Edit_War.22 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

Can you provide the edit dif for the following comments:

• Come on Wikifellows. His IP says he is from Brooklyn USA. Why on earth can one believe a guy from Brooklyn working for the Israeli Goverment. Just look at all nice areas and etnic... Borough Park... Wait! Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Finally I found that recruitment office. Now where is jiujitsuguys bankacount so he can get that recrutbonus? Lookie new bombwest. Wonder what happen if I push this red button. Oh shii.... Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Just trying to grind up a solution, no accusation involved. But BashBrannigan suggestion is a middleway. No bold text and no Cast Lead. And thats just the first part of lead. Damnit, there is more diputed. But without you and Nableezy agrea this will take long time. I understand he will drop the bold text if Im right. Cant you accept BashBrannigan:s? Its attractive to me as 'Cast Lead' is, even kind of abstract as I never been in Gaza, a name splattered by up to 926 civilians blood. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC
• Yes, November 4 shit started... Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• If you are a Israeli or American jew I like to discuss some tings with you. Because there is some things i dont understand and you could help me with it. But first I think you should stop edit articles about the conflict between Israel and Palestinians. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Never mind, hope the weather is good in Brooklyn. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If you do, I think you can get a block on him as disruptive editing. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 21:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Diffs

I see you are not too clear on how to present diffs. I had a bit of a hard time figuring it out as well and it is time consuming. I think you go to the history page of the article or user page where the "diff" you want to use is and look down until you find the one that you are looking for. Check it out carefully and you should be able to copy the link location where it says "previous." Not sure how clear I am being but you will want to understand this so you can present your case. Stellarkid (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:DIFF lays it out. nableezy - 21:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Kind of you to offer that. Here are a couple of the diffs for the comments mentioned above. [1][2] Stellarkid (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC) [3]Stellarkid (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

On talk pages, it's easier to look at the timestamp on the comment you want and then find that time on the page's history rather than search them one by one. Also, if you install the navigation popup gadget from the preferences menu on the top right, you can just hover over the history and see the diff without clicking through. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I have to do a few other things but found a couple more of the above and two that speak to attempts at recruiting as well as un-collegial behavior : [4] - [5] - [6] - [7] Stellarkid (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Try disengaging with the conflict. Or go to the IRC to ask for "expert admin help" http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#wikipedia-en-help The guys at the IRC can help you. For the "username" use your Wikipedia editor username (Jiujitsuguy) --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 21:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jiujitsuguy. You have new messages at Tyw7's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 01:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Block notice

I am blocking you for a week for edit warring per complaint here: [8] and onoing aggressive editing. If you feel it is unfair, you are welcome to appeal the block in the usual way. Please try to stick to 1RR and discuss changes. Endless reversion does not help anyone reach consensus. --BozMo talk 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You screwed up it looks like. I had a quick correspondence with the blocking editor which you can see on our talk pages. Read through it and if you agree and understand, it might be worth appealing. I found Template:Unblock and Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks so try them out.Cptnono (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Note to any other admin as I am going offline: this block has been on for 24 hours and you are welcome to lift it if you can obtain some sort of promise of good behaviour--BozMo talk 13:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the comments were no longer readily available. Here is the discussion you missed:

Words!

This is in regards to Jiujitsuguy's 1 week block. I believe Jiujitsuguy guy thought he was doing the right thing by removing what he thought was blatant bias. It was simply an instance of knee-jerk reverting. The edit summaries provided did not show the next revert which was my revert of his. I'm sure he was surprised when I reverted him since we both have the same concerns about what we both feel is biased editing by other editors but I felt that part of his edit needed to be reverted (it was actually an accident to revert the whole thing as silly as it sounds). He made an inquiry on my talk page immediately and we discussed it and he stopped edit warring. That being said, he should have double checked the article's talk page in the first place and could have been discussing the change there as well. He also could have tried working with the new context and I would hope that he is now aware of that. In regards to aggressive editing, that is a two way street. He is having a conflict with another editor and I applaud that editor for being up front about it. This additional ongoing noticeboard incident might shed additional light on it: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mr Unsigned Anon. Neither's mistakes are excused by the others but I believe the full context is important. I also can't pass judgment on either since I have screwed up bad enough to get a mention there. Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems and not meant to be punitive. His reverts were knee-jerk and he was rude to another editor the day before. His disruptive reverts were not ongoing. A good talking to and a shorter block might have done the trick. I don't know if he has a history of blocks for similar editing and if he does I 'm wrong. Just my two cents and I hope you will consider a firmer talking to with a reduction of the block (I would appeal o you for elimination but I assume that some point has to be made) to let him know that this cannot be an ongoing problem.Cptnono (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Sure other admins or I would shorten (or perhaps lift) the block if there was a reasonable sign he would behave now. However everyone always believes they are in the right and the other party is biased so trying to appeal based on rights and wrongs won't get him far. --BozMo talk 11:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Cool. I'm not sure about the ins and outs of blocking. I'll shoot him an email if it is available in the toolbox. I hope you didn't think I was saying he was right to revert more than once in what he thought was fixing balance. Just saying poor form and screwing up is better than being malicious. Thanks for getting back to me.Cptnono (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the admin was willing to toss out the full week. Sucks you didn't have email enabled. While you were gone Stellar opened up an AE on Nableezy (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nableezy and I have made a mention on an admins page regarding Mr.Anon who a couple of people think might be a sock puppet(User talk:Jehochman#Mr Unsigned Anon). I'm hoping that Mr.Anon was just being a jerk a couple times and is not a sock puppet. In regards to Nableezy, I think he deserves a block due to working the system too much and that sucks. All in all it is too much drama and I think it is ridiculous that you got a block and others did not. For that reason, if Nableezy receives a block from the page I won't be editing the page since I am obviously involved in this drama bullshit, too. Welcome back and have fun. We should be doing that more, right?Cptnono (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Cptnono. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Your attack on the anonymous editor was inappropriate and inconsistent with the principles of harmonious editing. Terrillja _talk 06:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Meh... you could argue Wikipedia:Mind your own business and Wikipedia:Talk page stalker but those are just cute essays. You probably shouldn't say such harsh things unless you want another block. I hear you and get your frustration. Just because we are being blunt, screw you since I got laid off myself ;) I'm enjoying the severance and hoping they don't realize the ratio of edits from their IP that was me! Welcome back and keep your nose clean. Cptnono (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

And I'm not over the hill but I am getting a beer gut. Thus the misspellings I just corrected. The more of this Wikidrama I see the more I realize that nothing begs for a positive administrator oversight like concise boring statements with differences linked. I think I might try this new approach of being nice and seeing what happens.Cptnono (talk) 06:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. It basically is using multiple accounts or IPs to "to avoid scrutiny; mislead or deceive other editors; edit project-related discussions such as policy debates or Arbitration Committee proceedings; make disruptive edits with one account and normal edits with another; distort consensus; stir up controversy; or circumvent sanctions or policy." Swaying consensus and circumvention of sanctions or policy seem to be the the big concern from the cases I have seen. Cptnono (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. A sock puppet check should be required here and the admin needs to pull the trigger. If he does not then we need to file the appropriate report. I am still hoping that he is not a banned user since he has done some good but even if he wasn't "to avoid scrutiny" might apply. If he was not banned I am hoping the talking to was enough but that isn't my call to make.Cptnono (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocks

Just for reference since you may need it in future, when you are blocked your own talk page is not blocked. The blocking admin generally will watch it and also if you post an appeal on it then the block will be reviewed by another admin. However in general the kind of comments which you left on my talk page complaining about another editor are unlikely to get you unblocked whereas comments like "sorry I went over 3RR I won't do it again" would have got the block at least shortened. --BozMo talk 07:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that anything by anyone else was "okay". If you still think this is about other people's conduct you are missing the point. I saw a serious rule broken by you and blocked you for it, correctly. You could have protested on your talk page or appealed the block, those were your opportunities to answer back. There is no requirement on admins to check every possible piece of history of every involved editor before blocking. There is always a history and everyone always thinks they are in the right. Hence we have rules like 3RR which are clear. --BozMo talk 19:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way WP:BAIT might help you if you feel you are being baited again. --BozMo talk 20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sadly things do not quite work in the way you imagine. Simple cases like WP:3RR are posted on the relevant noticeboard and get dealt with rapidly by an admin more or less looking at the reported diffs (and typically dealing with a series of cases in a row). More complicated disruptive editing or sock puppeting could be dealt with at WP:AN/I or by opening an "WP:RFC" but admins don't get assigned like case officers, someone else will take it up depending on who has time on the day. In general admins shouldn't really deal with direct requests because it opens the possibility of people choosing sympathetic admins, you should go via the noticeboards. I did notice though that you had not gathered all the diffs together, which you would need. Also I think you would need to spend a little time looking at the relevant policies. --BozMo talk 20:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Civility, personal attacks, all of that drama

My AE was closed with a judgment that seems fair. I sent this over to Romac so keep it in mind. If he attacks you take it to a noticeboard or AE. Keep it cool and don't take the bait.Cptnono (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It is called "arbitration". I am new to it also and technically was ineligible since I was not made aware of the process. I called out Nableezy for what I feel was pushing POV and was reported for discussing editors and not content on the article's talk page. I kind of disagree with my sanction in principle but it is clear that I'm not allowed to be a dickhead and I shouldn't be breaking Wikipedia:No personal attacks and should not say "hey, your pushing POV!" so it is OK. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. This page has too many people from this article on it.Cptnono (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead will cause a storm. It would have to be worded very carefully. "Israel was victorious military wise. So and so Hamas leaders called it a victory at rallies since they stood their ground." (very rough draft!). For "prose" I am looking at the general body of the article. Maybe a subsection of the Campaign section going into some detail on the parameters defining victory. It could be called "Outcome".Cptnono (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I like that. It might be a little long for WP:MOSHEAD though. Cptnono (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

The admin pointed us in the direction of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.

So Stellar may or may not receive a block. I think he has been a pretty cool customer and it looks like he thought he was doing it right. He just needs to understand the rules better and promise not to do it again but the principle that everyone's beloved Nableezy got blocked might come into play. That sucks because Nableezy's AE was completely different. Can you you to take the comments on AE and condense them into a collapsible table with a note that you it is not related to Stellar? The problems with Anon are not a defense for Stellar.

You are begging for an extended topic ban with your recent edits. I know it is frustrating and agree with some of the stuff you are saying. However, we can't be dicks. That was made clear to me and I want to stick by it as much as possible. It might be too late but here are a couple things you can do to

1. An acknowledgment from to others you that you will be following the practice at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle with contentious edits
2. Discussing these edits in a more civil tone on the talk.
3. Fixing this ongoing problem with Anon. Do you want to do the sockpuppet check? Do you want me to try to figure it out? If you guys don't get blocked for the AE stuff, his sockpuppet comes back clean, and he does his part to shape up (he needs to) then I hope you two can consider it settled.

I sound like a complete hypocrite and you don't deserve a lecture from me so I am sorry. I also want you to know that I really respect your tenacity and attempt to get the page neutral. I'm not trying to make you feel like the bad guy. One thing that bugs me is that both you and Anon have shown some good stuff. I definitely think you come across more neutral but I'm biased since we both seem to be not overly victimizing some of the stuff in Gaza.Cptnono (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand. That stuff was unacceptable. I don't think it will help Stellar but it may not hurt. It certainly doesn't make Anon look good. If you can, try to keep your cool with the other stuff on the page. Don't take the bait from others and don't edit war. Cptnono (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

done. It looks like while I was typing it up, he wrote a doozey at AE. Don't be like me and try to remember to keep your cool. Blanking your own page is fine. Read the exact ins and outs at WP:BLANKING Cptnono (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Guy

Welcome back. I just wanted to ask you if you would try to put something in the edit summary box when you make changes on a page. It just helps to understand where you are coming from. Thanks, Stellarkid (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

...without any mention of Hamas -

I hope it doesn't surprise you, since the report does not condemn Hamas. So why should UNHRC bother? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Diffs Mr Unsigned Anon

I've compiled a list of Diffs for your review concerning Mr Unsigned Anon. Since you placed a block on me based on his allegations against me, I think that in the interest of fairness, you at least review them and determine an appropriate sanction, if any is warranted.

Here [[9]] he is warned to stop engaging in disruptive reverts.

Here [[10]] he makes inquiries about my race.

Here [[11]] he accuses me of working for the Israeli government and also makes derogatory accusations based on alleged demographics.

Here [[12]] he asks me about the weather in Brooklyn based on his belief that I live there.

Here [[13]] he makes reference to my bank account on the Gaza discussion page.

Here [[14]] he taunts me to engage him in an edit war.

None of these comments are relevant, all of them are infantile and some of them are downright offensive.

If you determine that what he did was not disruptive or offensive, I'll accept your decision and leave it at that.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The sixth one is not the right diff but I can understand why you find the others irrelevant and puerile. They are not really "high grade" offensive stuff and could conceivable been intended to amuse not upset. Unlike for 3RR something of this type does require the time to look at all the edits back etc. which takes longer. I will have a look at his wider edits when I have time and perhaps warn him on civility. Meanwhile I would feel much happier if I could see you commenting "of course I should not have risen to it and gone over 3RR" --BozMo talk 07:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As I say, civility is a bit more complicated and I have to look at both sides. There appear to be places when you have been abusive back [15] and also other editors have commented on your "combatative approach" etc. However much you feel the victim and you have righteous indignation about your edits there isn't really a clear case that teasing by UA went to the point where WP:BAIT turned into WP:HARRASS. You probably don't like my answer but you clearly play hard ball with your complaints about other people (including me) and you could always open an RFC if you want. The strongest point in your favour is that you said you did not realise you were blocked for three days: if that was because you took a cool off period then that was a good thing to do. I will watch UA for a little while and see what he/she says but I think ignore it and move on is the best advice. --BozMo talk 11:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Tyw7

You have messages on my talk page! --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 13:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Contentious Edits

Jiujitsuguy I am sure you are aware that many of your edits to Gaza War are contentious. Requesting that you discuss edits that are bound to be reverted, for example your recent first-sentence edit changing the belligerents. Cordially, RomaC (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. "Expiry" is a word, there was no spelling mistake, please use a dictionary instead of sarcasm. Second point Israel and Gaza is better than Kadima and Hamas, although political parties' names may be relevant as commentators have suggested the attack was prompted by the Israeli election campaign. On the final point, can you tell me in your opinion, is Cordesman's report more, equally or less relevant than Goldstone's? Cordially, 23:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)RomaC (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Reporting editors for edit warring

Please could you use Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. As I tried to explain you are not supposed to pick your admin --BozMo talk 08:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edits regarding WP

This edit [16] contain POV-edits and other questionable parts. Your continously effort to remove or povpush this part is noted. Your requst of sources was met. Your objection to give it an own section was met [17]. And you even have the stomach to call my edits to satisfy your requst editwarring. [18]. I urge you to selfrevert the edit and stop povpushing or it will be brougt to admins attention. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

In case you missed it: I reverted you, Jiujitsuguy. Now, these days I´m normally nearly a 100% content-provider on wp...my edit-warring days are *years* ago... but I find your edits so provocative that I reverse them. What does that tell you? Well, perhaps nothing. But please don´t just blame mr Unsigned Anon, or whoever. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, as for the article-content itself; I think we better discuss that on the article -page (just let me note that I do not find your description: "The second time around, instead of reverting the entire piece, I shortened it and added two more sources including AP and JPOST" completely accurate; as you *also* removed the BBC quote: [19], which there was no consensus for (AFAIK). On a more general note: if you find something "repugnant, vile and offensive in the extreme" on wikipedia, it sounds to me as if it is time for you to take a step back. Eh, make that *many* steps back. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Had to laugh

Thank you for your comments on the AE. I just put it up as I got your message. It is general, but tomorrow will be more specifics I think. Late for me now and heading to bed. Best wishes, Stellarkid (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

POV editing

Adding a phrase like "Hamas, despite mentoring from Iran and Hezbollah proved incompetent and cowardly on the battlefield"[20] seems like POV editing. Please review policy to better contribute to the project. Cordially, RomaC (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my Talk page. I would like to suggest you review the difference between news and commentary, particularly how the latter should carry inline citation, and consider that not every piece of information that is sourced necessarily belongs in an article. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Jui, see WP:SOURCES for some help. Remember too that if you are quoting someone, their words must go in quotes. As RomaC points out, not everything that is sources necessarily belongs. I do wish he felt that way about "Gaza Massacre" which has a single English source to support it, but that's another story. Best, Stellarkid (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jiujitsuguy. Thank you for your comments on my talk page. Like RomaC however, I remain concerned about the lack of NPOV in the edits you have made to the Gaza War article. The sources you use are almost always Israeli or pro-Israeli, and I find that you often give undue emphasis to the Israeli POV. If you would like me to review specific examples with you to understand better what I mean, I would be happy to do so.

Further, while I agree that Mr Unsigned Anon had made provocative comments and has been quick to revert, that does not excuse responding in kind. In any case, I do appreciate the time you took to explain yourself. I would like to stress I hold no personal grudge against you (nor do I know anything about your background or even care (not in a mean way either). My concern is with the content of your contributions and not with you as an editor or person. Thanks again and happy editing. Tiamut^talk 17:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Hi George

Hi Jiujitsuguy. The proper place to report things like that is probably the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Cheers. ← George ^talk 08:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[21]

hey ari, why dont you go and complain at nutjobblogs as you did earlier? Or you could actually write something thats not full of missinterpretations? I was planing to retire but I guess I stay just because you like me so much. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

AE

It was archived by a bot. I went through the history and found it then restored it.Cptnono (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO

I think you should post MUA's diff above on Tznaki's (sp) page. It demonstrates that he has every intention of carrying on his uncivilized behavior the moment his ban is up. Whatever you wrote somewhere else quite a while ago should have zero bearing on MUA's clear threat to continue to harass you. I believe Tznaki should be made aware of this post. Stellarkid (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

good, and good luck with it as well. Stellarkid (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

good! A positive result.  :) Stellarkid (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if you think he is back as a sock. He could appeal the block (and might have a chance if there is any history of positive contributions) but circumventing it with a new account is not going to be tolerated. --BozMo talk 19:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay but that account looks stale. Any new activity would be worth flagging. --BozMo talk 22:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Astonishing

Why?

Even though we've discussed this countless times... you still insist on re-inserting that material. Last time we discussed anything, you proposed that we work through things bit by bit. I agreed, but you didn't discuss anything. Instead, you re-inserted everything back into the text... and more. This is one of the most biased edits you have ever made to the article, and you even removed sourced material. The bias and POVness you showcase in your additions is truly incredible. Will we, please, discuss the issues in dispute before changing the original article? I would much rather do this, though it would take up a considerable amount of time, then engage in senseless edit-war with you. How about it? --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm glad you've agreed to discuss this. Bear with me though, for as a law student I'm really time-stripped; discussions will tend to progress slowly. I hope that won't be a big problem with you. Cheers. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Even though I believe I stated my objection to the use of Schiff clearly, you gave a reply entirely unrelated to my objection, stating his credentials are excellent. I did not doubt Schiff's honesty or his reliability. Nevertheless, the link you provided me further supports my argument. My objection resides on two facts. First, Schiff is a journalist first and foremost, a fact which the article confirms. The second fact is that Schiff's book was written barely months after the war.

In light of this you will better comprehend my main objection for using Schiff. With concern to the first, Schiff wrote the book as a journalist, and the book is indeed a work of journalism more than history. I have a similar book in Arabic. Publications like these simply compiled as many facts as were available at the time concerning events surrounding the war. In some aspects, Schiff's book and the Arabic one I have were surprisingly accurate, keeping in mind they were made so soon after the war. In other aspects, they were plainly mistaken and pro-Israeli/pro-Arab. I'm not blaming the authors; it was only natural and inescapable that their books would be riddled with errors throughout. For their time period, they were as reliable as they could have been.

Take Schiff's book. The Agranat fact-finding Commission had not yet published its findings when Schiff's book was already on sale. To go even further, Israeli generals had yet to publish their memoirs and their experiences and views on the war. To say the least, a lot of facts were in the dark, even for a fine journalist like Schiff. Most of all, the other viewpoint was completely ignored, as Schiff acknowledged in his book. To be fair the same goes for the Arabic book I have. Arab generals had yet to share their experiences, and the other viewpoint was mostly ignored (mostly because the Israeli viewpoint was all over Western press at the time). Which explains alot of the errors in that book as well. For their time, they excellent resources and gave people as much information as was possible concerning the war, and also provided references to researchers and historians.

Look closely at the article. Schiff won an award in journalism for his book. This very clearly shows how his book was primarily a work of journalism than of history. Not once does the article call Schiff a historian, but always a journalist.

That's all I can say for now. Sorry for the long read. Gotta run. --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh my goodness...

Is it really so difficult to restrain yourself from making an edit before we've agreed on middleground? Furthermore, I find it hopeless to make you see my point concerning Schiff, despite voicing it several times in different ways. I never doubted his reliability or his credentials, yet for some odd reason I would kill to know you keep telling me of his CV. You know what, I find this an incredible waste of my time that I wouldn't bother changing the incredibly biased edits you keep introducing. You evidently are not seeking a compromise, but only wish to see your narrow viewpoint in the article. So go ahead and do whatever you want. I'm too tired for this nonsense. --Sherif9282 (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and before you go on a rampage removing material sourced to Hammad, have a read of this will you? Using Hammad as a source in this article or in any other is perfectly justified. --Sherif9282 (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one who's sorry for going a bit over the top with my last posts, but if you want to continue any kind of collaboration, then please self-revert yourself and refrain from making any further edits unless we've agreed over them. For my part I will be extremely reasonable and will ensure no time is ever wasted in endless discussions. If you refuse to do this, then go ahead with whatever you'd like and I won't say a word; it's your loss. Respectfully, Sherif9282 (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is addictive. Your proposal though is not enough I'm afraid. Go to the article talk page and look at the last section, where you'll find two users have voiced concerns concerning what you've written in the introduction and the factbox. Their argument is quite legitimate as well per WP guidelines I should say. Well? --Sherif9282 (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

We are indeed. I think you've misunderstood. I simply said I hope our cooperation continues and we never witness any kind of edit-war. Don't get me wrong here. If we were edit-warring I wouldn't have posted anything here and would have simply reverted without any kind of discussion, which is definitely not what I've done. I certainly hope we continue working together. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

I've returned the article to its original shape. Let's discuss before changing anything again alright? I guess from here onwards discussions should take place in the article's talk page so anyone can get involved and help. I will be posting there in considerable length soon. --Sherif9282 (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the reasoning behind copy-pasting this lengthy discussion into the talk page? What's the idea? --Sherif9282 (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Heyo

Better if next time you ask for external perspective when its clear that more than one person is rejecting your suggestion (and you are certain that there's merit to it). My time is quite limited these days so I'm not sure on how far I can get the conversation going, but I'll try and direct it towards a resolution that everyone (i.e. normative wiki-editors) can live with.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions

As a result of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to Israel, Palestine, and related conflicts. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here. These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you.--71.22.227.188 (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring

You are engaging in an edit war at Second Lebanon War. Discuss on the Talk Page of respective article and try to reach a consensus before changing the text of this article.--71.22.227.188 (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Re Pointless Disscusions

Hohum's deweaseling of the lead was not an attempt at compromise. Hohum wasn't trying to introduce a compromise but was implementing one of WP's guidelines into the article. It's unfortunate your losing patience so quickly, since I do have interest in collaborating. --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Apologies for being inactive and not following up my posts, but I've been spending most of my last few days flying around. I'll be back soon enough. --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

yom kippur war

hi Jiujitsuguy, I have put some notes in the Yom Kippur war talk page on the casualties section. Can you check it? If you see fit, please update the Yom Kippur page.(If you are allowed) Can you give me the names of some decent users who are authorized of reediting the Yom kippur War article, so I'll be able to make contact with them. I already know that Raul654 has alot of authority in wikipedia. Yours. Megaidler (talk) 14 December 2009

Winograd Commission criticism

Hi Jiujitsuguy, I started a discussion here about your recent revert to my changes. Would appreciate your input. Cheers. ← George ^talk 02:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays (whatever you follow) and New Year's!

Cptnono (talk) is wishing you happy holidays and a fun new year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer.

Cptnono (talk) 09:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The Yom Kippur war-article

Howdy. I saw your message, and I agree with you that the Yom Kippur-war article needs an overhaling. My knowledge about the Yom Kippur-war is propably mediocre, but I know enough to state that this was a clear israeli victory. And so was the Second Lebanon war, as the IDF succeeded pushing the Hezbollah away from the border. I think it would be a good idea to start a discussion on the discussion page about this issues. It should be made clear that there is a major difference between Wikipedia and the media, because Wikipedia is neutral. Many egyptians claim victory in the Yom Kippur war, but this is mostly because of ignorance. Those who claim Hizbollah victory in the Second Lebanon war, are very often pro-Palestinian and non-supporters of Israel. This should not be integrated to Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopaedia. You have my fully support if you're willing to start a debate about this. This articles surely needs radical changes. Cheers :) --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as we are backed by the wikipedia-policy, we will automaticly win. I think it would be a good idea to start with removing every non-english source, and if somebody complains about it, then higher authorities here will take our party (hopefully). I think that would be a good start in re-writing the article. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw your comments about this, and you seem to be misunderstanding the relevant policy. It does not say that non-English sources may not be used when an English source is available about the topic, but rather that English sources are preferred. And the other policy that factors into this is NPOV, which says that all significant viewpoints must be included. You are not really going to say that Egyptian sources do not represent a significant viewpoint to that article, are you? The article should not overly rely on those sources, but including them is perfectly justifiable as well as within policy. I cannot tell you how many articles have Hebrew sources when other English sources are available about the overall topic, the point is that those Hebrew sources provide us with information and perspectives that are not available in the English sources. The same is true here. Yes, there are English sources about the 73 War, but that does not mean that no non-English sources may be used. The idea that you should remove all non-English sources is not wise and is not supported by policy. nableezy - 20:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but Arabic sources are acceptable. There is a difference between "verifiable" which is the requirement, and "verified" which is not. If there is anything that you cannot verify yourself because of language issues you can ask for the original text and a translation (both of which should be included in the reference for any non-English sources). There are a number of other editors who can either confirm or dispute the translations for both Russian and Arabic, and sources in each of those languages will be instrumental to providing a comprehensive NPOV account (and "neutral point of view" does not mean that a specific pov is neutral and that should be what is used, but rather it means including all significant POVs). nableezy - 22:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Where in the following do you see that non-English sources should either be "avoided" or only used when English sources are not available: English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available? What are you saying is the equivalent English source? An English source on the topic as a whole or an English source dealing with specifically what is being referenced to non-English sources? nableezy - 22:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to intrude here. As is evident, JG has an incorrect interpretation of Wiki policies. I've raised the issue at WP:RSN, and several editors agree that using Hammad as a source is perfectly justifiable under Wiki policies. Being in Arabic does not disallow using him as a source.

Additionally, I need to add once again, that I am not relying on the Russian source, nor did I bring it to the article. That does not sanction you to remove it, but stop associating me with that source. You evidently do not want to see the Egyptian POV in the article or you would not have argued against using Hammad, and you used verifiability as your pretext, and it did not work. In addition, saying that I have intentionally incorrectly quoted an English source in the past (without providing evidence, even when it was asked of you), and pointing that it is certain I would do the same using Hammad, in no way complies with WP:GOODFAITH. So far, you haven't shown me much or any of that. Respectfully. --Sherif9282 (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Jiu, I dont think I ever said that the Arabic book is a RS (I never said that is was not). But, from what I can tell, the Arabic publisher specializes in academic texts so it probably is a RS by WPs definition. What I did say was that you cannot disqualify a source because it is Arabic. I think the issue was in differences in reading what NONENG means when it refers to "if English sources are available". I read that as saying that the specific points made are available in English use that, not that if the overall topic has English sources we cannot use another language. It seems as though you read it in the opposite way. Also, my say on a source is in no way final, so if you would like to bring the other book to the RS/N feel free. Getting outside opinions is always a good thing. nableezy - 22:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea, sorry. My only point to you was that you cannot disqualify a source because it is not in English; I do not know enough about this specific publisher to say whether or not it meets WP:RS. nableezy - 23:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not that little is known, it is that little is known by me. I'm sorry, I wish I had some actual answers for you about the publisher, but I just do not know. There is a reason I did not comment at the RS/N discussion about the source, and that reason is that I do not know anything about it. Sorry, nableezy - 04:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)