User talk:Jiujitsuguy/Archives/2010

Header

Hi Jiujitsuguy I have provided reliable sources in English for figures about the war casualties. Those are links into official web sites of the state of Israel (Up to - 01/01/2010).

The air force: http://www.iaf.org.il/Templates/FlightLog/FlightLog.aspx?lang=EN&lobbyID=40&folderID=48&subfolderID=322&docfolderID=939&docID=13279&docType=EVENT

The ministry of foreign affairs: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2004/1/Background%20on%20Israeli%20POWs%20and%20MIAs

I didn't yet re edit the Yom Kippur War article for the following reasons: First, I am sure that someone we know will immediately remove my updates and I don't goanna start an editor war on this stage. Second, I have no sufficient technical experience on writing in wikipedia and I think I will make a mess in this article, although it is quite messy in matter of content.

I suppose that there is a reason why there are no many English versions of books about this war written by Egyptians. Considering that there are over 80 million people in Egypt, it shouldn't be hard to find translators; even if 35% or more of the adult population there is illiterate (that’s a UN figure). There are no translations simply because the authors knew that a lot of their details won't be considered reliable by people outside of Egypt.

If what you wrote about Sherif is right, that you wrote figures with referenced sources in the article and he simply revert your updates, it seems like he tries to lead this article with an iron fist of tyranny as the Egyptian presidents led his country for over 50 years. If you think his actions violate the regulation, you should make contact with some one who has a lot of authority in wikipedia like Raul654.

Megaidler (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

hi Jiujitsuguy. Accept my approval for these edits on the casualties' figures.

Please understand why I don't make changes in this article. As an Israeli, most of my knowledge about this war comes from books and web sites in Hebrew. It will be impossible for non Hebrew speakers to get access to these sources and confirm the accuracy of my edits. For now, the only new details I have found in English are from the Israeli air force and MFA websites. By the way, I have updated the casualties section on the talk page.

Megaidler (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

hi Guy

I celebrate it all! I hope you do too. Life is too short not to. I was looking over the Yom Kippur page, and going over my books to see if I had anything to contribute. Been very busy with outa-wiki life, but hope to get some more wiki-time in shortly. Thanks for the happy note. It made my day. :D Stellarkid (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yo!

I was simply butting in. I saw the comment by the other editor mentioning the main body instead of the lead and another agreeing with you on the point that early advances don't equal the outcome. The lead is incredibly important and a little while ago I was surprised the lead was so forgiving to the losses on the Arab side. The comment to move on to the prose seemed off to me so I stuck my nose in. Sorry about that. Cptnono (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And just a quick heads up: Watch out for refs [1] and [2]. Such a pain in the ass sometimes. Basically, "ref name=" parameter needs to be watched out for. Let me know if you need more info on that.Cptnono (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Argh! Too technical for me. I was and always will be a Wiki idiot :(--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

At least you are in your groove now and not getting in trouble (I actually was pretty close to getting admonished for edit warring tonight which is something I hate now!) Basically, references sometimes have a "ref name= " before the ref. The ref name can later be added instead of the full citation at the end of other sentences. With this, you can use a source (say a single article in the New York Times) multiple times without having it listed more than once in the references sections. See WP:REFNAME or Template:Reflist#Grouped references.Cptnono (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

So I don't know much about the war and decided to nurse a hangover with some reading material. I noticed that there are plenty of references citing books in the article. I did a Google News Archive search (my personal favorite) and quickly found a couple decent pieces published directly after the conflict.

• "Israelis had come breathtakingly close to a victory that would have matched their swift triumph in the Six-Day War" seems to sums it up well. Just because Israel took a few good punches doesn't mean they didn't come back to bloody the nose of their enemy before getting pulled off. [3](multiple pages)
• This is a good piece on the use of rockets. Thought it was interesting from a hardware perspective.
• I found this(multiple pages) as an interesting piece discussing the cold war politics.

Another note: The Arab casualties paragraph is dwarfed. That seems odd. I'll see if I can find anything noteworthy and mention it on the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Win or loss

Hi there! You have left a message on my talk page and I replied right there. I am new to discussions on talk pages and don't know what's the tradition. Maybe I should have copied it here?BorisG (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Joltinjoe56 comments

Hi there! I wonder if you can help me figure out this diff, where an IP user removes a comment by new editor Joltinjoe56 (talk). Because editors should not change or remove other editors' Talk Page comments, I was going to revert the edit, but the IP another editor beat me to this. Anyway, the thing I don't get is that it appears a bot had attributed Joltinjoe's comment to you (see the diff). Could it be you share an IP address with Joltinjoe? Any idea how this happened? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Photo

What are you looking to upload?Cptnono (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright should be OK if they are on another language Wikipeida. They also might be in commons. Send me links and I'll double check.20:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Should be easy enough. The first one I clicked on was not in the commons and I will have to Google translate it so I'll have to figure a couple things out. Cptnono (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to worried about it. Let me figure out how to get it here or on commons and then you can double check to make sure titles and all that are correct. I will be able to grab this tonight (Pacific) if that is cool.Cptnono (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Commons ones first.

1. [4] DO THIS: [[File:F-4E_Israel_HAPIM0321.jpg | thumb (SIZE THUMB IS A GOOD START) | alt= INSERT OPTIONAL TEXT FOR SCREEN READERS) | CAPTION ]]
2. [5] [[File:Sa6_1.jpg|thumb |alt= | CAPTION]]
3. [6] [[File:AT-3_Sagger.jpg | thumb | alt= | CAPTION]]
4. [7] [[File:Aomkippurribon.jpg | thumb | alt= | CAPTION]]

Cptnono (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright. I knew I did this once but spaced how. Inquired over at the help desk for a pointer on tools. Got 2 more

1. [[File:YomKippurWar.JPG | thumb | alt= | CAPTION]]
2. [[File:Yomkippurribon.jpg | thumb | alt= | CAPTION]]

I am having a hard time with [8] I think it is the file name (קובץ). Follow-up: This one is now in.

Also, commons has a few others: commons:Category:Yom Kippur War.

File:Nickel Grass M60 C-5.jpg is cool. Cptnono (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the Golan Heights one since it shows the land. I like the other because it shows more of the tank. Go with whatever you feel like. Good find. I poked around a few other pages over at that Wikipedia looking for images and there are tons in related articles. There was an awesome black and white of a tank battle but I didn't know if it would pass the licensing criteria and left it.Cptnono (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

[9] Not sure about the licensing. It also looks cool but doesn't show the detail the one you found does.Cptnono (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Where did you run into trouble? I can move it over and we can edit the description fields. Speaking of that, all of he description fields on the files at commons should have a good (I assume English) description line to be in accordance with its featured article status.

And now the bad news if I am correct: Is the File:F-4E Israel HAPIM0321.jpg really the F-4E Kurnass 2000 not introduced until 1980? I see 2000 on the side and it matches google image searches both planes look similar so I might be wrong). Also, more sources and information on aircraft and munitions used during the war can be found at F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators#IsraelCptnono (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking it might work in the history section but that would pinch text between the infobox and the image (not preferred). They look tough and it is a good image. Just don't know where to put it.Cptnono (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to fit. Maybe add "... before the war" or something similar in the caption. Seeing the subjects is good but want to prevent any confusion wit the time period.Cptnono (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. User:Poliocretes removed it. Screw it. It is a great image but it shows the guys in a different time period. Good looking out though. Let me know if you need a a hand with any other images. I noticed a couple weeks ago that it was hard to put in anything showing Israeli hardware with the general lack of anything showing the IDF doing alright. You have expanded the text substantially and it is a shame it is already FA since it shouldn't have been and you are adding the info to actually get it above par.Cptnono (talk)

And this

See my note above. You don't strike me as someone who gives a damn about your wikiclout, but you have really improved an article that most didn't know needed improvement. It looks like you might carry that on to other similar pieces. Furthermore, you did run the risk of having to start a new account at one time. You instead figured it out. You deserve some "bling"/commendation. Maybe you'll tun around a couple more articles and get the respect you deserve.

		The Epic Barnstar
		For identifying a problem and working towards improvement on the Yom Kippur War article.Cptnono (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

2006 Lebanon War

• Just include the source right next to the figure. Failure to do so risks an edit war, which I intend to avoid. You say it is "sourced", but then refuse to include the source? Why waste both of our time? The Scythian 17:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• I went ahead and did your job by adding the sources. If you are so interested in the subject, perhaps you might want to be more proactive in the involved research of sources behind it. The Scythian 18:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War

Hi Jiujitsuguy, you're doing fine work on the Yom Kippur War, keep up the good work. I do feel the recent discussion about what precisely the infobox says has gotten out of hand, but your work is otherwise greatly appreciated. If you need any help regarding the air war, do let me know. Poliocretes (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Check the talk page of "Operation Badr (1973)". It seems that we have a new challenge. Megaidler (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You guys are not forming some sort of The Zionist Brotherhood of Wikipedia, are you? ( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  20:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If you've got the time ...

Hi Jiujitsuguy, I've just written a new article and was hoping someone with a better grasp of English grammar and prose than mine could take a look at it. If you've got the time, please take a look at User:Poliocretes/Sandbox. I think you'll like it. Poliocretes (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, feel free to edit the page if you see fit. Poliocretes (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I did decide to keep the "less disciplined" description of the Mirage pilots though. That's the words Avihu Bin-Nun used to described them in the ref I provided. It also highlights why Snir was later hit by MiG. Again, thanks for all your help! Poliocretes (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yad Mordechai

Are you serious, using Devin Sper? Writing about heroics and 26 martyrs who made the ultimate sacrifice. Come on you can't use that here. --Sherif9282 (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

infrastructure

I am trying to stay away from that article, but would you mind explaining to me what is not "redundant" about attacked military targets, police stations, government buildings and Hamas infrastructure. in place of attacked military targets, police stations, government buildings and a United Nations Compound in Gaza.? If anything the first is redundant, what about "Hamas infrastructure" is not covered by "military targets, police stations, [and] government buildings"? The second clearly is not redundant, as a UN compound does not fall in any of the other categories. nableezy - 03:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me, for my own sanity, see if I understand your position. You have no problem mentioning the 1 Israeli school that was hit by a Palestinian rocket in the lead, but the 200 Palestinian schools that were destroyed merits no mention? And the rest of the information detailing Hamas' attacks on Israel is fine for the lead, but the mention of how many people were left without food, water or shelter in Gaza is not. Is that right? nableezy - 20:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that way then make sure both sides are treated the same, as it stands after your revert there is a disproportionate amount of detail for one side in the lead. I dont really care what somebody thinks about the particulars, as long as they are consistent in their approach that is fine by me. So, please, stay consistent. nableezy - 20:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No apologies needed, and I really dont want to edit-war, especially on that page, anymore. If I get reverted I get reverted, I wont try to push the issue. So if you are serious about maintaining a consistent approach, which in my opinion is the only way to ensure NPOV, then I would ask that you either self-rv or remove the same type of information that is about the "other side". Take care, nableezy - 21:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. nableezy - 21:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Time-lining of the war

Hey there.

October 6 is the first day, Oct 7 is the second day, Oct 8 is the third day, Oct 9 is the fourth... So when if I say the Egyptians advanced on the first three days, meaning from October 6-8, my statement is correct. Yours on the other hand, are mistaken. [10] [11]

Respectfully, --Sherif9282 (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Total strength in Gaza War

Let me try and understand your position. You want the infobox strength comparison to reflect Hamas' total (20,000; unsourced), and to have the corresponding Israeli figure reflect only the number of IDF ground troops who actually entered Gaza[12]? RomaC (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

October 9-10

You keep referring to Egyptian attacks that failed with heavy losses, then repeatedly mention the October 10 attack by the mechanized brigade as one of the notable incidents. Are there any other notable incidents according to you? What does Herzog say at all about the fighting on October 9? --Sherif9282 (talk) 07:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S., you should comment on the talk page of the article, there's a suggestion pending inclusion into the article lead. --Sherif9282 (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We miss you

Is everything okay? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Aren't these sentiments inconsistent with your Username persona?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't know what I'd do with the information. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL. FFS dude. I popped in at YKWar here and there and trying to figure out who was "victorious" and the length have been terrible. Welcome back even if it is just for a little while.Cptnono (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we miss ya.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Gaza War

Hi. There is an ongoing debate on the discussion page of the Gaza War-article about whether or not this was an Israeli victory. Please feel free to participate. With regards, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent involvement. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jiujitsuguy, can I ask, in how many articles in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area have you edited the word "victory" (for Israel) into the infobox? Can you answer with a count please, thanks, RomaC (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why do you ask? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought you would know the total, because you made the edits. Do you know? RomaC (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

RomaC, the reason why he defines the wars of Israel as Israeli victories is because they in fact were won by Israel. Israel has fought nine wars, and in nearly all of them the Arabs claimed victory as well. In the Six Day War, for example, the Syrians claimed to have won. This proves how little you can rely on Arab propaganda. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Warning on blanking sections

Just to let you know, I regard your recent blanking of sections in the Gaza war article with an "it's silly..." edit summary as vandalism. I complied that list, it took a long time and it was done at request of and in concert with other editors. It is properly sourced and has stood for months. Kindly refrain from rash/POV blanking editing without discussion, or you will be reported. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Lack of malice makes it appear that it is a content dispute and not vandalism so any warnings are premature and poor form.

In regards to your recent edit summary, you bring up a point. This source showed about half the number of tanks Roma originally included so I could see some reasoning to go back and double check everything with some discussion on the talk page over reverting back and forth and using edit summaries only. It does not mean that Roma is wrong but it does mean we should figure it out.Cptnono (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

JJG you have blanked a second time with no discussion, you will be reported under WP:3RR and WP:COI if you persist. RomaC (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Socking

You could open up a sock puppet investigation but I assume it will be rejected unless you have a little bit more evidence. This isn't the first time for ElUmmah edit warring so if he continues to be disruptive go that route. Don't edit war yourself though.Cptnono (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Can you add a source for this edit please? Thanks RomaC (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I had one for the IEDs. I need to find it again. I assume the other stuff is in the body somewhere so hopefully it won't be that big of a challenge. Watch the reverts on Gaza War. You are coming close to getting a block I assume. Also, there is a sandbox (listed on the talk page) for a revised lead that you might be interested in. Good to have you back but watch that revert button dude.Cptnono (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The source [13] for the bulk of your Gazan arsenal edits is no good, it is dated eight months before the conflict how can it reflect the future that's only possible in advanced quantum mechanics. Anyway RS/N says no. RomaC (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Chill?

I'll chill more when I have less work to do re: sources, neutrality and section blanking etc. You could help me in this regard if you are sincerely concerned about either my nerves or the project principles. By the way you seemed to be offended at my characterizing you as a single-purpose account. Here are your most-edited pages since you started at Wiki 10 months ago:

1. 174 - Yom Kippur War
2. 147 - Gaza War
3. 76 - 2006 Lebanon War
4. 21 - Battle of Karameh
5. 19 - Battle of Yad Mordechai
6. 16 - Yasser Arafat
7. 8 - Six-Day War
8. 3 - IAI Kfir
9. 2 - Winograd Commission
10. 2 - Egypt
11. 2 - 1982 Lebanon War
12. 2 - Deir Yassin massacre

On most of the conflict/battle/war pages, you have tried (repeatedly) to push "Decisive Israeli Victory!" or somesuch into the infobox. You tell me how you think you should be characterized. RomaC (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Listen up. I don't have to justify myself to anybody, least of all a biased, cherry-picking POV pusher like yourself. But since you brought it up, I've made contributions in other areas as well but you've conveniently omitted these. So typical of you Roma.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The list above is a robot count. You've made no more than 2 edits to any other article. I went to RS/N for a neutral opinion. "...a report published before an event can't be a reliable source for what happened during that event" -- I see no ambiguity in that but you are right it is only an advisory thing, too bad you seem immune to advice. "Steel artillery rockets" is the verbatim Wiki definition. Slingshots and rocks is a good suggestion. And one of the world's best-equipped armies vs. a blockaded territory; 1,300 killed vs 13 killed (half by friendly fire), yeah I can see where you get that David and Goliath metaphor. My bias, by the way, is pro-Wikipedia. That's what my six years here and user contributions reveal to neutral editors. I'm not here to push a POV, but to oppose those who are here to push a POV. That's how we met! Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

He's not here to push a POV, it's just a coincidence that all his "oppose[ing] those who are here to push a POV" happens to be on one side of a particular conflict. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well said--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I notice he repeatedly calls you a SPA both here and on the Gaza War talk page. You should ask him to stop and report him if he doesn't. You don't have to take that sort of crap. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

He also believed reverting you multiple times was acceptable since he considers you a vandal. He has received some leeway (I specifically asked that he not be blocked after he was warned and took a step back) but I don't see anymore room for error here civility wise. Enough is enough. Keep an eye on it but make sure you don't fall into the same habits. I understand why he is ticked off to a certain extent so just make sure you are taking the high road and all that fun stuff.Cptnono (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I got thick skin.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just sick of dealing with it :) . RomaC says that it predates the conflict so I found sources that came after the conflict. I assume the types of anti-tank missiles can be found in another source with some more searching. If you hate it go ahead and revert it but I ope that it is close enough to your original that it works out. Cptnono (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

• Yom Kippur War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It is a better course of action to request administrative assistance earlier rather than edit-warring on an WP:ARBPIA article over a number days. If you have talk page consensus with you then edit-warring is unnecessary - report to WP:AE, WP:AN3 etc.; if you do not have talk page consensus, then obviously don't revert. CIreland (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Deir Yassin

JJ,

I am glad that you contacted me regarding this article. Over three years ago I was involved in a major reform of that entire article (and others)that were biased or those that had little attention. The same relevant question you raised regarding its name (Massacre vs. Battle)was what I went through also for three grueling months of debates and citations.

Unfortunately, the entire process was exhausting and eventually led to too much bad blood that I do not wish to revive. I am more than happy to help you in any way you need with sources or during discussion, but I cannot be involved in any sort of editing for that topic.

I also have this advice. Be tolerant with people who disagree with you. The entire Deir Yassin episode is surrounded by layers of propaganda, conflicting narratives and vested interests that can very quickly swallow you up if you do not approach it carefully.

It will also help if you set up a basic yahoo or gmail account so I can email some information to you that will help the discussion process.

Hope to hear from you.

All the Best,

Guy Montag (talk) 06:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Gaza War

Hi. Your recent edit to the lead of Gaza War added "civilian" to the targets for the Hamas attacks only. Can you please do the same for the Israeli attacks, to make your edit neutral per the sanctions governing editing on this article. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't you ever get tired of this passive-aggressive bullshit? If you think something's missing from the article, go ahead and add it instead of harassing people on their talk pages. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Of the 1,100 or so Palestinian deaths resulting from the anti-terrorist operation, 709 were Hamas combatants and the rest were either civilians or of unknown affiliation. There are nearly 1,000,000 Palestinains living in Gaza. If the IDF was deliberately targeting civilians (as you imply) they did a lousy job at it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Anti-terrorist operation"? Interesting choice of words. Well, you are not only taking IDF terminology, you also taking the IDF figures here -- sources say 1,400 Palestinians killed, mostly civilians. On the other side, it was 13 Israelis killed, mostly soldiers. I wonder, as Israel has vastly more sophisticated weaponry, why did Gazan's weapons hit a higher ratio of military targets, and Israel hit 200 times more civilians? That's why I asked you to adjust your recent edit to add "civilian" to not just one, but both sides' casualties. It is unfortunate you have refused because the sanctions stipulate that editors who want to work on this article bring a neutral approach to their editing. So let's move this to the article talk page. (Also, FYI, there are not "nearly 1,000,000 Palestinians living in Gaza," there are 1.5 million.) Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, please note that the Israeli invasion left killed 1,417 , damaged or destroyed tens of thousands of homes, 15 of Gaza’s 27 hospitals and 43 of its 110 primary health care facilities, 800 water wells, 186 greenhouses, and nearly all of its 10,000 family farms; leaving 50,000 homeless,400,000-500,000 without running water, one million without electricity, and resulting in acute food shortages. I say all this in response to your statement above that if the Israeli invasion is indeed supposed to have "deliberately targeted civilians [and civilian structures], they did a lousy job at it." Cheers.69.110.29.179 (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Gawrych figures

""such figure are always controversial often varying greatly from one source to another."" Gawrych says that? Checked on google books, can't seem to find it. In any case, I do agree, seeing as there is such a large gap between the lowest and highest estimate of Arab casualties. I also double-checked the figures, and you quoted them correctly.

I agree, I respect your position as a dedicated Wiki editor, and I'm sure we can reach a solution and provide a good quality, neutral article for readers.ElUmmah (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh okay I see it. Alright that sounds good, enjoy your weekend too. ElUmmah (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the edits and they look fine, glad to see we're making progress. Also, JohnZ and Cptnono made a suggestion on the article's talk page regarding the infobox, don't know if you saw it, but I think it's an effective solution. Let me know what you think. Respectfully, ElUmmah (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly :), we have to be able to see each other's side of issues to successfully collaborate, which I'm sure we will. Obviously we share our own viewpoints, but if anything that'll help maintain the article's neutrality, by showing the reader both sides.ElUmmah (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The edits are looking good, I really like how you worded it. Just two minor issues, the first is the statement "...and yet another source citing a figure of some 15,000 dead and 35,000 wounded." I know Rabinovich mentioned it but he attributed the figures to Israel, should probably mention that. Also, do you think we could include the Western analyst in Rabinovich's book?

Regarding the results section, I noticed you quoted several authors on the war, and that's fine, seeing as they are all well-sourced, but perhaps it's causing the section to be slightly too long? It affects the readability of the article, and it could potentially result in editors from both sides attempting to quote as many sources as possible that support their side, which would make the section even longer and more cluttered. What are your thoughts on this? Respectfully, ElUmmah (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think we're close. First off, thanks for the complement. I think that it's terrific that you and I can actually agree and compromise on very emotive issues. I think we really made substantial headway. If anyone would have asked me if this kind of cooperation was possible a month ago, I would have laughed. Hats off to you. Regarding your suggestion in connection w/ Rabinovich, I guess I can work those numbers in w/ attribution though stylistically, it may pose problems since the section is already saturated with loads of facts, figures and footnotes. Regarding the aftremath section, I agree with your point in connection with the possibility that the section may turn into the "battle of the sources" with each side bringing in sources to support their respective positions. That could possibly lead to the section overshadowing the article. However, assuming that some sources are cut out and the section is streamlined, how do you prevent others from adding sources later on? If they are RSs and relevant, they can't be reverted. In other words, you and I can come to some sort of an agreement on this but our arrangement is not binding on other editors.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem :). I agree, I really am impressed with how far we've gotten. Maybe when we're done with this article we can extend this cooperation to other articles, if controversial issues do arise. I should have more time nowadays to engage in more editing.

Hm, once again you raise an excellent point, I hadn't thought of that. It's true, if this does turn into a battle of sources then there won't be much we can do if the edits are reliably sourced. In light of that, I think the best we can do is come to an agreement anyway, and if it does become a problem with other editors we can raise the issue in the talk page and attempt to resolve it there. Not much else we can do..what do you think? ElUmmah (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw the infobox change and it looks more organized and clear-cut now, glad we were able to reach a compromise there (it was after all the main source of dispute in the article). And you're right, cooperation would be difficult but I'm just hoping we don't get involved in another dispute on another Arab-Israeli article, not after we finally managed to settle our differences and became on good terms with one another. ElUmmah (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem :). I admit I was too quick on the revert button, and the block did turn out to be for the best, since it lead to our cooperation on the article.

True, the Bar-Lev line definitely wasn't at its original capacity when war broke out, but I don't think its effectiveness degraded enough for it not to be considered heavily fortified. I don't really want to go through the list of defenses so I've provided this link. It's authored by Gawrych, and the part regarding the Bar-Lev line starts at the bottom of page 14. The Bar-Lev line originally called for 800 men to defend it, so 100 less isn't too much of a difference. The forts were positioned strategically to at least stall an Egyptian crossing, so the hundreds of tanks and thousands of infantry positioned farther back could be brought up and repel the Egyptians.

Regarding the IP disputes, I agree, editors from both sides prefer reverting and edit warring to discussing. Like you said, sad but true. ElUmmah (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Returning After A Period Of Absence

Hi JG
We have both taken long breaks from wikipedia, each one of us in his turn and thus leaving the other one to deal with the swarm of brainwashed Egyptian nationalists. Now, it's time for us to collaborate. I have found it is much more constructive to discuss with some one who doesn't try to dictate his agenda over an article that has to deal with history. You may look on my edits in the 5th archived talk page as well as my last update of the article itself from 16:27, 25 April 2010.
Megaidler (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Deir Yassin

You most certainly did misrepresent what Morris wrote. Compare the footnote I added, which is a direct quote from Morris, with what you wrote. There were not 100 to 120 combatants and villagers at Deir Yassin (note the order)—there were 100 to 120 villagers and a small number of combatants. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't say "civilians and combatants". He says "villagers (including combatants)". The combatants are so "important" a factor that they're mentioned parenthetically, as if they were an afterthought. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that way, change the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, Pappe is used only to source the location of Deir Yassin. Rashid Khalidi isn't used as a source at all (it's Walid Khalidi). I don't know anything about McGowan, but he's used twice: once to bolster Milstein and once concerning modern construction at the site of Deir Yassin.

Personally, I don't consider Bard a serious historian, and his website Jewish Virtual Library is a perfect example of why. I have yet to see an article concerning Israel that is written from the perspective of a researcher, as opposed to a polemicist. If Bard were being used to establish the location of Deir Yassin, that would be one thing. But you want to use Bard to challenge Morris ("The attackers suffered four dead and several dozen wounded") and Gelber? Even if you accept Bard as a historian, do you really think Bard is a historian of the same caliber as Morris and Gelber? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:COPYVIO. You have copied and pasted content from Sundquist and Leibovitz without attribution, and the rest of the paragraph is a WP:QUOTEFARM. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You didn't paraphrase anything. You copied the text from Sundquist and Leibovitz verbatim. Please read the first sentence beneath the edit box: Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. Changing a few words here and there doesn't cut it. Please read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"lone reported"

That is incorrect, there are two separate reports saying the same thing, this and this. Please remove that text. nableezy - 06:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Contentious editing

JJG, if you think that your current approach, as advocated by Guy Montag is going to help your cause, think twice. Please keep in mind that he was banned by the ArbCom from all Israeli-Palestinian articles because of his biased editing, so I would suggest you ask advise of some more respected admin on how to effectively edit contentious articles. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Garwych and Bar-Lev

Regarding the Bar-Lev line, that's an excellent suggestion JG, truly a promising compromise that should satisfy both sides. As for Gawrych, haven't we already implemented your suggestion? We have Gawrych's figures alongside Herzog's, so that represents the two extremes, and we also have other estimates in the middle, such as the London Sunday Times. ElUmmah (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

In that case I wholly agree with your suggested solution. Apologies for the misunderstanding. ElUmmah (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have the book or did you check google books? The statement's referenced to Gawrych's book p. 28 (1996 version)which is why I changed the phrasing. ElUmmah (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Damn, that's pretty unfortunate. Did you have access to the 1996 version or the 2000? And no unfortunately I won't be able to verify the information at the moment, not exactly sure when I'll have access to the book. ElUmmah (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright sounds good, sorry I couldn't be of more use. ElUmmah (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Sounds good, if the reference in the article is incorrect, then we'll remove it and adjust the wording. ElUmmah (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me so quick. In that case, you're correct, apologies for the mistake. I based the edit on the existing reference to Gawrych, not realizing it was referencing something else entirely. I'll change the wording tomorrow (kinda late right now), but I don't think it would be best to say "Egypt claims", followed by "Pollack notes that", if you catch my drift. Respectfully, ElUmmah (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I made an additional edit to yours, let me know what you think. ElUmmah (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it wasn't disrespectful at all :). I went digging for a source that said the success of the air strike prompted the cancelling of the second wave, and I found this this, page 278 first paragraph. I'll reference the source now. Shazly's book is also available on google books if you want (so you don't have to go through the trouble of digging up your copy). ElUmmah (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Great :). I re-arranged the sentence so that it explicitly states that McGregor is the one who represents this view, rather than Shazly. ElUmmah (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

renaming "Deir Yassin massacre"

Hi. I don't see a convincing explanation why (a) "Deir Yassin massacre" isn't the most common name for the incident or (b) WP:UCN shouldn't apply in this case. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification: General sanctions and 1RR restriction on Richard Goldstone

You are receiving this message because of your involvement at the Richard Goldstone article. Please don't consider it an assumption of bad faith

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

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. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.

• In relation to the above, you are informed that the Richard Goldstone article is under a blanket 1RR restriction and violations of this restriction will result in escalating blocks and/or topic/page bans. Thank you for your cooperation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Goldstone

Talk:Richard_Goldstone#controversy_again. nableezy - 15:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That material was removed as a BLP violation, and a section opened on the talk page. You risk sanctions for editing in this manner on a BLP. Please self-revert and make a case for including such sources as WND on the talk page. nableezy - 15:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

WND is never acceptable as a source; nor is it acceptable to restore content removed for BLP violation reasons without prior consensus (see WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content). Please don't attempt to restore that material again. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 24 hours, for calling another editor's reversion "vandalism" and ignoring the 1RR restriction on Richard Goldstone. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I made one revert. I never received any warning that one revert was disallowed. I was under impression that 3R was disallowed. Moreover, two other editors reverted me yet no sanction was issued. Seems like a double standard. Request unblock for reasons stated--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jiujitsuguy/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I made one revert. I never received any warning that one revert was disallowed. I was under impression that 3R was disallowed. Moreover, two other editors reverted me yet no sanction was issued. Seems like a double standard. Request unblock for reasons stated

Decline reason:

As you were clearly advised of the 1RR restriction, your multiple reversions are not appropriate. Your talkpage is the method for communicating with you, if you choose not to read it, you do so at your own peril. This is a mere 24 hr block - be happy with it, as it could have been longer. Also, read WP:NOTTHEM. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As a note, you were notified of the restriction here: [14]. And the article's talk page has a reminder that the page falls under the arbitration enforcement. Finally, you made two reverts. The first was you "Reinstating" content here: [15]. The second was here: [16]. --Taelus (Talk) 16:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You reinstated previously removed material (which you acknowledged in your edit summary) and then reverted its removal. That's two reverts. As for the warnings, reviewing admins should read the two sections above this where it's made explicitly clear to you. Finally, referring to a god faith reversion as "vandalism" is a personal attack. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm telling you in good-faith that I did not know of the sanction. Perhaps I should have paid closer scrutiny to my talk page. As for the comment, I considered section blanking of sourced material to be vandalism. It was just an opinion and incidentally, I had been on the receiving end of a similar accusation in the past and didn't take it personally.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly advertised on the talk page of the article and I templated you after your first revert. If you didn't read that, that's your fault. As for vandalism, "vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." This was blatantly not the case. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

And I'm telling you that I didn't see it. If you wish to punish me for punishment's sake, that's your call. I won't do it again.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I don't find that convincing. You apparently know your way around the article well enough to know exactly which diff to copy and paste - which means you read its history - and you clearly knew that the article had just been unprotected. But you somehow missed all the discussion on the talk page which clearly indicated that a majority of editors rejected the content you were trying to restore, you missed the the 1RR notice at the top of the talk page and the 1RR notification by HJ near the bottom, you missed HJ Mitchell's statement in the article history "Unprotected Richard Goldstone: unprotecting. Editors subject to 1RR", and you missed your own personal notification on your talk page? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't ring true. How many notifications does anyone need? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it nice of someone to take the time to come to your talk page just to call you a liar? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Been called many things before but never a liar. Gotta luv wikipedia--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've made that mistake before. Replied.Cptnono (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification of arbitration enforcement request

Please note that I have filed an arbitration enforcement request concerning your repeated violations of multiple Wikipedia policies. You can read the request at WP:AE#Wikifan12345 et al. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

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

13:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sabotage

I noticed that Jiujitsuguy sabotaged the "Gaza War" page by removing additions inserted by another Wikipedia member. Those edits seemed to be impeccably referenced, and by such sources as the World Health Organization, UN, FAO. He removed those edits under the pretext that they were "POV." I cannot understand any motive for removing these edits other than an attempt to conceal the truth.

I have reinserted those edits. I list them below:

• Background:

On 19 December 2008 a fragile six-month Israel-Hamas ceasefire was set to expire. Following Israel's violation of the ceasefire on November 4,, there were sporadic violent clashes along the Israeli-Gaza border for the following two months, as well as a stepping up of the blockade of Gaza, which had been in place since 2000. On 18 December, with a surge in cross-border fighting, Hamas confirmed the end of the ceasefire, and indicated its refusal to renew it absent an Israeli commitment to abide by its conditions.

• Data from UN Agencies and other NGOs:

The invasion damaged or destroyed tens of thousands of homes, 15 of Gaza’s 27 hospitals and 43 of its 110 primary health care facilities, 800 water wells, 186 greenhouses, and nearly all of its 10,000 family farms; leaving 50,000 homeless, 400,000-500,000 without running water, one million without electricity, and resulting in acute food shortages.

68.122.34.169 (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

As noted in Section 67 by 68.122.34.169, the details I inserted (referenced by NGOs and news agencies) were indeed removed by Jiujitsuguy with scant pretext ("POV"). 68.122.34.169 mistakenly calls this "sabotage," but the name for this is actually vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.12.49 (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Jujitsguy obviously does this a lot. 15:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that Jiujitsuguy has removed the above details again. From the editing history, he seems to be doing this continually! On this latest attempt, he simply removes the heavily documented (and very concise, by the way, nice) details about the invasion, by UN agencies and NGOs on the pretext of reverting to "long standing consensus version" (!). So much for consensus! Every addition that others submit apparently qualifies as either POV or against consensus no matter how documented. This is supposed to be a collaborative process? Do other wikipedia issues face such barriers to improvement?? 99.132.106.62 (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

More Vandalism: Wikipedia entry on Caroline Glick

Jiujitsuguy removed the "Allegations of racism" section from the Caroline Glick Wikipedia entry. The section simply documents allegations by named sources for and against the allegation that Caroline Glick's work is bigotted, scrupulously in line with BLP standards. All of this was repeated ad nauseum in the editing history. Rather than contribute to the section, Jiujitsuguy simply censored what he apparently didn't care for. 69.110.17.229 (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's try to be more cautious

You've done a helluva job with work on multiple entries, but it seems that you've been getting into hot water of late. I think we can be more effective at advancing our perspective if we occasionally incorporate the language and assumptions of those we oppose in order to undermine them. This tack will be more effective in the long-run, trust me. Hence I am occasionally writing anonymously and I try to incorporate "pro-Palestinian" language into some of our most successful entries once in a while, while making sure content stays in line with our interests...this will keep us under the radar of persons monitoring these sites.

Again, take it from me that this is the way to go, even if it initially seems counterintuitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.26.60 (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Please take your filth elsewhere.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if I haven't got it all right. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent comment

Regarding your recent comment, I advise that such remarks are unacceptable on Wikipedia.If you make further such comments, then you could be blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Guy, Thanks for your note on my talk page. I have been traveling and stuck on dialup and a shared machine so only occasionally contributed something on WP during the last month. Back though. Anything interesting going on?  :) Stellarkid (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Crossdressing

I've already expressed my concerns about undue weight. However, since I have yet to see a solid source concerning the allegation that isn't based on the "testimony" of an admitted liar, I question whether the assertion belongs in the article at all. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What nonsense. Does our article assert that pregnant women were raped at Deir Yassin? Of course not. Why do you bring up such nonsense. Trying to excuse your own propaganda-mongering by pointing fingers and saying "See, everybody does it" is childish. Please try to act like an adult. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Another massacre

This is yet another I-P topic that I am not at all familiar with. Just 10 minutes of searching through old newspapers on Google did make a few things clear.

• It appears that the lower estimate of around 100 is more widely believed. Realistically, 100 or 250 dead is still many people dead but it looks like some editors want to highlight the highest figure in the diff you showed me. Even something as biased as Workers World is OK with the lower figure[17]. The body should explain these numbers in detail while the lead should simply say it is disputed. The Victoria Advocate did it fine by sticking to that.[18] Now I haven't gone through too many sources yet but if the most recent revisions are that it was less than that should be mentioned if they provide a reasoning for what they feel was falsely inflated numbers. I don't think a handful of intellectuals who weren't even there writing a letter trumps historians doing research. All I know is I saw the number 100 pop up a lot so there might be good reason.
• "Crossfire" and "combatants" is another interesting bit. It looks like some people said that the irregulars were met by some resistance. What is wrong with saying that? We may not want to give undue weight to something that may not be well received by historians. FRINGE doesn't mean 0 mention. It means watch the weight. I need to look into his one more but I am seeing letters to the editor, opinion columns by professors and noted journalists, and so on. I assume more can be found but I got sidetracked. Mind if I pull up more sources in a day or so after I found more that would pass with the RS noticeboard if not some of the more critical editors on the page? I found one that called it a straight hoax and another that said it was the "ultimate 'Man Bites Dog' news story". I think that might be a little extreme but I'll try to see if there is some good RS.

So overall, there is no reason to give extra weight to the higher number in the lead. Mentioning the lower number might be appropriate to mention but highly doubt you will get consensus on that. If better research agrees on a lower nu There is no harm or violation of FRINGE by saying in a single line that some people deny it was a "massacre" and was instead a "fight" (or at least started as a fight and escalated into a massacre). Removing two lines (the "nuh-uh it was higher!" ones) and adding one ("been said that the villagers fired at the militias") should be easy enough. Doubt it though.Cptnono (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I just mentioned this at MSs page since I did not see your response. Sounds like Frontline which is awesome and RS. I am searching for the episode information since YouTube is no good.

I agree that if the most recent sources from historians with all of the info at their disposal say that 100 is the number than it deserves prominence. You need some firm recent RS though. I haven;t seen that from my little bit of searching but wouldn't be surprised.

And it looks like we agree. Changing the article title I don;t think is anything you or I are even looking at. But some mention in the lead that some say it was a battle is appropriate and not a violation of FRINGE.Cptnono (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh oops. I didn't even get past the lead. Complete section blanking is no good. If you have the sources then you have the sources. Watch out for weight though. You don't need to say "so and so said, so and so said the same thing, and so did so and so"(as separate sentences) Just put in that researchers/writers/whoever say x,y,z. It looks like unintentional Wikipedia:Bombardment. Understandable with so many people saying "no!" over every source. Cptnono (talk) 09:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You might have to say the writer's names which is a little bombardment but necessary since "some" might be too vague. "Smith, Johnson, and Doe, and so on have all said blank." It would be better than having individual sentences saying almost the same thing.Cptnono (talk)

Here's a few more.[19][20][21] Most have previews but eve if not it should be easy to track down. Scholar had some hits but they were pay-per-view and the previews weren't as good.Cptnono (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw Benny Morris on the side of the page in one of the boxes. Don't know if he is any good or not.[22] Another maybe biased but the seemingly reputable enough David Horowitz Freedom Center[23]

And if you have access to the archives of the Jerusalem Post, David Bar-Illan wrote one on Jan 27, 1995. And there are a couple others discussing Iraqi regulars but some are not RS. Cptnono (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. The block seemed a little off. I did get where the admin was coming from just because it is easy to see changes and assume the worst. I was wondering what happened to the Goldstone article. It looks like it has calmed down so it might be worth revisiting to see if some of the other interesting points can get some mention. And after looking at this other article more I totally get it. Weight needs to be watched but some academics are saying that there was some fighting. This whole I-P area is a mess. Multiple articles for the same thing and silly stuff like food, tourism, and parks. I think Wikipedia discounts and villifies Israel more than any Enyclopedia. Cptnono (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it doesn;t matter if we always agree. It is how we handle it that is important. It looks to me that you were stonewalled by other editors.

Is the first pdf from academics at Ben Gurion University? Wikipedia is supposed to use scholarly sources. I doubt the second would be acepted since it is from Klein. There is a double standard there since NGOs that sympathize with the Palestinians are often used. I would recommend following up on those pdfs sources. Or taking parts that you see as applicable and finding more neutral sources (say a google news archive search with keywords) to source it. There obviously are sources calling it propaganda so it deserves to be included. Keep an eye out on weight so you don;t here screams of FRINGE.Cptnono (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for continuing to revert on Deir Yassin massacre immediately after the expiry of full protection due to edit warring and after a very recent block for edit warring. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text { below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|1=Where do I begin? I didn't just appear "out of the blue" as you suggested. I've made edits to this article long before that but walked away from it. I came back to it when I had some time. During the weeks that this article was under protection, I've discussed the disputed matters at length on the discussion page as well as talk pages of involved editors, seeking compromise [24]. Diffs and edit history will prove everything that I'm saying. The last sourced edit that I made [25], which was reverted by Huldra, had absolutely nothing to do with the previous edits. It was the first time I had made such an edit. Please have a look for yourself. You have already scared me off the Goldstone article. I won't touch it with a ten-foot pole. But honestly, this is somewhat abusive. It comes out of left field. And when the block is lifted, are you saying that I can no longer edit this article? The block has the effect of an article ban, just like Goldstone. If this is what your intention is, congratulations, you've succeeded. In fact, why don't you follow my movements from article to article and block me one by one. As far as Malik Shabaz and Huldra are concerned, it takes two to tango. Your claim that I "started it" is unfair. I reiterate that if your intent is to prevent me from futher editing wikipedia, you have succeeded.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)}}

If I unblock, do you promise not to edit war further on the article? Enigma^msg 17:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll step back a bit from editing this article for now.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not the article I'm concerned with, this is your third block for edit warring. Granted, the first was last October, but the one previous to this was just over 2 weeks ago, when you managed to miss all the warnings here, at the article and on its talk page and went straight through a 1RR restriction the day after. Now here, you arrive (or return) at the end of last month and since then the article has been fully protected 3 times and I felt this block was the only alternative to yet another stint of protection. I don't want to scare you off of WP or any article, but I need you to start discussing things on talk pages and understand that constant reverting is extremely damaging. Finally, I hope you understand that this is nothing personal- I had no idea you had any involvement in this article (or any idea the article existed) until I handled a request for further protection. I think you would benefit from calming down and taking a less aggressive approach to editing- maybe you should avoid controversies for a few weeks and work on a quieter article. Essentially, before I'm happy with this block being lifted, I need some assurances that you understand how damaging constant reverting is and that you will take a calmer, discussion oriented approach to editing, especially on controversial topics. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You're essentially telling me that I can only edit with an anvil hanging over my head. Whenever you think I'm out of line, bam! There you are blocking me again. I got news for you, the whole friggen IP subject is a hot potato. I'm sure I can edit the molecular constitution of water without getting into too much trouble. The discussion pages as well as the respective talk pages of involved editors are loaded with my arguments. I don't make edits without first discussing it on talk pages. My arguments began to persuade some including No More Mr Nice Guy, stellarkid and Cptnono among others but by implementing this abusive block, you took the wind right out of my sail. Contrary to what you said, I started editing this article long before 3 weeks ago but walked away because I simply didn't have the time. Your actions here are one-sided. I was the one who was reverted, twice. I didn't revert anybody. And my last edit was a single sourced sentence that had never been introduced before. All sides on the IP subject come in without clean hands and you've chosen once again to target me without even giving me a chance to prove my case. I guess I'm guilty until proven guilty. I have no interest in editing when you hang an anvil over me, abusively and arbitrarily zapping me at your whim.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM. Besides, it's not as if I'm stalking you- you can't make controversial edits and then act surprised when you're reverted and edit warring to a block or a page protection doesn't solve anything. The process is supposed to be bold, revert, discuss not bold, revert, revert, revert or bold, discuss a little bit, revert, revert, page gets protected, protection expires, rinse and repeat. Making a controversial edit immediately after protection has expired is, at best, unwise. But if you agree to avoid getting in to edit wars and follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle, I'll unblock you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, blocking Jiujitsuguy for making one edit, while doing nothing to the people reverting (who had also been edit-warring in the past on that article) is simply unfair. If you won't unblock, I am willing to. Or, if you want, you can block the two others so at least it's consistent. Enigma^msg 20:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Or, if you want, you can block the two others so at least it's consistent. Huh? Consistent results are appropriate only when the offenses are consistent, which was not the case here.

JJG made no effort to participate in the discussion concerning the article during the past week, and he took advantage of the expiration of the page protection to make provocative edits with misleading edit summaries—not one, but two in rapid succession. Reverting him with an edit summary of "take it to the Talk page" is part of the BRD process. Has that become a blockable offense? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Correction: JJG did participate in the Talk page discussion, but never raised the issues involved in the two changes he made immediately following the expiration of the page protection. Apologies for my misstatement. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Understandably, you don't wish to be blocked, Therefore, I'm asking HJ Mitchell to unblock Jiujitsuguy, as blocking for a week is clearly not appropriate given the events. Enigma^msg 21:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad the unblock request was accepted. Just want to make the point that what you did actually *personified* the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" cycle. You made a bold edit after protection was lifted. Contrary to what it sounds like Malik Shabazz is suggesting, the cycle *ends* with discussion, doesn't begin with it, if I understand it right. Stellarkid (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm still blocked. He hasn't lifted the block despite what he said--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

He did unblock. You must be caught in an autoblock. Enigma^msg 01:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Instructions for clearing autoblocks

See here. Enigma^msg 01:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested

See here. Cheers. IronDuke 00:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) This is one of the more pleasant buttons I can press as an admin! I think they're setting up pages to test it on in the WP namespace, but I'm not exactly sure where. Might be an idea to go and test before they roll it out for the mainspace. Let me know if you need anything else. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Battle

Are you saying there were no weapons on the Hadassah convoy and no fighting/battle? For the record I'm ok with the title, but not ok with double standards vis a vis Deir Yassin. RomaC (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Asking

I replied to you both on my talk page.Cptnono (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask why you removed the original question, and referred to it as "asinine", and therefore banned someone from your talkpage? It seems to me that there is nothing wrong, and nothing accusatory overall - especially not "asinine". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of sockpuppetry

Why are you accusing me of using a sockpuppet when I've clearly stated that I'm the one behind the alternate IP? I've told you that this is due to me not using my ID at work. If you look at the article for Sockpuppet (internet) you will find that this is someone who conceals his virtual identity by using an alternate connection. I've made no such thing. If you want to provoke an edit war on the POV issue of preemption (in Preemptive war), I will not indulge you, but I would ask you to refrain from making these kinds of unsupported allegations. Furthermore, I fail to see how an NPOV template is not the best choice when we're in the midst of an RfC which will determine the content of articles on this subject. Shoplifter (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the reason is because I'm involved in a debate on that issue. I believe I have some knowledge to contribute on the topic since I've long been interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict and read a good deal about it. If I saw some other inequity concerning such an important subject, I would certainly challenge that as well. But again, I don't see what difference this makes to the appropriateness of an NPOV template while we're trying to reach a settlement on the issue of preemption. Shoplifter (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Drork

I noticed you're having a little chat with Nableezy. Good luck with that. Just wanted to give you some background on the Drork thing. Nableezy says he took him to AE because he was being a douchebag. He forgot to mention that he was the one who started the uncivil discourse in that relationship, asking Drork if he recently got hit in the head, and stuff like that. He enjoys being uncivil to people but then goes and whines to the admins when someone isn't civil to him. Just for the record. Also his claim of not being "anti-Israel" is quite amusing to me, but maybe he really thinks he isn't. Who knows.

Anyway, enjoy your attempt at dialog. Others before you have gone down that particular path with little success. I'd be surprised if something came out of it, but hey, what's the worse that can happen? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that prior to the AE filing, he got Drork blocked for sockpuppetry after one edit. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: ?

I'm sorry you feel that way, and I hope Stellarkid isn't a sock puppet. However, I will go after anyone I suspect of violating Wikipedia policies, regardless of which side of the political spectrum they fall on. ← George ^talk 22:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Open SPI case

Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dajudem, please review this edit and remember to act civilly with regards to your contributions to the case. This notice is being sent to all active participants in this case and does not imply any wrongdoing on your part. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Consulates in Jerusalem

Hi, there seems to be a slight confusion as to the consular corps in Jerusalem. Those consulates are there in accordance with UN resolution 181 (ii) (Corpus Separatum) and are not in any way accredited to the Israeli state. Their existence is a reflection of the fact that legally Jerusalem isn't in Israel, not of any recognition of Israel's claims to the city. --Dailycare (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

2006 Lebanon War

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi, since it didn't seem like much discussion was going on in the 2006 Lebanon War article I thought it might be best if we discuss it with others rather than let it become an edit war, the ANI page is here[26].My apologies over the lack of proper format--Freepsbane (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about the infobox in the 2006 Lebanon War article at the discussion page right now. Would you like to participate? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Nightmare in The Golan Heights

Look what Nableezy has done on the Golan Heights article.
Now the article is hard for watching.
Over 30 times the word "occupation" and its derivatives are used in this article.
Nableezy is supported by some anti-Zionist Administrators.
Malik Shabazz is blocking anyone who dares to extract the biased POV.
Do you know administrators that are friendlier toward Israel besides Raul654 ? Megaidler (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Jiujitsuguy, are you now or have you ever engaged in editing under an IP or another Username? I note you yourself have sometimes asked this exact same question of other editors, but you erased and termed my last, verbatim inquiry to you as "obscene"(!) Why is that? Can you explain what seems to be a double standard, and can you address these question please? Also, for the good of the Wikipedia project, can you please declare any WP:COI that you might have? I don't know that such involvements would necessarily disqualify you from the project, but if so, it might be better if you made a formal declaration at this time. Thanks, respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 16:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Re your SPI allegation. That's the third time you've made that accusation, so Put up or shut up. As for your claim of WP:COI, I belong to KAOS--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Six day War: what was that? What are you doing? Please communicate. Edit warring not wanted.

Hey. What on earth are you doing? Don't say "Fixing POV". You didn't discuss anything. I'm still trying to figure out why you erased hours of work.. or at least, it seems that way at first glance. Please communicate. Edit warring not wanted. • Ling.Nut 13:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page, to keep the conversation in one place... • Ling.Nut 13:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarity

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

recent changes

• recent changes to my sandbox, see this. • Ling.Nut 05:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Preemptive war

I've changed the wording to comport with the consensus reached on the lede in Six-Day War. Since this consensus has now been implemented, it should be reflected in all other articles that deal with the same issue. If you have objections to the consensus, you should voice these in the talk page to Six-Day War. Shoplifter (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You want to retain the formulation which unreservedly states that the war was preemptive by describing it in the words "famously launched a devastating preemptive strike". This is in direct contradiction of the consensus which rejected any such unqualified statement, since this was concluded to be in violation of WP:NPOV. Shoplifter (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, what would you suggest is a compromise formulation? Shoplifter (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

J-guy, what's the deal? Why keep on edit warring when you told me you wanted to propose a compromise? Either do that, and we will try to solve it, or we have to get administrators involved, which I'm sure none of us wants. Please, let's try and be reasonable. Shoplifter (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

6 Day War

I was interested in your edit at the 6 Day War article which was recently reverted. Would you mind explaining your rationale? 172.135.89.149 (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

bling

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you so much for your passion and hard work on the Six-Day War article. I hope we can all work together to create a highly-researched, well-written, stable, balanced, NPOV article to present to Wikipedia's readers. Bon courage! • Ling.Nut 04:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

uh

• I have to say, your version moves the pendulum towards a more (not less) POV article. Could we stop edit warring? Did you see my post about "Progress paralyzed" on the article's talk page? • Ling.Nut 05:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Why can't we mention both names and present both views? Seems harmless enough--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You erased other stuff in the process. • Ling.Nut 05:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Six-Day War

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision.

Please do not start revert warring on the article and please work with others trying to build consensus on the changes. --WGFinley (talk) 06:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and you need to review Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank), this is the current agreed upon NPOV naming convention. --WGFinley (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

48 Hour Ban

You're now banned for 48 hours from editing Six-Day War. This is blatant POV pushing and was not discussed on the talk page. The lead has been hashed over multiple times. There is a place in the article for all points of view but giving your POV undue weight is the lead is inappropriate. Please discuss your sources on the talk page. Thank you. --WGFinley (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that is blatant POV pushing. It is well sourced (to the point of WP:CITEKILL). I also doubt it is a minority viewpoint. A little shocked that you would call it blatant POV pushing. Agree that talk page should have been used though.Cptnono (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your message on my talk page, your change has no consensus, it was not introduced for discussion on the talk page and it is only enticing edit warring on an article subject to general sanctions that you've already been warned about. The ban is under general sanctions and stands. --WGFinley (talk) 05:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Will you clarify the blatant POV pushing part?Cptnono (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Did Arab refusal to accept israel as a Jewish state suddenly cease to be a Pro-Israel position? On its face it's POV. I'm not saying it doesn't have any place in the article, I'm saying it doesn't have consensus to be in the lead that has been going through consensus forging for weeks now. --WGFinley (talk) 06:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between blatant POV pushing and not having consensus. And what does a pro-Israel position have to do with it? Saying that it is on its face POV shows that you don't have reasoning to back it up. If you want to make a block for edit warring and not seeking consensus on controversial lines then simply say so but don't make it worse than it is simply because you disagree with it.Cptnono (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The ban expires 48 hours after I put the notice on your talk page and only applies editing the article, you can still participate on the talk page. --WGFinley (talk) 06:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• This is one very, very wrong ban. Inserting pro-Israeli view to the article should not result in any sanction ever. The editor violated absolutely nothing. One could say that talking about Palestinian refugees is "blatant POV pushing" too. Here's what a famous American philosopher Eric Hoffer(not a Jew) said on the issue:

• "The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it, Turkey threw out a million Greeks, and Algeria a million Frenchman. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese-and no one says a word about refugees.But in the case of Israel the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab. Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace. Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world. Other nations when they are defeated survive and recover but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed. Had Nasser triumphed last June 1967 he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews. No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on.There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Blacks are executed in Rhodesia. But when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one remonstrated with him. The Swedes, who are ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we do in Vietnam, did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews.They sent Hitler choice iron ore, and ball bearings, and serviced his troop trains to Norway.The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources. Yet at this moment Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us. And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer 1967 had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general.I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us.Should Israel perish the holocaust will be upon us."

• This was written in 1968, and now 50 years later with your ban you proved how right he was, when he was talking that what is allowed to others is not allowed to the Jews. I believe the ban should be lifted immediately. Anybody is entitled to make a mistake, but only fair ones admit that a mistake was made and change their own decision. --Mbz1 (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• fyi Wikibias.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.64.131 (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If WGFinley still thinks it was appropriate to assert that it was blatant POV pushing than there is nothing we can do for him but keep an eye on how he is using his tools. If he does agree that he was a little careless and knee-jerky in choosing his words then we can't really expect an admission if he does not want to give it. Wikipedia:Apology is a good read here. JJG also did revert and WGFinley is cracking down. At least someone is. It just sucks that it was someone I like.Cptnono (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to wonder, who is "we"? RomaC ^TALK 05:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, JJG, and myself since it is obvious from this discussion that all three agree that calling it blatant POV pushing was not appropriate. You can keep an eye out too since it looks like he is going to be tough. As long as he isn't reckless I am alright with it. If the guy wants to make a block for making too many contentious edits without seeking enough input on the talk page than he is allowed according to the authority provided in the sanctions. I do think it is pretty cool that JJG just wrote the best ever appeal (while not even appealing) below.Cptnono (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Glad the editor above clarified I was concerned he presumed to speak for Wikipedians, or in support of policy. I expect he and Mbz1 will follow JJG's call for support and chime in on the page below in no time. By the way, nice soapboxing Mbz1, and thanks 64.134.64.131 for the link to Wikibias.com, interesting site. I fully support Wgfinley's attempts to counter concerted advocacy-editing. RomaC ^TALK 06:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop starting drama.Cptnono (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think he wanted me to put it on the Talk first and get some measure of support. So I've done thathere.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Helen Thomas

There is an rfC on the Talk page regarding the lead. You should voice your opinion there, rather than simply reverting in the article space. HupHollandHup (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Enforcement: [27] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked/banned indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely for serious intent to disrupt wikipedia via off-wiki canvassing and personal attacks. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 01:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I need to recount the evidence Nableezy is referencing here, considering you wrote the remarks. As your remarks demonstrate -- and these are only the ones found by Nableezy -- you have, since literally Day 1, decided to approach Wikipedia as a battleground. As such, you are clearly not suited to edit in the Israel-Palestine area -- ever. Further, I am not convinced that your position regarding the Israel-Palestine area would even allow you to edit productively or cooperatively in other areas of the project. You have been lucky to survive a year under the radar, and you have -- even if your block log doesn't show the full extent of it -- often edited in a disruptive, bad-faith manner that, sadly, instigated other, good-faith editors and introduced an additional, unneeded level of drama to an already volatile area. Well, that ends now. -- tariqabjotu 01:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jiujitsuguy/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is a clear case of forum shopping by Nableezy. The matter was raised off wiki with Functionaries (as was Nableezy's attempt to out me) more than a month ago and was resolved. Nableezy was dissatisfied with the outcome so he persisted and found an admin who acted without full knowledge of the facts. I defended myself once on this issue and now I am forced to defend again? I can not go into detail as this would necessarily involve revealing my identity (something Nableezy already tried to do) I hope the folks at ArbCom carefully review my off site emails and exchanges with Functionaries that were made well before the instant AE.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As this block involves ArbCom enforcement and off-wiki and private evidence, any appeal is properly handled by ArbCom. Please email ArbCom if you wish to appeal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am also, since I applied it in the first place, capable of reversing the block, and upon reviewing the defense provided by you via Sean and Wgfinley, I was tempted to do so. I'm trying to be mildly open about this, for others interested in reviewing the process, without revealing any particularly personal information (hence, why I am posting here rather then simply sending you an e-mail). But, do feel free to respond via e-mail if you feel it's more appropriate, or post a partial response here (even if it's just to say "Yes, that's not me; I have a response. I'm sending an e-mail." and then send me an e-mail). Alternatively, you can go straight to ArbCom with appealing the block.

In any event, the defense forwarded to me by Sean and Wgfinley defended against the claim that you are involved in the running of the Activist Network, which I believe is the most damning of the websites related to my decision. The others, while, as I said, exhibiting highly inflammatory language (not unlike the Activist Network), are less so concerning because, for the most part, you are simply expressing your personal opinion, something which -- while I do not share your views -- you are entitled to do. Further, in some sense, it is better that you make public your personal opinions and biases related to this topic, so it is possible to put your contributions here in context.

Your explanation as to why you not a head or co-head of the Activist Network is far from the most convincing, but I do admit that the explanation you give is plausible. Other editors seem to have accepted your explanation on the matter -- particularly Fred and Sean, and perhaps the functionaries to whom the material was also forwarded, but also apparently not acted upon. And due to that, I am willing to accept your explanation that you do not, in fact, run the site. Based on that, I would be amenable to unblocking you. However, none of the e-mails I have seen explicitly address this particular page, which resembles CAMERA's call to action in tone and is ultimately unacceptable. That piece is clearly written by an experienced Wikipedian and references a dispute (i.e. that regarding the Deir Yassin massacre) that you are known to be involved in and also have been known to repeatedly lament. To be frank, it does seem like you. While you may not be running the entire website, I am wondering if you can speak to the allegation that you may have just been written that particular piece for them.

In the meantime, I essentially want to get clarification from Sean and Fred that they were aware of that particular article, and were not just responding to the website as a whole and your contention that you do not run the entire site. If Fred confirms that he was aware of this particular article when exchanging e-mails with you, I am willing to unblock you altogether and defer any further sanctions or decisions regarding you in this matter to ArbCom. The reason being that just as I don't think it falls within admin discretion to overturn block decisions under ArbCom sanctions, I also don't believe it falls within admin discretion to overturn no-block decisions under ArbCom sanctions. Fred's decision first was to not block or do anything about this and, therefore, I would let his decision stand, provided he had the same evidence I had at my disposal and regardless of what I would have done in the situation.

I engaged in a lengthy correspondence with Jiujitsuguy when he emailed the functionaries list regarding possible misrepresentation of his views by other activists. I was aware of his frustrations as voiced in the web page referenced, although I'm not sure who controls that webpage, but stressed that although editors with a point of view background or motivation were free to edit that they were expected to conform to Wikipedia policies and culture, once they had an reasonable opportunity to become familiar with them. Fred Talk 00:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for your patience in the matter. As Wgfinley said, things should hopefully clear up in a day or two, if not within several hours. -- tariqabjotu 10:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

On ANI

Just so you know, there is a thread on WP:ANI that mentions you: WP:ANI#Jiujitsuguy and Eric1985 blocked indefinitely for off-wiki canvassing regarding Israel/Palestine. -- tariqabjotu 18:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

User Page Protection

Blocked templates are not there as Marks of Cain or Scarlet Letters, they're mainly used for users that have been blocked and are making spurious requests, etc so reviewing admins know what the situation is. Whatever the case, there's no reason for editors to be putting the blocked template on another user's page. If the admin doing the blocking feels it's needed, he/she will put it there, there's no reason for you to do it.

I saw this as a clear attempt to harass or embarrass this user and protected his page. Further, I've been contacted by him and have confirmed he wishes his user page protected and to simply have it forward to this page, his talk page. I would hope that we could move on from such petty behavior. --WGFinley (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry claims

Hello. If you have a serious concern that an editor is violating a community or arbcom imposed restriction, the proper procedure is to file a claim at WP:SPI. Making accusations on other people's talk pages may be viewed as harrassment. So, if you feel you have enough evidence that Nableezy is socking, file the claim. Making the accusation on individual people's talk pages, however, helps in neither building the project nor the collegiate environment necessary for its editors. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy

I'm assuming you didn't mean to create this page as an article? Exploding Boy (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No I screwed up. I wanted to file it as an SPI following the suggestion above--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I took that as a request for deletion. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I am more concerned with him thinking he knows who the IP is but letting it slide. He takes people to SPI all the time when it serves his interest. I really am considering an AE on this but thinking it might be better to leave it be. The twat comment was just bad. Malik has already made it clear that his friends can't be blocked for incivility so I doubt it would go anywhere anyways. Leave it alone and let Nableezy continue to put himself in hot water. He doesn;t need our help. 2 (or was it 3?) sanctions in August? He'll figure it out one of these days or an admin will get fed up enough to pull the trigger. Others have been permabanned for much less so it is only a matter of time.Cptnono (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy SPI

I'm not going to close it. I did a checkuser and found nothing. To close adequately I would have to invest much more time than I have or am willing to. The thing is, if his behavior is disruptive it doesn't matter how many accounts he has. That is why I strongly suggest you address the problem in terms of his editing and activities. The technical data is just not there. (Although I would not rule it out.) People don't make thousands of edits using all kinds of accounts, ips, and computers without messing up and leaving clear evidence. Fred Talk 14:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Constantly accusing numerous people of being sockpuppets based on flimsy evidence is disruptive in itself. However, if you don't have access to checkuser it is easy to innocently gin up a bad case based solely on shared perspective. Blocks should not happen in such cases, but obviously they do. It blends into meatpuppets; then we quit doing checkuser. Fred Talk 15:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Images

I saw that you were grabbing images from commons:Wikimedia Israel free image collection project. Do you know of any images that have the correct licensing for the First Intifada. There are several images that have no FUR or problematic FURs over there. Also, make sure not to sandwich text with images! Excellent work on those besides that.Cptnono (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the complement.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah... now get to work and dig up some images!Cptnono (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I noticed the discussion and controversy surrounding some of the images for that article. I'll get cracking on it tomorrow.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for any attempt.Cptnono (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary

“ Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks!

”

• On the above subject, I hope you can consistently provide an edit summary for each and everytime you conduct an edit here on Wikipedia. Note that the article page of Yom Kippur War happen to be one of those highly conspicuous ones, and thus, always end up on the dinner plates of vandals and mischief-makers alike. As such, many editors such as myself has it on our watchlist, so for the sake of the community please stop being lazy, work with us by sticking to what I just told you, unless you don't mind being accidentally branded a vandal, which can be avoided in the first place. So what say you? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Must have been an inadvertence on my part. My bad.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• No big deal, you just have to be more careful in future. Also, you don't need to reply on my talk page, as I do watchlist here after I've left you the message above. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

1973 POWs refs

Saw your refs about the torture of POW in Syria being challenged on the YKW page. You might want to familiarize yourself with the well known case of Avraham Lanir. See Ynet, Haaretz and Guardian. The last two are about his son Noam but mention the father and his fate. Poliocretes (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Very useful information. Time permitting, I intend to expand significantly on the issue of Syrian violations of the Geneva Conventions and its use of torture against Israeli POWs.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent block of another editor for going over 1RR

Jiujitsuguy, how many times did Nableezy go over 1RR? Are you saying I've misunderstood the diffs? PhilKnight (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

He made two reverts in a matter of minutes on the same article. PK, I don't need to remind you that this is a fella whose been blocked 9 times (he just came off another block 2 days ago) and topic banned a number of times as well. This is an editor who quite literally revels in fighting and I've actually stopped editing articles which he edits just to avoid him. He's been uncivil, discourteous and abrasive referring to other editors who don't share his view as "twats" and "douche bags." Under the circumstances, 72 hrs is a slap on the wrist. However you seem to champion him which is quite odd given his less than stellar history.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

3RR

As you seem so very interested in what I edit and what rules you think I have broken, I was wondering if you think I should report you for violating the 3RR on Battle of Karameh‎‎. Do you think I should report this at AN3 or AE? Or should I just mind my own business? Please, tell me, what would you do if the situation were reversed? nableezy - 20:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't be hitting the revert button that much! Oh well, if Nableezy can get away with whatever he wants I see no reason for everyone else not to follow suit.Cptnono (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You should probably self-revert and open a talk page discussion on it. Shouldn't take more than a day to hammer out.Cptnono (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Besides being untrue, what you wrote did not answer my question. nableezy - 21:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

the initial contributor of the reverted material actually violated WP:3RR. this appears to be more a case of vandalism seeing as the material was questioned and reverted by two seperate involved editors and the original (new) contributor failed to discuss their additions with them (AFAIK). btw, think you both could assume a little more good faith with eachother. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I’ll also note that an IP that had never made an edit on Wikipedia before and that geo-locates to Jordan, suddenly popped up making the exact same edit as the initial disruptive editor. I’ll bet dollars to donuts that it was at the very least a Meat-puppet and probably a Sock of the disruptive editor.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Both the IP and this editor violated 3RR. nableezy - 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The part that is untrue is the part about me "outing" you. Sure, we got along. And then I found out I am an Islamofascist dedicated to the destruction of Israel. I had no idea until FrontPageMag told me. But, back to a serious tone, nobody "outed" you. You outed yourself. You published, in two separate widely read websites, information about your edits. I didnt "out" you. nableezy - 23:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Which phrase, "Islamofascist" or "outing"? nableezy - 23:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

All right, so were does that leave us now? Should I return the favor of reporting anything I see you do? Or should I mind my business? nableezy - 00:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Lovely. And just so you know, the only reason I brought up your actions elsewhere at that AE thread was because I got no response from the functionaries list, I didnt even know if somebody had read the email. Had I been told that it was being looked into I would have left it at that, but as it was I thought it was being ignored. Thats all Im going to say about this and so long as you keep my name out of your mouth, so to speak, Ill do the same. Bye, nableezy - 03:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Really, JJG? You just got bamboozled. You might have screwed up. Another editor makes a case that it might have been against vandalism. I don't know if you are guilty or not at this point but I do know that saying you won't be belligerent somehow translates to "as you keep my name out of your mouth, so to speak, Ill do the same". If both of you are screwing up the both of you need to face the consequences. There is a recent legitimate argument on one particular article showing Nableezy editing in a tendentious fashion. It probably holds as much water as the argument against you. I think it is great that you two want to be nicer but this isn't a barter system. You screw up and you need to make amends (self reverting and the like) since both of you will find yourselves at AE if you don't. I am all for not following eachother around with the intent of harassing the person but any games of turning a blind eye since you hope the other will do the same won't fly. Simply limit your reverts so you aren't making the same mistakes . Cptnono (talk) 07:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Now this is interesting; wouldn't be talking about me now would you? That IP sure does seem suspicious, you never know. Anyhow, may someone enlighten me with the 3RR rule please? Oh, and JJG, interesting talk page you've got here, and a pleasant number of blocks too if I may add. Could be we got off on the wrong foot seeing as you've got all this reputation lying under the hood. If it isn't much of a problem, I would appreciate it if nableezy and Cptnono could take a look at the sources provided here for casualty numbers regarding Battle of Karameh and give me some feedback. Last of, my intention was and will never be vandalism, the majority of sources I am able to obtain regarding these subjects are foreign language (Arab) resources; so some help with making use of them would also be appreciated. Thank you. Ymousa (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess the "sock-killer" is on vacation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Golan heights is our

As I've explained at User talk:MuZemike, I blocked Golan heights is our as a sock of a blocked IP. Supreme Deliciousness added the banner that says Golan is a sock of Dajudem. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Nava Applebaum

Thank you for the help at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nava Applebaum. The article is now on the front page as a DYK.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Apology on Nableezy's talk page

Thank for your apology on Nableezy's talk page (although one on my talk page would have been more appropriate). Prehaps you would like to discuss you problem with this edit with me directly? PS I would like to note that you posted, on my talk page, an accusation that I had breached 1RR at a time when I was not in breach. Prehaps an apology for this would also be in order. Prunesqualer (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Second Intifada

Do you think that guy is a sock? Peculiar editing habit. --Shuki (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. What pissed me off is that the guy didn't even bother taking the time to offer explanations in the edit summary. But yeah, I think there's a good chance that he is.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

He isn't. I have experience with him, he's an established user on the Norwegian wikipedia. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Fez

Regarding 'how can it be a twin city when Israel doesn't have diplomatic relations with Morocco', because Morocco has diplomatic relations with the PNA. Without a decent source though it doesn't matter. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Yom Kipur War Suez Canal IMG 0961.JPG (bridging photo)

Hi Jiujitsuguy, I'm well aware of what both the Hebrew and English captions say, but they are a mistake. The photo does not depict the Suez Canal, which is wider and does not meander like shown. The photo was taken off a display the Batey Haosef museum in Tel Aviv and depicts a bridging exercise prior to the war. You can see this precise photo discussed here, which places the event elsewhere. The photo should be removed from the article. Poliocretes (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Take your time, Jiujitsuguy, I'm in no hurry, but the photo should go. Poliocretes (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Article on Jerusalem

Can you comment on why you removed the section that I wrote on the current status of Jerusalem as a capital of Israel and Palestine, and the current negotiation process? My version included a source document from the UN discussing the current status of Jerusalem and the negotiation of its status as a capital city of the Palestine authority and Israel.

Please reply in my talk, thank you

--Kyuss82 (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2010 (GMT)

Dispute at Yom Kippur War

I recommend that you make no further edits to the numbers in the infobox until editors on the talk page have reached a consensus. I see there is a discussion at Talk:Yom_Kippur_War#Infobox numbers but no obvious conclusion. Since you all seem to be relying on the same sources, it's hard to see why agreement can't be reached. The same duty should apply to the editors who disagree with you. Follow the steps of WP:DR if agreement can't be reached. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

thank you--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War

I've thought about EdJohnston's note, and he's right; we shouldn't be arguing on this matter. We're both using the same sources here, and I've provided you with a valid argument based on these sources. Your responses so far have revolved around Rabinovich being an RS (an astonishing response since this fact was never a contention in the first place) regardless of how I disliked him as a source (false, I did not even dispute the 100,000 figure), and that I've been engaging in WP:OR (false, you engaged in OR by suggesting the effect on IDF planners, and in any case I added the information to the article to convey exactly what the source said), and finally, that you don't have time for debates (huh?! a hint at WP:OWNership of the article?), but have enough time to revert and keep the Rabinovich figure in the infobox.

Putting aside what's happened up to this moment, including by 1r violation, I propose two options: keeping the Rabinovich figure in the aid section only, which you will likely reject outright, and probably unreasonably so, or, add a note in the infobox noting that not all the 100,000 participated in combat operations. Let me know what you think about either option, preferably with reasons, instead of a standard and abrupt no, perhaps? Let's follow this up on the article talk page. --Sherif9282 (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Responding on Talk page--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

South Lebanon conflict (1982–2000)

Hi. Would you please have a look at this article? Much of it almost seems to be directly copied and pasted from Hezbollah's propaganda. For example, it calls Menachem Begin an "expansionist and militant" leader, and bases this on a source called "Israel’s Sacred Terrorism". --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, it means alot. I don't want to put pressure on you, so I must make it clear that I fully understand it if you don't seek another longlasting and demanding debate. With regards, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What is "in Israel"

I would like to understand how somebody can make an honest argument that areas in either a. East Jerusalem, b. the West Bank, or c. the Golan Heights are "in Israel". Can you please explain to me why Wikipedia articles on sites in each of those places should be said to be "in Israel". nableezy - 07:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nab. I will but tomorrow. Good night--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think a WP:WESTBANK-like policy/guideline about this is needed. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Civilian casualty ratio

Thanks for your comments. I self nominated it at T:TDYK if you have any further input. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Lebanon

Jiujitsuguy, Syria was given 2 mandates to intervene militarily in Lebanon, whereas Israel wasn't given any mandate by anybody; According to international law Israel began a full-fledged occupation of Lebanon in 1978. In 1976 Elias Sarkis, the Lebanese President, officially requested Syrian military intervention. Moreover every country in the Arab League, except Iraq (because Saddam had personal issues with Hafez al assad), voted to give Syria a mandate to enter Lebanon. Therefore Syria did not enter Lebanon on its free will, whereas Israel did. I will look for the sources to prove the above, but anybody who does some minimal research about this will find the above stubborn facts are the objective facts. Al-Jazeera made an amazingly objective documentary about the Lebanese civil war. In this documentary they spoke to all sides who were involved, including Israelis. Even though the documentary is in Arabic there are English subtitles. I really recommend you watch this documentary.You can find the documentary on Youtube, here's the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADMsnByBIlo&playnext=1&list=PL67AE3E6DCBB8B3F2&index=3. In this documentary they mention Sarkis's request.George Al-Shami (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of Sarkis' invite and the intricacies of Lebanese politics. However, Syria exceeded its mandate once it took an active role in the fighting as a belligerent, switching sides according to its own strategic dictates. The Syrian army also took an active role in the Bekaa hash trade thereby crossing over into ordinary criminality and turning Syria's generals and political elite into nothing more than common drug peddlers. Syria used Lebanon like toilet paper and up until recently, never even maintained an embassy in Lebanon. Syrian took a direct role in suppressing any internal Lebanese dissent to the point of killing anyone who stood in its path and that includes the assassinations of Rafik Hariri, Kamal Jumblatt and both Gemayels. I don't know where your from and really don't care to know but if you ask any Lebanese (save for the Iranian proxy Nasrallah) what they think of Syria, be prepared to absorb a litany of the most vulgar curses.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so buddy, the majority of Lebanese would talk beautifully of Syria, considering their shared ethnic, religious and historical ties, except for the extreme March 14 Maronites, who would like to rewrite history if it was up to them. You allude to the controversy of Syria's presence after the May 2000 Israeli withdrawal, and the political dominance of Lebanon; however you don't mention the fact that Syria helped end the Lebanese civil war. By the way if you watch the documentary, you will see that Syria switched sides after 2 years, after it was betrayed by Bashir Gemayal and the Maronites, who was angered by the fact that Syria was no longer taking military orders from the Maronites.George Al-Shami (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving and cheers!

Cptnono (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Air Battle of El Mansoura

It's no wonder you've never heard of it, it's a myth, though one with a kernel of truth. There was indeed a large scale effort on October 14 by the IAF to shut down Egyptian Air Bases in the Delta, one which did meet Egyptian resistance and which wasn't very effective. The present article, however, is entirely one sided, extremely poor on all accounts and the number of Israeli aircraft claimed is a flight of fantasy. The problem is that David Nicolle, the co-author of the article's two primary sources, is a respected historian. That means it's not WP:OR, though the article you mention, the basis for the extravagant claims, can be argued to be WP:SPS.

I've actually been thinking about this article for a while now. Nicolle is also the author of Pheonix Over The Nile, the definitive history of the Egyptian Air Force, published 1996, and that book gives October 14 very little attention and make no such fantastical claims (more attention is given to Egyptian claims that American pilots were flying IAF aircraft). There exist several Israeli accounts of events on that day, and while none claim absolute success, it's also clear there was no resounding Egyptian victory and that Egyptian losses outweighed Israeli ones. The IAF does not claim a single battlefield fatality for October 14 and a handful of aircraft losses on all fronts. In fact, the Egyptian story of the air battle appears to be a recent one, I've never encountered it before the last decade.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not about the truh, but about verifiability. Trying to dismiss the Egyptian account would be difficult. I would think the way to proceed would be to leave the Egyptian account as it is and add a somewhat more balanced account based on international and Israeli sources. Given in context, it shouldn't be difficult to expose propaganda for what it is. Poliocretes (talk) 10:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that article is in pretty bad shape. It should attribute all the Nicolle and El-Shazli stuff, just for starters. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

SPI

I've deleted what may be outing. Don't replace it. Admins can see it. Dougweller (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Email to Dougweller sent based on this.Cptnono (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

AfDs

Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

חַג חֲנֻכָּה שָׂמֵחַ

הַנֵּרוֹת הַלָּלוּ קֹדֶשׁ הֵם

Hi Jiujitsuguy! Hoping you and yours are spiritually warmed by the holy lights of
חֲנֻכָּה

Chesdovi 2010

Operation Opera

Everyone (including Israel) agrees that Iraq would not be able to produce a nuclear weapon in several years. Therefore, the strike was at most preventive, if we are to believe Shue and Rhodin, among others, who calls it a "classic example" of a preventive strike. Thus, the wikilink shouldn't be in the preemptive war article, although if we do decide to merge the two, then it should definitely be included/dicussed. It seems to me that you're looking to prove a political point by including the link as opposed to wanting to present the issues as clearly and accurately as they deserve. If I'm wrong, let me know. Shoplifter (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

Per this AE thread, and under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, you are hereby topic banned from all articles, discussions, and other content within the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, for three months. You may appeal this topic ban by the procedure provided for in WP:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions. T. Canens (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• I am sorry to see this. I just wanted to make the following comment based on watching this "circus" evolve. Nableezy, Supreme Deliciousness and others are intent on getting certain types of material into certain articles in Wikipedia, and use edit warring and wikilawyering to do it. This includes using expressions like "massacre", "ethnic cleansing" and "illegal" in the leads of the articles, throughout Wikipedia, often on the flimsiest of supporting references, and against Wiki policy of WP:NPOV. Virtually all of the editors who have been brought to AE in this topic area by both sides are related to this. Nableezy's first block 4/2 month block was for edit-warring "massacre" into the Gaza War lead. Now that with the Jewish editors banned (typically on the Jewish Sabbath) these articles will now contain this POV without opposition. Further, other editors who might agree with the banned editors will be frightened off from reverting this material, thereby insuring this POV position in virtually all articles in the I-P area. I feel that editors, such as yourself, who remove such contentious and one-sided information from articles, particularly in the lead of such articles, and particularly with when they quality of the references are disputable, are acting in good faith and for the betterment of Wikipedia (as opposed to the betterment of the viewpoint that Israel is a rogue and demon state, massacring and ethnically cleansing the local population). 172.190.70.140 (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Many thanks for your gracious note on my talkpage. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

With all my heart

 mbz1 ^{!Dígame¡‎} has given you a falafel sandwich! Falafel sandwiches are a specialty of the Middle East. With a little tahini and maybe a spicy sauce, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.

Spread the goodness of falafel by adding {{subst:Falafel}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a falafel sandwich to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Don't be jealous anymore ☺--Mbz1 (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha Thats because I was going to give him some Chapulines :-) -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 20:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

 nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} has given you some Chapulines! You see, these things somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else some Chapulines! Enjoy!

Spread the goodness of Chapulines by adding {{subst:BlankWikiLove|border=#003300|bg=#FF9966|image=Chapulines_de_Oaxaca.jpg|article=some|item=Chapulines }} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the grasshoppers but I'll stick with the falafel, unless of course the grasshoppers come with Tehini, in which case, I'll have a dozen.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)