User talk:Specialjane

This user was determined to be a sock-puppet and has been blocked indefinitely from the project. PalestineRemembered 10:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PalestineRemembered mentorship

I just noticed your offer to PalestineRemembered (good on you!), and thought I'd make sure you are aware of one thing: PR is an SPA(see his RfArb case for full details), editing solely in a controversial and highly charged part of Wikipedia. If PR were editing "Disney articles", he'd not likely be getting into trouble. He'd be doing a fine job, and would not have need for a mentor. There's something about the combination of PalestineRemembered and Middle East articles that seems to create trouble. Just remember that it's not really a feasible option to take PR to another part of Wikipedia.

I've worked reasonably closely with PR in the past (providing feedback and advice on his edits), and can tell you he's a great editor to work with when you're able to approach him from a truly neutral stand-point (I've never been involved in that part of WP, and don't to be honest, wouldn't want to be). He'll happily take advice on board, and discuss things with you when he disagrees or doesn't understand.

Best of luck to both of you, Mark Chovain 05:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

note by Jaakobou

On the same subject, i'd like to explain my initial complaint to the AN/I which resulted this mentorship situation.

i agree with Chovain that the middle east articles pose a serious problem to any editor, esp. on those who come there with a preconceived opinion and/or agenda. however, i suggest that the problem with PR comes from his willingness to take example from the wrong type of contributors/people and give himself too much freedom in the gray area of "figurative speech" to promote his positions.

i had no intentions of writing you a note but, i profess that just now (and after i left him a good luck notice on his page^[1]) i find out that he still misrepresents the events in question and most of all makes false statements about other editors (i.e. about me), after he's already been taken for mentorship.

in his statement from 10:14, 15 August (note - 4 minutes before my note on his page), he stated: the editor I questioned (e.g. me) was very upset by the first question, demanding a 7-day block on me^{static ver}. this is a gross misrepresentation on the 3rd level warning he received^[2], his response to this warning^{"rm nonsense, Jaakobou was blocked"}, my response to this new claim^[3], which did not struck a cord^[4], his continued stubbornness^{"Jaakobou did this, I thought his attempt was terrible, but at least he tried."} which resulted my first AN/I which did not include any ban request^[5]. only after two more accusations i reopened the AN/I, this time requesting a one week ban.^[6]

i request, more than anything, that PR will learn not to grossly misrepresent other editors in his statements. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PR says Hello

I'm not yet sure who I wish to have as my Mentor, and you seem so busy I'm not sure how well it could work anyway. But let me say hello - I wonder whether you really know what you'd be letting yourself in for? Be aware that almost everything alleged against me is not merely "unproven", there's never been any attempt to present any evidence for it. This last business (for which I've now apologised, without needing to be asked) is likely the only thing I've done in 10 months which has been generally criticised. I've suffered a great deal of harrassment at every turn (three long blocks and a previous Community Sanction attempt to perma-block me). Two of these actions were dubious (no sensible explanation attempted at the time, nor when people enquired/objected later) and the last two were outright false. There was an ArbCom raised in my name and I pleaded it should invesigate how come I was being blocked and harrassed (a page for "evidence" was opened and lots of evidence was presented - but not one scrap of it was against me despite the mountain of allegations that had preceeded it). Unfortunately, this ArbCom was dropped. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PalestineRemembered (talk • contribs) 17:16, 15 August 2007.

PR needs your help and advice

Over and above any edits I currently have in progress, the details of which would be very complex for you to understand. I need to know how a reasonable, non-confrontational editor would deal with this from 2 days ago. What should I, trying to do my best for the project, do next? Clearly, the edit I've made (which I summarise with: "Albert Einstein and others warn against honouring a man whose party was `closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy to the Nazi and Fascist parties'") has been garbled quite atrociously. (The summary reads: "rm editorializing"). As so often before, now that it's nonsense, someone (else?) will likely soon come along and "remove nonsense".

Now then - the person who edited what I'd written has sadly lost confidence in me completely: ".... PR is not capable of learning from the error .... obnoxious behavior .... more than enough evidence for meaningful sanctions to be imposed .... " (from the CSN yesterday[7]). Should I break it to him that I have clear evidence of either unbelievable clumsiness or outright disruptive behaviour from him? Or do I risk pointlessly antagonising him and doing nothing for the good of the encyclopedia? This edit from yesterday (or today in my zone) makes it clear he wants action against me without further ado. PalestineRemembered 17:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Your mentored editor, PalestineRemembered, has jumped into the fray again at Battle of Jenin by restoring contentious edits and furthering an edit war which has led the block of one editor already. I thought you should be aware. Kyaa the Catlord 22:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has not requested mentorship from me and I have not accepted. (I have made the proposal, though). Until then, I am not studying the Battle of Jenin article or any other article. Specialjane 03:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can this be a Reliable Source?

I don't wish to get into an edit-war with this editor, but his insistence on smearing a person mentioned in the encyclopedia is puzzling, to say the least. The obnoxious statement is: "A column by Seth Freedman on The Guardian's Comment is Free website described Halper as a "sinister figure in terms of the damage he does to the chances of rapprochement between the moderates in Israel and those on the Palestinian side of the divide.[8].

As per my summary last time I deleted it: "No evidence he's a journalist, he's a "writer living in Jerusalem" according to the Guardian. And "Comment is free" makes it clear this is a blog, with no fact-checking or editorial control.". Surely this source cannot possibly be a Reliable Source - can it?

And it's actually a Biography of Living Person breach to do this as well, but I foresee an immense mess arising if I try and battle this one out and bring policy to editing of the encyclopedia. PalestineRemembered 17:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PR - new section to Operation Entebbe

I can't say I'm happy with not including fresh material from the Times and the BBC into this 30 year old this case, but I've withdrawn it anyway. PalestineRemembered 16:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PR - Battle of Jenin remains a totally disputed article.

I'm sort of avoiding the Battle of Jenin article (you've never objected, but not confirmed you're happy with me doing so either). But I can't allow the "Totally disputed" tag to come off, this article is still in a terrible state with major RS sourced information still excluded. The lead is hopeless (easily proved that "Context" never appears in this fashion), Section 3 is terrible (jumbling very inadequate death counts with deeply POV "massacre refutations") and at least two significant international investigations have been left out of the sources altogether (while the "Time Magazines" piece is called an investigation, for which we have no indication atall). Top of the list of "Reports by human rights groups, the UN, the IDF and the PA" is "The Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies", which do "basic research that meets the highest academic standards on matters related to Israel’s national security". What sort of nonsense is going on here? Just a few of the obvious flaws:

Fails to note that the death-counts are all based on bodies reaching the hospital.
Fails to note that the IDF blockaded the hospital at least as late as the 16th.
Nothing about bodies buried in gardens.
Nothing about body parts sticking out of the ruins.
Doesn't have the PA death-toll estimate.
Doesn't mention the bomb-squad being kept out and Israel making further incursions.
Doesn't include two more Palestinians killed before bomb-squad got in.
Doesn't include accounts of bodies found months afterwards.
Doesn't mention that most of the demolition occured after the surrender of the militants.
Doesn't mention this demolition occured during 4 or 5 more days when all observers and all humanitarian supplies still excluded.
Doesn't mention this participants account.
(And a great deal more). PalestineRemembered 10:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]