Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:33, 1 September 2009

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

• notes

Stuff I'm reading:

		The Israeli Barnstar of National Merit
		Jaakobou, You have worked hard to attempt to improve wikipedia's Israel/Palestine related articles. You have made appropriate additions and changes, added sourced content, and dealt with the POV issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I believe you have at many times tried to promote improvement and NPOV in many[REDACTED] articles, and have greatly improved many articles. You have had to deal with some issues in the past, have faced at times controversial sanctioning, but when you were wrong, you have learned from your mistakes, and improved your editing, and since, you have become a very good editor. For all you have done, you have won my respect, and are in my opinion very deserving of this barnstar. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Query

These are two totally different systems, Arab Republic is a secular type of government, while an Islamic Republic is a religious type of government, and there are other major differences in terms of elected institutions etc. "Arab republic", the term that Egypt and Syria use for their type of government, is suppose to be a republic, based on Pan-Arabist values, and Nasser is the one who coined the term. It's usually a one-party system. Islamic Republic on the other hand, is a republic based on Islamic "values" (Pakistan) or "ideology" (Iran) with a complex political system. --Kurdo777 (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk. Jaakobou 08:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No matter how similar the two two types of government may look, they're not the same type of government. I have no objection to expanding Arab Republic, but it can not be merged into Islamic Republic, which is a different concept. There is not a single reliable source that equates these two types of government, and it's not our job as Misplaced Pages editors to equate them, doing so would be a violation of WP:OR. FYI, there was a discussion on this issue here , feel free to add your own input there. --Kurdo777 (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't try to conflate two different things: not all Arabs are Muslims, not all Muslims are Arabs. -- The Anome (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I know that and I wasn't. Thanks for giving your two Shekels though. Jaakobou 16:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

concerns

first, dont call others edits vandalism when they are not as you did in your edit summary. second, it is customary to give notice of an ani report, which you failed to do. please be more courteous in the future, Nableezy (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

On the courtesy note, apologies for not giving you the link immediately after posting. I had a phone call and then had to leave the house. Perhaps there is room for the both of us to improve here. I can't keep trying to get you to stop when you ignore my concerns about your recent collaboration efforts and the blatant and repeated errors just boiled this one over the top. There's a limit to how many errors in a row I can accept as attempts to improve the encyclopedic content before I move things for community review.

With respect, Jaakobou 15:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Your life, but there are no blatant or repeated errors. Nableezy (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure there are. Anyone can see them on the ANI post. Jaakobou 15:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

stay off my talk page and do not accuse me of editing in anti-Jewish manner. I take accusations of racism seriously and if you make another one I will be raising my concerns at WP:AE. nableezy - 01:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I reiterate the above, and when you post the same message to me on my talk page as you do on the article talk page that comes off as incredibly annoying, purposefully so. Please respect my wishes and not post to my talk page. nableezy - 03:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Continued on Nableezy's page (for now). Jaakobou 03:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

you want it one spot keep it here, there is no escalating pattern now leave me alone. nableezy - 04:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Heyo right back at you

I replied on the article talk page before I got your message. Therefore, concerning Land Day, I think we should just discuss matters related to it at the talk page. About Nableezy, I think you two have just got off at the wrong foot. Both of you need to calm your language. Other than that, I see no problem with you two discussing with each other. If this concern of yours (him following you) persists, then I'll talk with him, although I'm not really sure if he was "following" you. As for the quote at the top of my talk page, I'm pretty damn sure he's just referring to Gaza's history (several times by several peoples, including the Arabs, the city was besieged/inhabitants massacred, but the city always lived and eventually prospered, albeit for short periods. I'm not going to get into the leadership issue. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Response

Regarding this, what on earth are you talking about? CJCurrie (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Update your short list

Please update you short list of problems with the Land Day article to reflect that some of your concerns have been dealt with. Striking those dealt with to your satisfaction will help clarify what issues remain unresolved. It would also show that you are collaborating in good faith, rather than simply trying to stall the removal of the NPOV tag which has been up there for a year now, solely because of your problems with the article. I have expended huge amounts of time and energy to address your concerns. The least you can do is acknowledge that by striking what has been dealt with. Tiamut 15:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, a question: do you use or have you used another account here at Misplaced Pages? Tiamut 17:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'll strike through issues that are fixed. As for your question, no I have not used any other account and don't plan to. Is there any user you had in mind that you think is a sock of mine? I have to admit that I once figured Nableezy to possibly be a sock of one of the old gang that is now blocked but that's no longer the case.

p.s. I do have to request that you stop with the IDONTLIKEIT and other bad faith accusations. The article is finally making a shift towards a semblance of neutrality but this is not a quick fix process if even admins are being reverted and poor grammar is inserted instead of proper one.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 10:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering the question.

About IDONTLIKEIT, I have no idea what you are talking about. And there are no bad faith accusations, just honest descriptions of what I view as problematic editing approaches on your part. :::About admins being reverted (I suppose you are referring to my revert of Ynhockey's edit) that may not have happened if he bothered to participate in the discussions like everyone else. He doesn't have any special status that exempts him from talk page discussion. And if you reviewed the discussion closely, you would notice that he inserted a sentence fragment in his edit that was completely nonsensical. After I restored the text to its original, I went about correcting the awkward sentence structures that were pointed out to me.

Please do strike what has been addressed and we will continue from there. Tiamut 11:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, part of the problem is that every edit someone else makes, you revert and re-do it in your own style. This ends up not fixing the issues that concern your fellow editors. I would appreciate if, for a change, you would discuss the things that you felt were disrupted by the edits rather than you reverting back the issues in concern.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 11:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is WP:OWNing this article Jaakobou, it's you. You have singlehandedly kept a NPOV tag up there for a year now. I have made every effort to respond to your every concern, no matter how off-base. Instead of recognizing that, you accuse me of OWN. Get over yourself. Tiamut 11:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your starting point is that my concerns are off base even when respectable admins, not mistaken with overly pro-Israeli biases, such as Al Ameer son approve of some of them. The problem is either that I'm crazy to suggest that "tanks and artillery" is too much fluff for the lead, or that you have ownership issues for insisting that they do and reverting this issue for a month now before "appeasing Jaackobou" once an admin gave it a look and agreed with me.

I have no intention of mucking up an article with an NPOV tag, but the article has not seen improvement during that time when I was giving you a chance to improve it without my direct meddling.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 11:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the problem is that I have difficulty taking your requests seriously due to the soapboxing and provocation that invariably accompanies them and the ever-shifting goalposts that have been set. It is not crazy to suggest that "tanks and artillery" are too much detail for the lead. It's a matter of opinion and one you were alone in versus three editors supporting its inclusion until Ynhockey edited out the material, indicating he too, did not think it should go in the lead. I bent out of respect for the lack of consensus (something you might consider doing from time to time when you find that you are the only editor advocating for something in the face of mutliple dissensions). And please do not pretend that's the only issue you have had for the last month or that its the only one I've addressed. Every time one is addressed, you find another, and another. Your interventions may have indirectly caused the article to improve but at what cost Jaakobou? Don't you think this process could have been much more efficient, had you respected requests to outline your issue in a comprehensive list from the outset and stuck to discussing article content rather than say your opinions on the anti-Semitic tendencies of Arab media which have nothing to do with the article at all? Tiamut 11:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

So much soapboxing in my edit here that you reverted it and ignored both my concenrs. Always nice to not be taken seriously and be accused of soapboxing due to WP:OWNership issues. I don't know how you construct your "consensus" since it doesn't seem to include anyone who might be mistaken with pro-Israeli perspectives. Jaakobou 11:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I responded in this edit which you deleted from the talk page here. Please restore my edit now. You have no right to delete other people's talk page comments. Tiamut 11:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment completely disrupted mine a second time. There's no reasoning in placing it there of all places. Also, I neglected to add that you accused me of minimizing the Israeli army role??? Was there any source that said the army shot people intentionally? (There wasn't), Were there sources that rioters were attacking police and that the police couldn't contain the rioters? (there were). I prefer a version that minimizes both to the word "clashes" since this is a more encyclopdic way of dealing with a WP:LEAD.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 11:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Restore my comment now Jaakobou. Per WP:TALK, you have no right to delete the comments of your fellow editors. Tiamut 11:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

System lags made me accidentally delete one instead of moving it (fixed). Anyways, it was poorly positioned and posed an interruption to my own comment (see also 'interruptions' under the talk policy).

Warm regards, Jaakobou 14:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Next time, ask me to move it and I will. Do not do it yourself. I almost filed an AE report about it and everything else Jaakobou. I'm on the verge right now. I expect that you will cease commenting about editors, cease soapboxing, and focus on article content and be serious about working to remove the NPOV tag. One more comment or action that is out of line and I will report you. Clear? Tiamut 14:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: not that I have a strong inclination to turn away from content to drama, but personal commentary (and drama) seems to be an issue on said discussion and I'm not the only one to complain. Jaakobou 17:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Because you have no valid or coherent argument or additions to make the article to yourself, you had to resort to