Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:31, 2 April 2009

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Shuki, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  And Shalom! IZAK 08:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Archives
Shuki/Archive1 Shuki/Archive2 Shuki/Archive3 Shuki/Archive4

Maimonides

I'm pretty sure Maimonides, Avrohom Elyashiv, and Shlomo Amar practiced Judaism. You know, the whole rabbi thing. Parthian Scribe 09:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

totally redundant cat. --Shuki (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate sources for claims

In several recent changes you made you used inappropriate sources. For instance, to show that Yediot Aharonot is "Pro-Livni" (which was probably IMHO the most reasonable statement of them) you bring something that Uzi Mahnaimi wrote in passing in the times (which was started as "Observers speculated"). This is not appropriate source for the claim. For such a claim you should bring either explicit endorsement in the editorial of the paper or evaluations by media critics. You did similar things (only with worse sources) in trying to show that Meretz is "far left" and for Moshe Feiglin to "show" that his action are civil disobedience. Please stop and debate in each talk page the merits of the claim you are trying to insert. Mashkin (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Talk:2009 IDF T-Shirt controversy, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Cerejota (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is weird. That information was certainly not there when I made the edit. --Shuki (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

3rr

I suggest that in order not to be close to violating Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule (you have reverted three times) you will return the page to the version without the claim. Mashkin (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think that it is you who have to be careful not to rv this time. I have a feeling that someone will do the work for you, right?

Your problem is that you don't even want to compromise. Your POV blinds you into not accepting legitimate edits on this article and others. No article is owned by any editor no matter how much they think they are an expert on the subject. If another editor adds sourced information, especially from various WP:RS, you can't merely delete it because you choose. In this case, if you insist on proving that Meretz is not a far-left party and that the sources I've brought are plainly wrong, then you must bring sourced evidence to prove otherwise. Instead of contributing, you choose to delete others. --Shuki (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Linkspam and the Mechinat Rabin page

In your edit summary to Mechinat Rabin in which you removed external links to news articles in the electronic media, you used the term "linkspam". I would suppose this

When editing WP, we have to think about the long-term future of the article. If you must link to other news articles, I suggest you add part of this information into the body of the article and reference to that. As it is, extensive weight has been given to this one subject in the article and it has virtually nothing to do with the school. Claim to fame is the actions of two students? Please read WP:ONEEVENT. On top of that, a wikinews article has been created. Your further reading should be moved to there. --Shuki (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation; these aspects of editing are new to me. Your "two students" query (based only on a later reference, appended from a single article?) fails to take into account the level and extent of those involved in this story as it developed over the course of a month,as I hoped would be clear from the initial content of the page: a graduates' meeting at which combat in Gaza was discussed, the program director (himself an IDF reserves officer) who has educated hundreds of IDF soldiers and officers during the past decade, two high-ranking officers responsible for the IDF and education, broad news coverage on a controversial aspect of the problematic Gaza conflict that involved thousands of soldiers and touched upon their families' and Israeli society's concerns. I still find the term "linkspam" objectionable and insulting, difficult to reconcile with acknowledgement on the deleting editor's part of the good faith efforts I made, as might have been but wasn'ty evinced by an explanation on the article's Talk page or my own. Hence my approach to you here.-- Deborahjay (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the term WP:LINKSPAM is derogatory at all and stand by my use of the term. I would understand that having someone edit your writing might be offensive, but I just want to clean up the article. Frankly, I don't identify with the school but it does not mean I don't care about the quality of the article. IMO, the main body should also be chopped up. Currently, it reads like an informational pamphlet with non-notable information like the part of about dormitory conditions. Frankly, most might say that the school itself is non-notable and ONEEVENT. Maybe we should take this to the Israel project page? Personally, I tend to want to see short articles on educational institutions. --Shuki (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I read the WP:LINKSPAM description and it seems quite clearly limited to external links that are essentially promotional material. The external links in Mechinat Rabin are to media reports about the controversy instance, and are simply many. Your "standing by use of the term" doesn't indicate suitable reading comprehension on your part for someone who's going to "correct" other editors. The article needs restructuring, which I would welcome as it isn't my strong point. As in general I'm an inclusionist and have a great deal of professional experience writing about Israel for overseas audiences, that's usually the guideline along which I provide content. As for the links to news material, I think (and will note this on the Talk page) that these should be winnowed to include only those dealing with the Mechinah itself. That's about it for now; hope I've made my position clearer. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole issue seems to have been blown out of proportion entirely given that it was a non story. The NPOV in me sees this two week one event issue removed from the article entirely, the POV in me says keep it up because it shows an example of a kooky thing that happened there and how the head of the school went out of his way to blacken the image of the army and Israel. --Shuki (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is a revealing testament to your personal judgment that evidently underlies your edits as well as your understanding of what's relevant to Israeli society (an issue of interest to the English-language readership as demonstrated by the amount of media coverage devoted to it daily, not so?). You call "Nonstory" an issue with major headlines and a broad-ranging series of followup articles in both the Israeli and international press (still in progress; watch the weekend papers). The matter of Purity of Arms and the IDF code of conduct are crucial fundamentals of Israeli society directly affecting innumerable people on all sides of the conflict. This particular flareup started with the Rabin Mechinah but its influence is not restricted to that program. As for your interpretation of Danny Zamir's motives, it's just that—and I can assure you that the opposite (as he avers) is just as likely or even more true than your personal (and clearly antipathetic) opinion: why not believe and report that he acted out of intense concern for the wellbeing of IDF soldiers? I and others will do further edits to rectify the proportions of this incident on the page as it relates to the topic. The page is a work in progress. -- Deborahjay (talk) 04:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

DJ, there is no doubt that everyone has POV. On top of that, FWIW, you even admitted that you also have WP:COI on the Rabin article. Given that, it should not prevent both of us from making the article better, accurate, and NPOV (do you know what that means)? If you have read my part of the discussion, then I already stated some issues with regard to that. It soothes my heart that Danny Zamir's motives are pure but that is not even alluded to in the article either way. IMO, the Cast Lead section is an embarrassment to the school. There might be an attempt to explain the event as an attempt to expose, or rather, improve code of conduct, but nonetheless, at this point, the tempest in a teapot is that Zamir's students testified even though the information was heresay and he ran to the media to publicize this. As for page being a work in progress; every page is a work in progress. If you really want to work on it, put up a 'contruction' template for a few hours, but don't expect other editors to wait a few days while Mashkin blanks material he deems unfit for the article. --Shuki (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Abusive Behavior

your behavior is abusive and not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. You are trying to insert various things to the Sasson Report and to the Meretz. Given that there is opposition to those changes, you have to discuss them in the talk page. Instead you repeatedly make the changes to the article itself. Needless to say, you can't declare unilaterally that the discussion is over. Please stop or I will have to complain about your behavior. Mashkin (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Mashkin, who's being abusive? Please quote the WP policies where it states that I need to justify each edit I make that you oppose. Before you complain, I suggest that you read up on editing WP first. One of the cardinal policies of WP is that you don't own the articles. Please read up on policies. --Shuki (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Simply read the Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and see how things should work. In all the discussion or attempted discussions you keep making claims and assertions that are wildly besides the point. Mashkin (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad Faith Edit

Your edit in Avidgor Lieberman is clearly bad faith as you say " Mashkin, like you claim, first discuss on talk page)" There was an extensive discussion on the talk page how to phrase the Kach membership and this is the agreement. You are clearly admitting that you are reverting just to get back at what you precieve as my stuboorn edits in other pages. This is a bad fath edit. Mashkin (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusing me of bad faith is actually contrary to WP:AGF. I'm sorry that you assume that you are right all the time. You know, many good admins also started off with your aggressive attitude but learned how to settle disputes in a good way. I wish you luck. --Shuki (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Assume Good Faith" policy is precisely why your behavior is so egregious. This is the underlying assumption of the operation of Misplaced Pages and you are abusing it by operating in bad faith and advertising this fact by saying that your edit is just to annoy me. Mashkin (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Putting words in my mouth? Pathetic. --Shuki (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

tshirt article

Hi Shuki, I am a bit concerned about your edit to the 2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair where you added a POV template. Based on the edit summary it looks as though this was instigated by another user putting it on another article. I am not accusing you of anything, just a bit of friendly advice. Editing in this area will inevitably lead to confrontations with other users, some of them can get quite nasty and long-lived. It is best to try to approach each article on its own. If you feel that there is a POV issue with the article in question then by all means re-add the POV template. But at least go to the talk page to list your concerns. The template had originally been added because some felt the title was inaccurate and the article did not include the perspective of the soldiers. Both those concerns have been resolved and now others who had supported the tag no longer feel it is necessary. If you still feel it is necessary could you please let us know what concerns you have with it? Peace and happiness, Nableezy (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)