Revision as of 11:24, 28 September 2009 editChrisO~enwiki (talk | contribs)43,032 edits →What source-based research looks like: - olive branch← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:37, 28 September 2009 edit undoJaakobou (talk | contribs)15,880 edits →What source-based research looks like: +Next edit → | ||
Line 185: | Line 185: | ||
:With respect. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 02:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC) | :With respect. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 02:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
::In response to your request, I've posted an olive branch - see . I hope you will respond positively, so that we can all get back to doing more productive things. -- ] (]) 11:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC) | ::In response to your request, I've posted an olive branch - see . I hope you will respond positively, so that we can all get back to doing more productive things. -- ] (]) 11:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::I'm a little offended with the way your friends responded and need a couple hours to digest this proposal. I will probably agree to withdraw the case, just that I'm not in the right frame of mind and wouldn't want to close things while upset. One of the best advice I got in the day was a link to ]. | |||
:::With respect, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:37, 28 September 2009
Aah! Ooh!
(refresh)
Saturday
11
January13:05 UTC
|
Archives | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
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 wikipedia 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) |
DYK for Yaakov Bodo
On September 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yaakov Bodo, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Wikiproject: Did you know? 17:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks you
Thank you very much for the recognition. This is much appreciated. Jimmy1988 (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Gaza beach explosion (2006)
do you have time to add a short paragraph on the controversy over the Human rights Report to the Marc Garlasco page? It would be useful.Historicist (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not today but I'll see if I can muster up some time to review the content. I do have some other things I was working on that might take presidency. Is there a discussion going on? Jaakobou 18:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Operation Defensive Shield
I have done more analysis on the edits on Operation Defensive Shield. I have explained things on my talkpage, and to User:Tiamut. Although my concerns on your side are smaller than on other sides. One specific concern: You reverted the IP's unexplained edit, and the IP re-reverted. When you then re-reverted, you started a 'discussion' on the talkpage (diff). Could you try and be more specific in the concerns you have with an edit, inform the editor you reverted on their talkpage where you stated your concerns and opened discussion (I know, you never know with IPs if the same editor will read them, but at least you tried), and maybe even do it after the first revert (though the second revert is not too bad). Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra 12:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'll take these notes to heart.
- Warm regards, Jaakobou 18:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Landau and Haaretz
Thanks for looking it up. Frankly, after so much controvercy I need a couple of days to cool off. I will return to this point in couple of days. Thanks for your attempt to clear things out.--Rm125 (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Stern House
On September 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stern House, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
≈ Chamal ¤ 09:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: Stalemate on MaD
Done! I've eliminated some comments & questions that aren't especially important, and merged the rest. I was curious, on a personal level, if you've watched the 18 minutes of video released by France 2? ← George 09:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- I saw something on youtube but I can't be certain that this is the original material one for one as there's no reliable source stating this. Will check the talkpage in a sec... Jaakobou 09:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: Revert
Man, you need a new keyboard with a working spacebar! So regarding your points:
- Where in the second BBC source does it state that France 2 had a 45 minute of film? I read the source; as far as I can tell it says no such thing.
- Hmm, what second name of the documentary?
- Do you object to moving the (earlier) BBC report to before Rahma's sworn statement? It made sense to me, as that's the order they took place in chronologically.
- What do you object to about my rewrite of the sentence about his sworn statement?
- What do you object to about my rewrite of his statement in the German documentary?
Cheers. ← George 10:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Btw, I saw in your edit summary that "the '6minute' bit was noted on the second documentary". I haven't seen it, but the video of Schapira's interview with Rahma is in the first documentary. The original instance of the interview and statement should be used. ← George 10:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Done, and done. Btw, I don't check my Misplaced Pages email often, so if it's anything urgent feel free to message me on Misplaced Pages to check my email. Cheers. ← George 11:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Haven't gotten it yet. Btw, you haven't enabled to be contacted through it. Jaakobou 11:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, odd, dunno why it didn't go through yet. I've enabled email now anyways, so feel free to message me via that. ← George 11:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- I got it. Check for my reply. Jaakobou 11:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, just saw your message. Who is Landes? Regardless, I looked at the link you sent. I essentially agree that the five possibilities listed are the five that I would list. However, this is Misplaced Pages, so not all viewpoints or theories get equal weight just because they exist. As that page itself suggests, we must weigh the different theories - not in terms of plausibility, but in terms of coverage by reliable sources. The five scenarios that page lists were not covered as equal theories. ← George 06:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Levy
that is your 3rd revert, 2 of which are reinserting what a good faith editor (me) has argued is a BLP violation without consensus that it is not. Consensus does not mean you and one other person. nableezy - 02:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Hey mate i thought i recognized your username from somewhere, I remember you from deviantart you were one mouthy opinionated deviant :P (I left there since admins were allowing scum) Glad to see you here you have quite a portfolio too, see you aroundEli+ 20:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
What source-based research looks like
In response to your unnecessarily aggressive message on my talk page, I suggest you take a look at this. If you rely on conspiracy theorist websites and videos then I'm afraid it's no wonder you appear to be misinformed about the facts of the case. Conspiracy theorists routinely lie, mislead and misrepresent; they use facts selectively and misleadingly to meet support their preconceived ideas about "the truth". Where facts don't exist, they invent them or rely on innuendo; where facts are unclear or ambiguous, they present them as being cast-iron truths with only one possible interpretation. They rely on misdirection, getting you to focus on small details while ignoring the big picture of how improbable their claims are. I suggest you have a look at this article from the Austin Chronicle, which you might find informative. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. I still insist that you desist from using the intensified terminology you've recently adopted. Focus on content and not on name calling.
- With respect. Jaakobou 02:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- In response to your request, I've posted an olive branch - see . I hope you will respond positively, so that we can all get back to doing more productive things. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm a little offended with the way your friends responded and need a couple hours to digest this proposal. I will probably agree to withdraw the case, just that I'm not in the right frame of mind and wouldn't want to close things while upset. One of the best advice I got in the day was a link to WP:NAM.
- With respect, Jaakobou 11:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- In response to your request, I've posted an olive branch - see . I hope you will respond positively, so that we can all get back to doing more productive things. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)