Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jaakobou: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:52, 8 January 2008 editRyan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,432 edits →Detwinkled: re← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:44, 18 June 2023 edit undoZinnober9 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers52,152 editsm Fixed Lint errors on this page 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:Jaakobou/scrolling}} <!-- Scrolling icon page -->
<!-- begin edit count and summary code code -->
{{User:Jaakobou/Mini Barnstars}} <!-- Mini Barnstars -->
<div style="position: absolute; right: 7.5em; top: 1.3em; font-size: 90%;" id="TemplateUserinfo" class="plainlinks">{{#ifeq:{{{purge|}}}|yes|{{purge|purge server cache}} {{!}}}}
<table>
<!-- NB: enwiki data on the Toolserver stopped updating on June 6, 2006, and completely disappeared off its database a few months later. --> | </div>
<tr><td valign="top">
<!-- end edit count and summary code code -->
<table style="padding: 5px; width: 100%; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; margin-bottom: 4px; clear: left; -moz-border-radius: 6px;">
<!-- begin date code -->
<tr><td>
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" id="talkheader" align="center" style="text-align:center;background-color: #FFFFFF;"
|-
|<!-- begin date code -->
<div style="border:1px solid #ccc; background: #eee; text-align: center; padding:3px; float:right; font-size: smaller; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 1.144;"> <div style="border:1px solid #ccc; background: #eee; text-align: center; padding:3px; float:right; font-size: smaller; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 1.144;">
<div style="width:50"><br></div> <div style="width:60"><small><small><small>''{{purge|(refresh)}}''</small></small></small></div>
<div style="width:50">{{CURRENTDAYNAME}}</div> <div style="width:60">{{CURRENTDAYNAME}}</div>
<div style="font-size: x-large; width: 50;">{{CURRENTDAY}}</div> <div style="font-size: x-large; width: 55;">{{CURRENTDAY}}</div>
<div style="width: 50;"> {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}</div><div class="plainlinks" style="background: #aaaa; color: #000;"><font color="#000000">{{CURRENTTIME}}</font> UTC</div> <div style="width: 60;"> {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}</div><div class="plainlinks" style="background: #aaaa; color: #000;"><span style="color:#000000">{{CURRENTTIME}}</span> UTC</div>
</div> </div>
<!-- end date code --> <!-- end date code -->
! colspan="2" style="border-bottom:1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA;" |
Welcome to ]'s ].
|-
| style="background-color: #FFFFFF;text-align:left;" |
] '''Please see .'''
| style="background-color: #FFFFFF;" |
<div style="border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA; margin-left: 20px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-right: 3px;">
''']'''


Please respect ], ] and try to be ].
{{archivebox|auto=long}}
</div>
|-
|<br>
{{User:Jaakobou/Polemics and Decorum}} <!-- Polemics and Decorum -->
|}


</td></tr>
<!-- ADD NEW COMMENTS AFTER THIS AREA, NEWEST TOPICS AT THE BOTTOM -->
</table>
</td></tr>
<tr><td valign="top">


{{archivebox|auto=long}}
*''''']''''' *''''']'''''
</td></tr>
</table>
<!-- ADD NEW COMMENTS AFTER THIS AREA, NEWEST TOPICS AT THE BOTTOM -->
<!-- ADD NEW COMMENTS AFTER THIS AREA, NEWEST TOPICS AT THE BOTTOM -->


'''stuff i'm reading'''<br> '''Stuff I'm reading:'''<br>
<div style="height: 95px; width: 62%; overflow: auto; padding: 8px;text-align: left; border:solid 1px; align:right" ;>
*]
{|class="wikitable" style="font-size: smaller; border: 0px dashed red; background-color: {{{color|white}}}; margin: 1em auto 1em auto;"
*]
|-
|
*] - Inventor of the DiskOnKey
*]
*], ]
*] *]
*] *]
Line 31: Line 61:
*] *]
*] *]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
|
*]
*]
*]
*]
*] - 1679 Mawza exile
*]
*]
*] *]
*] *]
*] *]
**] - ] **]
*** ]
**] **]
*] *]
Line 41: Line 87:
*] *]
*] *]
*]

*]

*]
==Eleland==
|

*]
I am sorry if I have placed this note in the wrong spot. I m very inexperienced with Misplaced Pages. I was enthralled by Misplaced Pages. Initially. That is until I met Eleland. I noticed that you had some interesting discussions with Eleland. Eleland engineered a small article which I contributed some information to be deleted. He organised a "kangaroo court" made duplicitous unfounded claims and then set up a false consensus.
**]

*]
The Article was on Ed O'Loughlin Fairfax publishing MidEast correspondent. The said individual has a unfortunate habit of mixing reporting and commentary. He was amongst the candidates for this year's HR.com dishonest reporter award - despite being in the Australia only catchment area - so you can imagine the quality of his journalism.
*]

*]
Anyway Eleland did a great job of protecting him and got the article deleted.
*]

*]
So I studied Eleland a little.
*]

*]
I've looked at over 100 of his posts on the Arab Israel conflict. More than 95 were directly anti-Israel. His modus has been generally to unfairly rubbish the references of the pro-Israel side. In this way he has undermined many many articles.
*]

*]
Personally I don't care what his opinion is, but when he uses his editorial power and influence at Misplaced Pages to falsely invalidate, delete, manipulate etc. I think there is a problem.
*]

**]
Misplaced Pages is, I am afraid, beginning to read like Eleland wrote the script.
**]

**]
Who is Eleland? What power does he actually have?
* ]

* ]
Can anything be done?
* ]

* ]

* ]
Adon Emmet
* ]

If you post a reply here I will contact here or even by e-mail <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I've had my share of clashes with Eleland but it seems that we've managed to de-escalate the situation before it got too heated. I suggest you create a username and then i'd be happy in guiding you to a better understand the policies and guidlines. cheers. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 21:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

I wrote what I did on the talk page because I didn't want your words to provoke an argument with our visitor "friends" that could only cause harm to the article in the end. ]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 23:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Do you mind if I remove your last comment? I really don't want them to be pulled into starting an unfruitful argument. I think the best policy is to ignore any incoherent or unenlightening comments by IP editors. ]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 23:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:i don't think most of them are intelligent enough to make an argument... if they try, they might end up learning something and it would actually make them better people. thanks for your concern though. ] 00:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)



== Please Help with ] article ==

Hey, there are some of the usual suspects trying to whitewash an article about a Neturei KArta guy. Can you please help out? ] 13:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

==Good Faith Issues -- ]==

''']''', It's beggining to feel that '''''good faith''''' is under suspiscion in regards to your edits on '']''<sup></sup>. I'm making this note due to a few edits which seem to censor information from the article - such as:
*'''''' explained as ''"I think the caption got mixed up."'' in which you <sup>(i)</sup>remove the name of the woman on tape and both the <sup>(ii)</sup>ref and info to on her beying quoted as cursing the USA and <sup>(iii)</sup>the link to the criticism.
- this edit btw destroyed refrence no. 11<sup></sup>.
* ''''''<sup></sup> in which you attach the hosting webdomain name (freedomdomain.com) as the "reporting body" in what might be an interpreted as an attempt to discredit the actual reporting body of the refrence, i.e. Times Newspapers.

'''''While i try to assume good faith''''', and i havn't objected to '''' in which you discredit sources by noting they are on a "personal website". there is a fine line where i'm loosing faith due to promotion of '''' and making '''' while claiming there was a '''' or '''' where it might seem to suit a possible agenda and '''' and tagging refrences as '''' where it doesn't.

{{{icon|]}}} '''''please note!'''''

please remember to maintain ] in future edits to this article so that good faith suspiscions won't turn into allegations of ] and contribute to unnessesary and/or where you "discredit" a source and another contributor might "NPOV the situation" by "discrediting" another source. ] 11:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

* Was that the name of the woman? Ok, I just noticed that the caption had changed and changed it back.
* Btw, are Youtube videos useable as sources?
* Unless we fins the actual Times article it is no more reliable than any personal webpage and should be reported as such. How do we know it is an accurate description of the original article?
* The text was copied directly from the ] article (or thereabouts). Now I only found a passing reference in ]. A quick googling found http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/6/22220/02926 Just look at the signs saying "THANK GOD FOR Sept. 11". And in other media.
* Yes, propaganda and fraud. Fake (fraud) celebrations being brodcast as propaganda.
* I removed the links that was already used as sourced and those with an obvious bias. Then there was no links left.
:// ]

:#i see no problem with an article about the Westboro celebrations, i don't think they are worth much more than a "see also" in regards to this article which is heavily dedicated to palestinian celebrations.
:#i don't know if you're aware on how the international media buissness works if you call the usage of these images "propaganda".. they were not propagated by israel, but AP - an agency blamed many times for being a tool in the hands of terrorists who threaten the lives of it's reporters so they comply on many occassions to make a buck and were heavily under fire for proven photoshopped images and arranged scenes... the life of a photojournalist is about as vicious as the one of the paparatzi(sp?) if not more (you know, photography under fire and such) and to be honest, i think -- knowing pictures of celebrating palestinians were taken not only in israel (and west bank) but also in lebanon and that perceptions in the arab world about the US cultivate this behaviour (to some extent) -- that the handing out of candy is more probably part of the cultural ceremony rather than an induced staging... although, i'm not intending to add such POV into the article.
:#these video links i provided are based on the only current sources availabe for these newscasts, luckily for us they seem to be at full length and unedited. sadly we have no better source (yet) and it's here for obvious encyclopedic reasons. if you can come up with better refrences to the video that would be great.
:#for the same reason, we have no reason to suspect that the Times article is distorted.. similarly, the der spiegel source was allowed also when we have no availability of the actual full article. i believe there really shouldn't be any contention at the moment that the refrences are of shoddy reliability... i do think there is room to find better links for all the articles mentioned in the Tripod page.. that one bothers me a little, but it's there because we have no reason to believe the articles were falsified and also for encyclopedic value which is IMHO the most important part of our contributions here at wikipedia. ] 13:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

== Recent Revert on ] ==

Cool beans. ] 14:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

== Mass demolitions in the Negev. ==
I'll try not to wantonly trigger these breaches of Misplaced Pages ] with anything I can't prove. It was Israel's minister of interior Roni Bar-On who announced in Dec 2006 that he will destroy 42,000 homes of 2nd-class Israeli citizens in the Negev. Well, unless you're going to tell me that Israelis lie, of course. ] 17:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

:(1) note the article (from January 10, '''2007''') uses the words "42,000 '''''illegal''''' structures in the Israeli Negev.", is misleading at best.
:(2) note that the article by the "israeli committee" asks the question: "When will Israel create options for 80,000...", accusing israel for not creating options. which is, at best a white lie and at worst a blatant POV pushing. see these articles to note that "israelis can lie" *shrug*:

:* '''(2006)'''
:* , to be settled at ].

:as you can see, a few options are presented and discussed, the people in the Ynet article had a reasonable reason.. they say that the southern part of that town is close (10Km) to a waste dump and they are worried it is dangerous.

:regardless, the article also notes that in '''2003''', Ariel Sharon made a plan allocated 9.8 Billion NIS in a span of 10 years to upgrade and recognize 8 places of beduin concentrations and upgrade them in a manner that fits the beduin lifestyle.

:], if you're not very knowledgeable about a certain issue and you have certain worries because of materials you've read (] in this case). it would be best to look for less politically motivated organizations to fact check your assumptions and avoid uncomfortable allegations of libel. ] 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
::I'll see if I can find you supporters of Mugabe attempting to justify his mass demolitions. I know the excuse he made was "slum clearance", but I don't think anyone (other than people enjoying his hospitality) ever accepted what he claimed, or thought his behaviour anything other than criminal. ] 19:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

:::''']''', so now you're planning on comparing between two situations you havn't explored seriously? .. don't you think you're stretching out a bit too far with this ]?? i don't know much about zim, but last i checked the life expectancy was 37!... not really a place that should be compared with israel. ] 20:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
::::My humble apologies. It would be quite wrong of me to compare ] in Zimbabwe for slum clearance purposes with house demolition elsewhere for ethnic cleansing. People might think I deplored what Mugabe is doing and was soap-boxing against him. ] 12:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
==]==
I was wondering about why you changed your mind about whether the Israel Palestine stuff should be on its own article or moved back into the main one. You don't have to answer if you don't want to. ]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 08:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:i'm a bit ambivalent about it, but i don't remember changing my mind. *scratches head*
:could you please link me to this change? ] 09:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
::Lol. Here's what I was thinking about: ]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 09:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:::lol, caught flipfloping. well, at first i thought the article deserves it's own article, but later i read the comment by Gabi S. on the AfD page and figured he had a point and that not only that this makes for a perfect POV pushing situation and considering there's no similar expantion on other countries/conflicts and that many of the words were repetative. plus it caused many unnessecary and time cunsuming edit warrings for the project. i'm still a bit ambivalent and figure there is room for such an article in the future of the project, but for the moment - i think that a Redirect, it the best solution. ] 09:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Ok, thanks. (obviously, I have counterpoints, but you've cleared up my question) Best, ]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 09:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

== direction of text ==

{{tl|helpme}}

i need the wikicode for making a text appear from right to left. ] 12:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
:You can use the {{tl|rtl-para}} tag. Example: <nowiki>{{rtl-para|he|שלום!}}</nowiki>, which prints
{{rtl-para|he|שלום!}}
:]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 13:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

::thank you, i allready found <nowiki>{{Hebrew|שלום}}</nowiki> which makes for a better font, but the <nowiki><p align="right"></nowiki> formatting did not look very nice, so i settled with your suggestion. thanks again. ] 13:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

::p.s. pun intended.

==Allahdad incident==
Hi, I removed those categories since i made a top category ] which is now a sub-category of those categories. ] 05:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)



==Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks==
The consensus from the discussion was that the source of ] was not reliable per the nominator's reason for deletion.

I agreed with ] <sup>(])</sup> that having two fair use images in the short article ] violates ] #3a against minimal use. After reading] and ], I felt the consensus on that issue was to use ] in the article. -Regards ] ] 14:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:I reread the discussion and still believe the consensus is that the sourcing is not reliable and the image has other fair use issues. If you wish to have this decision looked at again, please request a ]. If my decision to delete is overturned, then those editors interested in the ] article can figure out which image is best to use - Regards -] ] 22:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::You can try re-uploading the image and summarizing the new info you have and see if it passes the community's scrutiny. You need to document on the image talk page your rationale for re-uploading a deleted image or it will probably be immediately deleted. You can pursue getting permissions from AP for the image too if that id the copyright holder. Start a discussion on the article talk page aboput the images and see wha the consensus is. Good luck. -] ] 14:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

==Jenin==
Hi, if there are any specific points of the text that need translation, I would be glad to help. ] 09:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

== Accurate bible translations ==

Hi and thanks for your note on my page. There's not really a problem. We're talking about the aerticle ], and the website to link to for the various bible verses mentioned there. I had links to a site run by the Uni of Virgina which gave whole chapters from a single translation (the NIV I think), Sarek changed it to a site that gave only single verses but a wide choice of translations. I reverted because I felt (a) that whole chapters are more useful because the reader can see the verse in context, an (b) that many of the translations in his site are untrustworthy (e.g. the King James - great poetry but a bit outdated); he then pointed out that (a) the verses on his siet are easily linked to the relevant chapters, and (b) my site wasn't available any more. I regarded that point as being a bit of a clincher. Have a look at the Bethel article. ] 01:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)



== Offensive post in Jenin talk page ==

Do not accuse me of "not caring" about the victims of bombings in Israel. I do not take that view and nor has anything I have said or any edits I have made even suggested that I do. Also please don't claim that you speak for the general public and the average wikipedia editor, as it makes you look rather foolish. You might also want to stop lazily pretending that all the people killed in Jenin were militants. --] 14:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
:calling me foolish somewhat defeats the porpoise of this note of yours. regardless, you have little room to attack me after you've just insulted me and i simply noted this fact to you. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

== Help ==

{{tnull|helpme}}

i really need a guide on when it's good to use the <nowiki>{{cquote}}</nowiki> template. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 20:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

: Try looking ] I spose - Sorry I couldant be more help ] 21:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

:: P.S. Please undo this edit if you require further assistance. ] 21:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

::: There is no consistency across WP when it comes to using templates for quotations. There are {{tl|cquote}}, {{tl|quote}}, {{tl|blockquote}}, {{tl|quotation}}, etc. I am not sure ] lists all of them. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 10:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

==]==

Jaakobou,
You are over the ] on this page. Please self-revert now, or I will report you. ] 07:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

::], i'm not over the limit, but thank you for the heads-up. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 07:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Actually, you *are* over the limit: , , , , . Please revert yourself '''now'''. ] 07:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

::::#if you think i broke the ], feel free to , i know for a fact that i have not.
::::#try to remain ], when addressing other wiki editors, bold font could be considered by some people as shouting. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 07:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::You've made more than five reverts in 24 hours, so I don't see how you couldn't have broken the 3RR. You do realize that the count isn't reset at 00:00, right? ] 07:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::thank you for the update. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 08:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

<div style="padding:5px; border:1px solid #c0c090; background-color:#FEC;" class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{{{{subst|}}}#if:20 hours|a period of '''20 hours'''|a short time}} in accordance with ] for violating the ] {{{{{subst|}}}#if:Hebron|at ]}}. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek ] rather than engaging in an ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{sig|}}}|] 22:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-3block -->

] 22:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:yeah i made a technical error, i think that i try to resolve disputes as properly as possible in a very hostile environment and that while this block is technically justified, it is not helpful to the project as it rewards rude behavior by people who are blanketing correct and referenced information just because the phrasing was a little off. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 06:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

:- .

== Neo-Zionism ==

I've removed for the moment the transclusion <nowiki>{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Neo-Zionism}}</nowiki> from the AfD log, since there is neither a tag on the article nor a discussion page. In case you actually want to nominate this article for deletion, please complete all three steps per ]. --] 14:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

==Wounded Soul==
Kind of a stretch, to call what I said a personal attack, unless you take things way too personally, which was my point; fighting over a worthless patch of desert has wounded the souls of ''all'' involved. ] 21:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

== Please watch yourself ==

You should not use your edit summaries to identify edits made as part of a content dispute as vandalism, as you did at . This is a tacit personal attack, and may be seen as at attempt to evade scrutiny through misleading summaries. In future, I suggest you say "rv tendentious editing", or "rv as factually inaccurate and POV", or something similar. ] 17:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:1) i have both previous and with said user.
:2) this is not a content dispute but from both the intro (reason for notability) and from a resolved issue (kurdi bear) that has been discussed over and over.
:3) i have given the user a chance to defend his edit .
:4) you're hardly the person to talk to me about .
:-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 18:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

::1) All the more reason for civility.
::2) The blanking of information was part of a content dispute. Vandalism refers to edits which clearly have no other purpose but to damage the article, and could not be seen as constructive by anybody.
::3) No policy empowers users to give each other "last chances" after which they may violate WP:CIV or WP:NPA.
::4) The edit summary you mentioned drew attention to gang-reversions by nationalists. It made no reference to any particular edit or user. POV-pushing from nationalist editors is a well known problem on the Misplaced Pages. ] 18:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:::you've managed to distort/misrepresent all 4 in your reply. good job. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
===Visitors may judge "information blanking" for themselves===
Interested visitors should know that what Jaakobou calls (above) and/or ''"vandalism"'' is actually the re-writing of his un-encyclopedic, tendentious and wordy edits. (In this case, the article was ]). His version of this paragraph reads as follows:<blockquote>Israel claimed that a warning was given over a loud speaker before each of the houses were destroyed; However, ]'s "7 Days" editorial released a personal interview with Moshe Nissim (nicknamed "Kurdi Bear", Hebrew: "דובי כורדי"), a problematic army ] soldier who insisted on becoming a D-9 driver, as stating that regardless of the speaker calls, he personally gave no one a chance and demolished the homes as quickly as possible while thinking about all the ] hidden in the camp and the Israeli soldiers being in a death trap situation. Nissim added his disregard for the possibility that he could be killed and that despite not witnessing any deaths, he did not care and he believes that people died inside the houses.<ref> {{languageicon|he|Hebrew}}</ref></blockquote>The version he insists on reverting out (having failed to edit-war it out of the article completely) reads as follows: <blockquote>Israel claims that a warning was given over a loud speaker before each of the houses were destroyed. ] <ref> http://gush-shalom.org/archives/kurdi_eng.html - Yediot Aharonot, Tsadok Yeheskeli - May 31, 2002</ref> quoted Moshe Nissim, nicknamed "Kurdi Bear" as saying ''"They were warned by loudspeaker to get out of the house before I come, but I gave no one a chance. ........ Many people were inside houses we started to demolish. ....... I am sure people died inside these houses."''</blockquote><references/> Note that his paragraph replaces the correct English language reference with one in Hebrew, thereby ruining ], one of the core principles of the encyclopedia. (I made other changes at the same time in this particular edit, the most significant being the correct reporting of death estimates - "at least 52", not "total 52". So his replacement paragraph is not just very badly written, it also put known falsehoods back into the encyclopedia).

Needless to say, there is a lot more work needs doing on this article, but it is not going to happen until this behaviour stops. ] 14:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:We should have both references included. My understanding of policy is that English-language references are preferred to foreign-language references, but in this case the reliability of the Hebrew source is claimed to be superior to the reliability of the English source (although personally I trust Gush Shalom more than Yedioth Ahronoth). ] 15:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::] (and ]), all this information belongs where we've already discussed it, i.e. on the article's talk page. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 17:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:::You're right, and I apologize. ] 17:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

== Resolved or not? ==

Civility is the toughest nut to crack at Misplaced Pages; people are expected to have thick skins and often harsh words are expressed and editors are allowed a significant lattitude unless there are threats, profanity, or outright name calling. I haven't seen the crossing of those lines from the diffs you linked. Are there others you'd like me look at? FYI, WP admins will not block someone for POV pushing alone even accompanied by strong language. ] 17:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Reopened my complaint as well. PR just doesn't get it. *headdesk* ] 10:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

== Response on the film article ==

I think that there may be an honest disagreement on how to word the critiques section. Although weasel words like "some" are usually to be avoided, where things are largely a matter of taste (as movie critiques are, basically) "some" and "others" are probably passable. One could say "Some, inlcuding the Chicago Sun-Times, ...". I think the weasel words guideline is best in a factual dispute: some people say the Nile is the longest river, others say it's the Amazon. Who the "some" are there does matter - if every supporter of the Amazon is a Brazilian Newspaper, the reader can draw his own conclusion on whether a bias is present. As for a "quote farm", a phrase I don't particularly like, while it is sometimes important to quote rather than characterize the quotations, like perhaps Barak Obama's recent statements about Pakistan or Putin's statements about the "missile shield" in Europe, and we have lots of articles of the sort "International reaction to " that are nothing but a bunch of quotes. However, in matters of taste (as here) it's less important to repeat what they said: there are plenty of more polite synonyms for "boring" but they still mean "boring" - but most documentaries are boring to most audiences that's why they make lots less money than Harry Potter or Batman or Bourne movies. ] 22:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

:i don't mind putting in that reviewers noted that the film is slow paced and some called it boring... however, starting the review section with a statement that "it's a slow boring movie... and incorrect to boot" is certainly not how we should address any film.
:the thing is that with political movies that are pro/anti-israel or pro/anti-islam or pro/anti-palestinians. there's always some idiotic attempt to influence the way the film is presented and this case is no different... some wiki editors are simply incapable of taking a step back and simply noting the range of reviews in an NPOV manner. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 08:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

== Re: WP:CIV ==

Yes, yes, I have noticed that you like to complain about incivility instead of addressing substantive issues. I find your need to see yourself as a helpless victim, unjustifiably targeted by hostile forces, regardless of how destructive your actions are, to be fascinating: you seem to mirror personally the attitude that ] takes internationally. If you remove material with no justification, or with no more than a passing reference to some TV show you saw on Israel's equivalent of the Discovery Channel, you'll face this type of response. It is extraordinary frustrating to deal with you. Even when you're completely off base, it takes reversions and multiple postings on talk before you — sometimes — accept it. Two cases in point would be your insertion of the term "Big Jenin Lie" in boldface to the lede, and your original research claims of accusations of "genocide" when that term only appeared once in all of the sources you provided. I'll try not to question your motives in future, because ultimately, it isn't helpful.

Now, on a related matter: Do you have a potential ] related to the ]? Were you a participant in the event? Although you have devoted much bandwidth to decrying this question, you have not answered it, which would be the most sensible way to deal with the issue.

] 13:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

::warning . <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 14:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
:::It would appear it was time you answered the question - did you take part in operations described in articles in this encyclopedia, and are there circumstances under which you could be charged with war-crimes and arraigned before the ICC at the Hague? Please consider your options carefully before providing a reply. If there are circumstances under which you might seek asylum in a civilised nation (or indeed, in a western nation), then you might care to consider your response especially carefully. Please note, these questions were originally presented in the context of a ], and you've not replied to the original question. However, you are welcome to do so now. ] 17:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

== Libel Take Two==

It's obnoxious and it's rude and it's uncalled for (and it's a violation of numerous WP guidelines), but it's not ], at least in the US.

] and ]. Admins are looking at it. Further advocacy at AN/I is more likely to hurt the persuasiveness of your case by making the section difficult to read. ] is rarely enforced, and even less so when the complaining party is complaining loudly. ] 23:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

:i'm just curious how it's not libel for every type of question to be asked in public if it can be proven that the person asking knows what he's doing and he's doing it repeatedly on purpose, in order to vilify someone he considers to be an opponent.

:you don't need to go far up this page to see he adds to his "question" the following phrasing:

:::''Please consider your options carefully before providing a reply. If there are circumstances under which you might seek asylum in a civilised nation (or indeed, in a western nation), then you might care to consider your response especially carefully.'' - by user PR.

:this was done after the AV/I members ignored my original complaint, therefore giving him the feeling that this kind of behavior is acceptable. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 09:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

::I'm glad to see that he was blocked. Like I said, I thought the comments despicable, and I think ] is underenforced. Throwing around language like "libel", though, hurts your case, which might be why admins didn't notice it; PR essentially hung himself with his AN/I participation by defending the uncivil edit. You would have been more persuasive with titling the complaint something like "NPA: User accuses me of committing war crimes" instead of "Repeated bogus accusations/claims and libel". The former statement is uncontroversially true, an obvious violation, and would have been acted on much more quickly; the latter resulted in a debate over whether something was libel. ] 09:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

:::thank you for the explanation. i agree with what you said, and in the future i'll do my best to keep it in mind. i was considering to add a comment to the AN/I, using the wording 'close to legal' and noting that a 24hr block seems like a weak deterrent to such demonstrative activity, but decided that i'd only be repeating myself. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

:::i just saw <sup></sup> and all i have to say is ''wow''. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

== Re: CoI ==

If you want to dispel "insinuations" about a conflict of interest in the matter, try denying a conflict of interest in the matter. Even a generic statement like "I do not believe that I have a conflict of interest in the matter" would be helpful. Delivering aggrieved "warnings" to anyone who dares ask the question kind of makes you look like you're hiding something. ] 16:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

:what you say is correct in the event of good faith questioning, but totally incorrect in this matter. i think that anyone who looks to vilify his "opponent" can easily ask such similar questions and i never elicited such impressive leap of faith questions with any of my edits or statements. while the sheer question is insulting considering the POV of the person behind it, the phrasing and insinuations made it more than evident that the editor had more interest in how defamatory he can phrase himself without getting blocked than in the reply he gets.<br>
:p.s. i only gave you a , and it was more based on your incivility than anything else. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

==Religious villages in Israel==
The simple fact is that we can't put Bedolah into an "in Israel" as it never was in Israel. It was in the Gaza Strip (you yourself put it into ], which is not a subcategory of Israel. Saying that it was in Israel is very strong POV, which of course must be avoided on Middle East-related articles. ] ]] 08:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:saying that gaza is in or out of israel is POV. i don't quite know if you're aware of the jewish history there, but trust me it exists. regardless, the israeli settelements there were built under the flag of israel in a disputed territory, and therefore, both cats apply. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 09:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

::I'm sorry, but saying Gaza is out of Israel is not POV, it is fact (note the comment in the intro of ]: " is not currently recognized internationally as a de jure part of any sovereign country"). Gaza has never been part of the State of Israel; it was occupied by the Israel military, but was never annexed, so unlike the Golan or East Jerusalem, none of its land has ever been part of the State. In contrast, saying Gaza is or was part of Israel (and we are not talking about the Kingdom of Israel or Mandate Palestine here) is very much pro-Israel POV; thus given your constant reference to avoiding POV in your edit summaries, I would expect you not to be hypocritical and support a POV stance on this issue. ] ]] 09:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:::i'd appreciate it if you ease off on the hypocrisy accusations and just discuss the issue. your notes are very much valid, however, as i've stated, the settlements were built under the flag of israel. i'm not trying to say every gaza strip city was inside israel, but i'm saying that these gush katif settlements, which were built on disputed territory under the israeli flag could most definitely be categorized as "in israel" even if according to the UN it was 5-15 kilometers outside the official borders. i'm not pushing any pro or anti perspective here, just advocating a factuality issue in a problematic situation. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 00:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

::::The issue is not problematic. The statement "in Israel" is a very well-defined fact, i.e. something is within the green line, or at a stretch, within the Golan or East Jerusalem. As Gaza is not within the green line (how close the settlements are is not important; Gush Etzion is just as much a settlement as those in the Jordan Valley), there is no way it can be said to be in Israel. On the issue of borders, the UN is the NPOV stance, and you have made clear their opinion above. Also, as you have defined these settlements as "towns in the Gaza Strip", how on earth can they also be in Israel - it is one or the other! ] ]] 08:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::] ]], i'm well aware of your "gaza strip not israel" POV and have explained my reservation in clear terms. i disagree that you say the issue is not problematic and your mention of the green line seems to imply that you would consider the Ariel settlement in the west bank as outside of israel also; which would be even more contentious than the gush katif block. i suggest you refer me to the previous discussion that had more participants state their opinion and i'll see if anything there sways me closer to the "gaza strip not israel" position about this settlement block. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 13:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::"Gaza strip not in Israel POV"? This is what we call fact. Is this not enough to "sway" you. And of course Ariel is not in Israel, that is why it is called a settlement and not a city!
::::::Secondly, how dare you accuse me of POV. You are one of the biggest POV pushers around when it comes to Israel-related articles (second only after Yehosipat Oliver in my experience of your editing). My only suggestion to you is that you need to stay well clear of any controversial articles. You are not contributing anything to the Misplaced Pages project with your obsessive edit warring on articles such as ]. Why not do something constructive and write about the hundreds of MKs, kibbutzim or moshavim in Israel with no article rather than spend all your time fighting with PalestineRemembered? ] ]] 14:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::::] ]], your ], alleging i'm the 2nd biggest POV pusher(?), will not help us sort this issue and your mentioning of PR, who is now ''under review for a possible ban from the community'', perhaps shows you should stick to the subject matter rather than make statements that could be misunderstood.
:::::::now if i may, i request you link me to the discussion page so we can perhaps find a way to resolve this dispute in a civilized manner. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 14:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::::What is there to misunderstand about what I said? The original discussion on this issue took place on the ]. ] ]] 15:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

== documentary ==

Thank you for your documentary recommendation and for making an effort to broaden my understanding. Unfortunately I still don't see how this large-scale conflict has such a strong influence on you personally. You have every right to maintain your privacy and don't have to answer any personal question. But your assertion that the sheer question (whether you were engaged in the IDF) is insulting, still amazes me. --] 19:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:you misunderstood the question. it was not whether i was in the israeli military (indeed not a very insulting question), but it was a question on whether i participated in the ], an event the asking user describes as war crimes and deliberate massacre. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 00:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

::Wouldn't it be relevant what ''you'' think about that IDF incursion? If I may use an analogy for clarification: There are people who would ''not'' feel insulted, if you ask them whether their parents are/were Nazis, because they are anti-Semites themselves. --] 18:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:::i'm sorry i wasn't able to make you understand the issue. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 18:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

::::It seems to me, that you might consider the ] an ordinary . If that is the case, why is it so insulting to be asked whether you participated in it? --] 20:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::because the person asking it believes it was an intentional massacre and with his phrasing he wanted to discredit me more than get an answer, the purpose of the question was to insult. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 20:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::IMHO it doesn't matter what PRs intentions were. Do you consider the question, whether you are jewish, insulting, if the questioner is an anti-Semit? --] 21:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::::the direction you're treading with defense for the abusing editor's intentions and questions that you pose could be interpreted as ] behavior. i've done my best to explain and i think we've reached an end in our discussion. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 21:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
==Accept you didn't want a perma-block on me==
Hi Jaakobou - I understand you didn't intend this on me. I didn't really intend to chase you off an article either. ] 10:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

==Thanks for your note==
I don't see a problem with those posts. Progress on that page has been obstructed by an extraordinary level of sophistry and game-playing; it's necessary to confront that every now and then. Bear in mind that deliberate obstructionism is disruptive, and reasoning that insults the intelligence of your fellow editors is itself a violation of ].--] 21:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
:many people have been in conflict on this highly contentious page yet you chose to accuse me personally of insulting your intelligence, apparently because i posed a different opinion on how to regard HRW and ADL. when i asked you to tone down the "explosive" language, you insisted on repeating your comment on what i should do in your opinion to avoid "credibility hits"; and therefore i decided to leave a note on your page.<sup></sup> i hope we can leave this silly argument with this explanation. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 21:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
::I don't know how to make this clear to you, Jaakabou. When you rely on the findings of major human rights organizations to establish that the massacre claims were discredited, and then when faced with other findings dismiss those same organizations as "advocacy groups" that merely "repeat" the claims of Palestinians, it insults the intelligence. To sit there and debate whether Human Rights Watch has any more credibility than a lobby group on the question of human rights violations is degrading. Yes, let's leave the silliness here. And let's let the talk page over at ] grow a little more serious. Thanks.--] 22:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

== Suspected socks ==

You really need to put a little bit more into sockpuppet requests than you did on the G-Dett one. Incorrect accusations don't gain you anything, and build up quite a bit of bad faith. If you'd like some pointers on researching a sock, let me know: I'd be happy write some tips up for you. ] ] 12:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:thanks for the note. despite my comment to G-Dett that i hope it was only my own paranoia, i tend to agree with you fully about the bad faith remark. i will surely take this, my first time use of the sock report page, into future consideration and use more judgment before i take a second step on that page.<br>
:p.s. i'm still left to wonder what the report sequence will conclude. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 14:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I'm deeply insulted that I didn't make your ridiculous "suspects list". Perhaps I need to stop wasting my time trying to reason with you on talk, and just proceed to pushing the 3RR for all it's worth? ] 17:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:another notice given . (for archive: ) <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

== Edit intro to Battle of Jenin ==
I disagree with your position strongly. Where has it been established that the Battle of Jenin was a 'massacre' carried out by the Israeli Defence Forces? I agree with you that some consider the Battle of Jenin a massacre - but not official governmental organisations. If there is an event that the vast majority of international organisations (including governments) do not call a massacre, it is completely inappropriate to describe said event as a massacre - even with the qualification of 'called by some'. If one were to disagree with the above argument - and go with your view - one could add the phrase 'called by some a massacre' in the introduction to articles discussing every single battle carried out by any army in the history of humanity. It is unethical for you to consider it appropriate to place the phrase 'called by some...massacre' in an article conserning the State of Israel - and not in all other articles conserning military actions that resulted in civilian deaths (as there has been on hundreds of thousands of occasions in the past.
:It is quite bizarre behaviour to post to ]'s TalkPage in response to a question I asked you on your TalkPage. (''You'' being ] - sorry, Jaakobou for responding here - you might care to make your views heard as well).
:It is bizarre indeed to suggest that "official government organisations" are required to validate accusations of massacre. But if you claim this is the case, then can you please tell us which government validated the name ] for an incident in which just 5 people (advancing on a garrison and pelting them with lumps of ice) were killed? ] 21:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
::all this stuff belongs on the article's talk page, PR, i've noted this to you in the past. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
:::] is not in a strong position to ask others not to deface TalkPages, given his long record of this practice.
:::And in this case, I'm only here because ] has responded to my question on your TalkPage. Goodness knows why he has done that, I was trying to dissuade him. (And inviting you to comment on this laughable claim that governments need to "Validate" claims of massacre!). ] 14:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
::::I hope that ] doesn't pick up the disruptive practice of using other people's TalkPages for rambling, confused and badly formatted edits about things that were not worth commenting on in the first place. ] 15:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

== Re: "offtopic" ==

* ''you'll excuse me if i start ignoring these polemics and dedicate myself to moving forward the evidence finding.''

No, actually, I won't. You've already been shown what the evidence is, indeed, the very "polemic" which you cited was devoted to quoting the evidence at length. You've seen source material, now accept that it says what it says instead of creating these spurious time-wasting debates. ] 12:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

:i disagree with your perception on , and no, i'm not forcing you to forgive me. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 13:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
==Orphaned non-free media (Image:City of Jenin and refugee camp.jpg)==
] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, it is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Orphaned --> ] 01:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

==Battle of Jenin==
I have corrected my change in the intro. However, I will not change your self revert as I believe the original text is preferable. The first section of the sentence, i.e. "Palestinian initial estimates were of a delibarate campaign to level Jenin" makes no sense. ] ]] 13:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

:it makes perfect sense if you scroll down 3-4 rows and read the April 6 Nabil Shaath statements and the April 6 and April 7 statements on the Camera reference. seeing that your edit cut off my 3rd edit (incremented) for the day, i request you reconsider fixing it. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 13:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

::"Palestinian initial '''estimates'''" must be about numbers of something, estimates cannot be used for anything else. It could be rephrased "Palestinians intially claimed that it was a deliberate campaign to level Jenin and estimated that X people had been killed", but as it is originally does not make sense in English. ] ]] 14:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

:::i'm only asking you correct it, never told you how to go about it.
:::p.s. 'estimates' is not just about numbers. see: . <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 15:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
::::Actually, having read the section, I don't see how the bit about it being a campaign to level Jenin is relevant in a "body count" section; therefore I have left that bit out, but otherwise phrased it how you did before reverting. ] ]] 16:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

==PR's Mentor==
Just got indefinitely banned for being a sockpuppet. Interesting, eh? ] 07:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
:very interesting indeed. is this under serious investigation somewhere? (links?) <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

==so==
You are Israeli...Jewish or Arab? ] 01:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
:i don't make it a habit to give personal information on open web, however, you can email me. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 09:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

== sigh ==

i don't mean to be disrespectful, but could you please take some type of steps so that which you archived would be properly resolved and not repeated?<br>
p.s. i'm watching your page so you can reply here. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 01:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
:Hi Jaakobou. I think you are unaware of ] and ]. -- ] - <small>]</small> 01:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
::no offense, but a 15 minute block and a note that he should select a mentor is really not what i had hoped for after all the breaches he's done since he was assigned the sock mentor. to be frank i'm at the point of exhausted patience and think that, if not some type of deterrent block, at the very least he should be given a proper warning by a user that is not me... so he will not keep stretching the boundaries of good taste checking how far he can go. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 02:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
:::The situation is heated Jaakobou and everyone got its share in all this. We don't really punish Jaakobou. Whenever people can find a better solution the better. Let's suppose i'd have blocked him for 48h but what i did is much more better. He'd really think about it in a different way. I remember your case when you apologized and went on. This is how it works and the most important thing here is not the period but if one is going to do it again and again. If you think otherwise, you can undo my archiving and wait for other admins but the last comment was at 18h. So why no one dared to intervene. Maybe because they thought there was no need to escalate problems when we can deal w/ them otherwise. -- ] - <small>]</small> 03:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
::::please read my comment again and notice i did not request a ban but rather something else (far more effective than a mere 15 min(?) block). <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 03:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::I read it Jaakobou. What i was saying is that we were in the middle of a discussion about mentorship for users. So think about this. Blocking him or looking for a mentor for him? -- ] - <small>]</small> 03:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

* '''comment''' - it's most certainly not PR's fault that the assigned mentor was a hoax, however, during this time he has not taken a step back but rather continued pushing the envelope. i'm asking that at the very least he'd be given a proper warning by a user that is not me. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 03:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
*: Jaakobou, i see you insisting now instead of requesting. Have you got my last message? -- ] - <small>]</small> 03:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

::i received it now, and i note you that while you are looking for a second mentor, i'm a free target to insults, false accusations and chasing around with irrelevant accusative questions on multiple subsections. i hope you understand that also when you shrug off my request that at the very least a warning be issued. if you wish to read some personal vendetta into this, then i have nothing to do but accept the fact that when these breaches reoccur, he could claim it was the first time someone else noted this issue to him. :/ <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 03:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Oh no we will not take ages to find a mentor. In fact we already found nadav and likely that me and Avi would do it. But let's wait for a Avi to see if he'd help. Now, this is what we can do and hope you also show some helping efforts by avoid escalation. Think about the outcome and not about the instant. -- ] - <small>]</small> 04:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

::::very well, i hope things will work out for the best so i can look back at this moment and chuckle at myself for this request. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 04:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

== Battle of Jenin ==

Hi. i need to ask you what you were referring to with your last comment. Could you please respond to the multiple quotes which Palestine Remembered posted? He seems to be missing the basic point that every single one of those quotes uphold the ''ISraeli'' point of view. it's obvious from the quotes themselves, yet he seems to miss that. I'm getting nowehere. Could you help? thanks. --] 19:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

== Jenin dispute tag ==

Please stop removing <nowiki>{{TotallyDispted}}</nowiki> tags from ]. These issues have been discussed extensively and nothing approaching a resolution has been reached. There is no requirement for a certain number of postings per day in order to indicate a dispute. You've been very prolific on talk and you've managed to address, partially, a tiny fraction of the issues (which IIRC are not the same issues that led to the tag adding anyway). You've also managed to wear down and drive away other contributors with your sheer intransigence. Good for you. Don't confuse exasperation with consensus. ] 12:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

:start the desired subsections on talk and we'll see if i'm convinced that these problems require such an intrusive tag... obviously, there are always points for conflict, but this article most certainly has it's body well established as factual (is there ''anything'' that's unreferenced?) and that tag is inappropriate. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 12:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

::I have posted an extensive summary of the problems with ''one'' paragraph, to indicate how severe the problems are. Just showing how badly distorted and counterfactual this paragraph is took a very long talk page post. Please don't focus laser-like on one or two ancillary issues, post until we're sick of arguing with you, and then claim that the issues are resolved. This is an ''example'' of the problems which permeate the entire article. ] 13:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

:::sometimes focus is needed to resolve things. btw, i find your "call" about sickness amusing considering some of the things i've had to put up with on said article.<sup></sup> <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 13:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
::::Removing the "Totally Disputed" tag is a breath-taking mis-reading of the current state of consensus regarding this article - because there is none atall, every facet of it is highly disputed.
::::And you must know that that is the case, because you asked whether the kind of "context" currently appearing in the lead belongs there. You were given the unambiguous response "No it does not". So what's it doing still in there? Even the rabid Pro-Israel sources quoted say things like ''"reports that a massacre did not occur have received scant attention in the Western news media"'' - so why is the whole article written around the proposition that "there was no massacre"? It would be massively ] even if this were the "Majority View" - and it's not! ] 20:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

:::::i'm well aware of the points of view in this topic, but i really don't understand why this is being written on my page rather than the article's talk page. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 21:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::Maybe because the TalkPage of ] makes it clear that the entire article is disputed in almost every possible way - I'm personally convinced it's the worst article I've ever come across at WP. There are huge POV problems (starting with the lead and the title), and all the best information has been edit-warred out. ] 20:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

:::::::i think you've been noted on what's pretty clear. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

== Apology ==

Copied from my talk re :<br>
I'm genuinely sorry that this has become so heated; and I believe I have never quite apologized for implying you were an "incompetent hasbara-pusher" whose "broken English and manifest ignorance of policy make you look silly". In retrospect, this kind of behavior is a prime reason for the "circular discussion" which I now decry. I'm sorry. It was stupid, uncalled for, and violated ] and ]. ] 13:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

== Hi Jaakabou ==
I answered your questions on my talk page. All best,--] 01:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

==Hey look at the minarets on that editor!==
{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The WikiProject:Islam Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For long-suffering on ]. Isn't this the coolest barnstar. Hahahah. :P ] 15:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
|} |}
</div>
{{TOC-right}}
{{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. ] (]) 05:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)}}


Hello. I would like to connect with you if you are still active. February 2022 <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Seen on G-Dett's page ==


== ] ==
:Hi Jaakabou, thank you for posting this apology, but please understand that I have no hard feelings about the sockpuppet thing. I thought it was funny. It is my personality to make the most of such things.


Please stop removing nableezy's comment from ]. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 03:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
:Regarding the revert, my edit summary referred to the material I was reverting, not to its author. That material was indeed verbose, ungrammatical, superfluous, and well-poisoning; that was ''exactly'' the problem with it and exactly why I was reverting it. All of those problems were, moreover, related: the material had become verbose and superfluous in the process of poisoning the well, trying to predispose the reader to be receptive to the ADL's commentary, reminding him that the anti-defamation league opposes defamation (a bit like reminding readers that ] consists of mothers who oppose drunk driving), indeed reminding him of this multiple times ("defamation of the Jewish people," "demonization of Israel," etc.); and it was ungrammatical because its verbosity had created a run-on sentence with its clauses all out of joint. You obviously have an excellent command of English. If I thought you were struggling with the language (as opposed to struggling with NPOV), I'd never have posted an edit summary like that.
:He's stepped on my edit, breaking my bullet structure, and I was in the process of reinserting them. The guy can't even wait 10 seconds to allow someone to finish adding a diff to his edit. I can't stress this enough, but a pressure cooker would handle the situation better.
:Anyways, thanks for the note. I'm hoping you can extend my sentiments of the matter to Nableezy. <b>]'']''</b> 03:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


== VPC ==
:Now, to your question about why I don't think your sunny description of the ADL as "an organization intended on advocating against the defamation of the Jewish people" belongs here. First of all, because it's ] (one can poison the well with positive information as well as negative). But "surely," you argue, "it clarifies earlier concerns about partisan commentary?" Well, no, it doesn't. The ADL isn't regarded as partisan because it opposes the defamation of the Jewish people. It is regarded as partisan because it aligns itself – with absolute, unwavering and unreflective consistency – with whoever is currently in power in Israel, with whatever Israeli policies currently are, and with powerful domestic Israel lobbies such as AIPAC. And, finally, because it regularly and indiscriminately denounces anyone critical of Israel, with a vehemence (and not-infrequent dishonesty) that verges on outright character assassination. The ADL is a political organization; do you not realize that? Why do you think they deny the ]? Because of Israel's strategic ties with Turkey. There are many, many intelligent people on all sides of the political spectrum who are passionately opposed to defamation of the Jewish people, who are just as passionately opposed to the poltical and lobbying machine that is the current incarnation of the ADL. I stress "current"; the ADL has done extremely valuable work in the past, and was not always so corrupt and cynical an organization.


{{User:Raeky/VPCSaveNotice}} —&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</span> 10:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
:Finally, it is gross exaggeration to describe an ADL press release as a "case study." It's bad enough that we're including a statement produced by ADL staffers surfing the internet in a section on "post-fighting investigations" produced by human-rights experts on the ground at the site of the battle; let's not compound this poor judgment by engaging in puffery.


== Nableezy's talkpage ==
:I hope this answers your questions; if not, do post again.--] 01:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


When I remove something from my talk page do not reinsert it. I think you already know that should not be done, so dont do it anymore. If you want to waste your time leaving a note you know will be removed you can, but dont reinsert it once removed. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 13:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)</small>
::: (1) i find your commentary in the 1st paragraph increasingly uncivil. i'm starting to wonder to the type of explanation that you require in order to stop as this is not the first time i've given you a notice.<sup></sup>
:I can't be held accountable for an update overriding your comment removal.
::: (2) you'll pardon me if i disagree with your presentation on paragraph 2 and note that the ADL describes their document as a case study and that is how i registered this: ''"commented in a report which presents '''their''' case study"''<sup></sup>. (this objection, which should be on talk, could be touched up)
:p.s. it is poor form to mention someone by name and then remove their comment.
::: (3) i haven't seen you object to "puffery" when the sources had the opposite perspective and i remind you that '''''you ignored both points in this notice'''''. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 06:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
:Warm regards, <b>]'']''</b> 15:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
] - it's easy to forget that we participate here in the company of some really serious academics, Ph.Ds and the like, the sort of people who deal with references and research on a daily basis. Their experience is immensely valuable and their presence is what makes this whole project worthwhile to readers (and contributors). We may disagree with these people, but we should never treat their considered words with such disrespect. ] 18:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
::PS, I dont care what you think is "poor form". One of two things happened. You either saw I removed the comment and reinserted making a small addition, or you immediately attempted to make the addition, in which case you would have gotten an edit conflict and then would have seen the comment had been removed. And then you saved it anyway. Either way, dont revert me on my own talk page. That is "poor form". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)</small>
:Oh yes... We should treat G-Dett like the saint she is. Yeah, I'll do that after she finishes raising Israeli babies from the dead. ] 21:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
:::I haven't reverted you. <b>]'']''</b> 16:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


== helpme ==


== Heyo ==
{{tl|helpme}}
I believe ] has just recently adopted ] as a mentor (or as a personal advocate) as a result of a ] case that suggested PR would be completely banned from the community (Avi suggested mentorship instead of a ban). I'm not sure on how to regard his dismissal of a 3RR<sup></sup> (]?) (and previous issues also) and i do wish to take this issue for a serious/further review.. some help would be appreciated. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
:I respect the concern about a conflict of interest, though I think it is the appearance of one instead of any actual conflict. I don't see a technical violation of 3RR either. PR has a limited block history related to 3RR violations, so I would not block on the basis of the "electric fence" introduction to the rule for this tagging dispute. A thread about mediation just started on the article's talk page. I suggest everyone involved pursue that.--] - ] 21:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


I've sent you an email. <b>]'']''</b> 02:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
::thank you for your input. i've decided you are correct and, considering many editors were involved in minor reverts and edits, that it's reasonable to let this 3rr issue go despite his "activities" on the talk page. as for the mediation which you mentioned, in all honesty, it's starting to look like the usual and i don't hold high hopes on it to solve even one issue from the article... albeit you are welcome to give it a serious look. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 00:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
:I'm not going to comment on the ] article; I do not want to be involved in the dispute. -- ''']''' 02:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


=== Response === == Mitzpe Ha'ai ==


Mitzpe Ha'ai is the outpost pictured in the satellite photos , as identified by Peace Now, and also named ''Givat Ha'ai''. Are you really claiming that PN would be compelled by its "fringe" agenda to make this outpost up?--] (]) 21:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Jaakobou, as a sysop, I have to ensure that I treat all members of wikipedia equitably. This means both people whose ideologies are closer to mine, and especially those whose ideologies are different. I have no issues with you taking PR to dispute resolution, or reopening the ] notice. But blocking for an incorrect reason would make me no better than the people whose flaunting of wikipedia policy I am duty bound to prevent as a sysop. -- ] 19:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
:Whether or not the outpost exists and is called by that name, it is not in the report Peace Now claimed as their source of information. We cannot use sources that repeatedly falsify information even if some of their input is correct.
:p.s. Please don't address Peace Now publications as factual, they've been disproven countless times.
:With respect, <b>]'']''</b> 07:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


== Stay off my talk page ==
:the reason should be ''edit warring/4 edits within' 24hrs'', something he vehemently denies of ever been doing. i'm not accusing you of anything, only that perhaps in your attempt to remain neutral, you've acted on a case that you should have been avoiding. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


You are not allowed to revert me on my own talk page to reinsert comments I have removed. You have done this multiple times now, so now let me make the following point to you crystal clear. I dont care what you think is "disruptive", "gaming", "uncivil" or really anything else. Accusing me of saying you are "lying" with a diff in which I do not say you are lying is just icing on the cake in that it demonstrates just how dishonest and intentionally disruptive you are. Stay off my talk page, there is nothing that I wish to discuss with you at all. I only do so on article talk pages because I have to. Thankfully, my own talk page is not a place where I have to suffer <redacted> quietly. Bye. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)</small>
=== Note ===
It's simple. I've seen the two of you chase each other around, in a matter of speaking, on ], ], ], his talk page, your talk page, my talk page, and many article talk pages. It is obvious that the two of you have issues deeper than a content dispute. This needs to be handled by ], otherwise, one, or both, of y'all are undoubtedly going to cross a line which will have consequences. There is no threat, only the reasoned expectations of someone who is, or has been, a parent, a teacher, a mentor, a counselor, a sysop, and an internet community administrator. Take what you want from it. -- ] 14:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


== AE refactor of Nableezy's filing ==
:i sent you a note. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


You're walking on very thin ice over there, and likely to see administrative action against yourself for refactoring Nableezy's filing. I highly suggest self-reverting. ←&nbsp;]<sup>&nbsp;]</sup> 22:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
::Responded. -- ] 00:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


== Your email ==


Do NOT edit my comments or change my complaint. If you wish to open a complaint against me or against me and Shuki feel free to do so. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 22:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)</small>
You sent me an email saying "i've been referred to you as a possible person who might be able to help". I'm sorry, but I don't respond via email (or IRC chat) to an email without details. If you want to continue the conversation, please send me another email to let me know (a) who referred you to me and (b) what sort of help you think I might need.


== Interaction ban ==
Thanks.


Under the authority of ], and based on the discussion in , you are hereby admonished for personal attacks and ad hominem comments and are prohibited from commenting on or interacting with {{user|Nableezy}} anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Please see ] for the complete scope of the interaction ban. If you believe that Nableezy has violated their ban from interacting with you, you may not react to that alleged violation except by the procedure specified in the AE thread linked above. ] (]) 22:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
-- John <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== AfDs ==
:i sent you a second note. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 23:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


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 ], ], ], ], ], and ]. Best.--] (]) 08:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks for the prompt reply. I misunderstood your initial email. To respond to your second email: Unfortunately, I have very significant real life commitments for the next couple of months, and here at Misplaced Pages I'm concentrating primarily on improving the ] I've created. So I'm afraid I can't be of any help. -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">] </font> ] 01:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


== Thanks for the warning == == ] ==


Hi,
Mostly separate edits, and hopefully not quite near 3RR yet. Though I do sometimes get carried away. -- ] 00:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I support most of what you're arguing over there. I'm currently in a state of semi-retirement from WP and so am only making passing comments. I had tried to get JayJG involved but haven't followed up the reply he gave me. Basically, I think the anti-Semitic origins of much discussion of the relationship between Jews and the media needs to be highlighted and I regard the conspiratorial elements as crucial to this.--] (]) 20:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


== Possibly unfree File:Bli-Sodot stamp.jpg ==
== POV wording ==
A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ] because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the ]. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at ] if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw-puf --> --] <sup>]</sup> 08:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


== Thank you! ==
Jaakobou, ''please'' try to keep your POV out of articles. The wording of your latest edit to ] was frankly ridiculous - I mean, "dramatic pseudo-events"? That kind of wording simply isn't compatible with our ] policy. -- ] 01:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
:Hey! I think he invented a very cool new word. I think I'll use that in my company documents. "Today's morning conference call was a pseudo-event, half the staff was actually awake.". :P ] 01:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi Jaakobou, Thank you for your post on AE. Best wishes.--] (]) 04:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
== Thanks ==
for all the many comments you make on my talk page regarding tone, phraseology, and so on. I wonder though perhaps if you aren't obsessing a little about this. Discussion on I-P pages is frequently rough-and-tumble. I think if you focus on bringing your namespace edits into compliance with policy, especially ], the talk-page turbulence troubling you will tend to subside.--] 01:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


== You must not have a ] == == Your AE request ==


Hi, this is to let you know that another administrator has to explain why you should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous request. If you choose not to offer the requested explanation, you may be made subject to sanctions. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I do, plus six three and a half week old ]s. A cat will toy with a mouse for a long time before going in for the kill, and in a few weeks momma cat will begin bringing mice or birds (a pigeon once a few litters back; you ever wake up to an apartment covered with feathers??) home for the kittens to learn to hunt with. It's something else to see these innocent little creatures gobble up some hapless mouse a third their size. But I digress. I know G-Dett well, and I know G-Dett ] on talk pages and I admire that. Sometimes, for the sake of brevity, it's better to be quicker on the draw than to have the most perfect aim. Not everyone appreciates the difference between being ] and being ], and that's all I meant by the mouse allusion. I really don't want a long stageplay about hurt feelings, anymore than I want to wake up to my cat flinging a half dead mouse in my face at 3 AM. I just want to have a rough idea of the history and the players, without having to dig through it all myself. -- ] 01:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


== Arbitration enforcement warning: Arab-Israeli conflict ==
== Attempts to manage discussion at ] ==


Hello. For the reasons explained by another administrator and I at ] (), you are warned not to make clearly meritless requests for enforcement, especially requests that make obvious misrepresentations of fact. Thanks, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Jaakobou, is the latest in a long list of attempts you have made to restructure the discussion at ]. I already objected on that page to your use of "For, Against, Offtopic" headers and your fairly aggressive moving of comments to conform to this scheme. ( among many others) I also objected to your presentation of such as <nowiki>===Validation notes - result:source validated===</nowiki> which seemed calculated to give an appearance of an official credibility which wasn't there. You also which was by no means over (last post made 4 hours before you closed it!), in what seemed suspiciously like an attempt to manipulate discussion.


== AE ==
It is clear that many of your refactoring and reorganizing efforts are not intended to influence discussion through underhanded means, however, I do not believe that it is appropriate for an editor involved in a heated dispute to refactor others' comments. ] states clearly: "Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted."


]. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 13:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)</small>
{| class="{{{class|notice}}}" style="{{#if:{{{border|}}}|background:{{{backgroundcolor|#FFFFFF}}}; border:1px solid {{{bordercolor|#AAAAAA}}}; padding:0.5em;|background:transparent;}} margin:0.5em auto; width:100%;"
|]
| I have no wish to see more fallout from the talk page winding up on ], ], or anywhere else; but if you refactor any more discussions I will escalate the issue.
|} ] 18:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


: , but please be more careful. Good luck and happy editing. - ] <small>(])</small> 16:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
:'''], here is the list of links you provided as example and my reply:'''
:# - this talk has nothing to do with you, it is a talk related comment for ] and i don't see the reason for you to re-factor it here.
:# - is a link to a related previous conversation, ] raised concerns regarding it and i've decided, after some thought, to remove it due to the emotions is seemed to evoke - once again, this has very little to do with you.
:# - i was moving your disruptive talk from the , instead of allowing for the talk to advance, you've chosen to attack me with polemics on a subsection dedicated for stating a general position. i believe that the i clearly noted that ''"for generic commentary/questions leave your comment on the proper subsection"'' with a link included.
:# - ] chose to discuss a different subsection on an unrelated talk, and he did this with ] chasing me around on numerous sections "demanding" i explain after i've already did and "noting me" of how he perceives policy and my alleged breaches of it, according to him.
:# i find this implication the umpteenth time you've breached ] after i've already replied you that i validated the information by ''"phone call."''<sup></sup>
:# - i'm afraid i havn't a clue to what you're talking, since all i can see is talk ''"from first quarter of 2007"''.
:# regarding your note that ''"if you refactor any more discussions I will escalate the issue."'' , i'd be very much grateful if you take the time to involve sysops or establiched admins to review everyone's behavior on this article.
:i hope that covers this, if you don't mind my saying, erroneous warning and that you avoid further disruption on said article to my sincere attempts at leading the discussion away from polemics and personal insults.<sup></sup> <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 22:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


== Motion regarding ] ==
::The last diff was supposed to be , that was a copy-paste error on my part. I will not address your justifications; rather I will re-iterate that ] applies here, and note also that ] says "editing the signed words of another editor on a talk page or other discussion page is generally not acceptable, as it can alter the intent or message of the original comment and misrepresent the original editor's thoughts. Try to avoid editing another editor's comments unless absolutely necessary." ] 00:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


By of the Arbitration Committee voted on at ],
:::it's funny you, of all people, should mention this issue considering you deleted a verification notice i've made to a source you claimed was impossible to verify.<sup></sup> <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 00:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
<blockquote>
] - you need to know that ] has a long history of disruptive behaviour on TalkPages. Here are two admins claiming he's harrassed them and been blocked for it. See also and , from the same day. These further two exchanges are action against editors who (I'm pretty sure) are careful and productive - yet it includes posting their personal details into public view. ] 08:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The ] placed on {{user|Nishidani}} in the ''West Bank - Judea and Samaria'' case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Nishidani is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the ], remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply.
</blockquote>
For the Arbitration Committee, ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 17:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


== AE ==
== Enough time wasted, put your evidence to the mediation ==
as the person who raised concerns regarding ''"systematically mis-stated"'' death tolls and stated the issue of:


]. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 06:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)</small>
:''UN report is quoted as saying "52 dead in total" when it actually says "at least 52"''<sup></sup>


you're expected to leave a serious comment on or delete the issue from your list of concern. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 17:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
:I'm not wasting still more time on that TalkPage when several matters have been decided there and the changes to comply with decisions have not been made, in fact they've continued to be edit-warred out of the article (eg the atrocious use of CAMERA references, the decision on the lead).
:Furthermore there is a mediation on that ] article (and it was not me that asked for this mediator, despite the nasty personal allegations made, it was ]). It's time you and others presented your evidence ], and removed the material placed there to deface it. There has been serious anti-policy game playing going on at this article for months now - and further wriggling is only making it more and more obvious.
:PS - I don't know what it is that ] says you've re-factored yet again, but I can tell you that I'm sick of that kind of disruptive behaviour and have recentlyi reported another user in ArbCom evidence for it. ] 18:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


== Re: notice ==
== http://en.wikipedia.org/Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion==


There is an item omited that I would like inserted
I'm sorry, I don't see where exacly ]'s edits and mine overlap. -- ] 21:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


This is the source of the omission
Yep that guy aint me... I don't quite understand what you are (not) accusing me of--] 23:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
http://raleighstshul.blogspot.com/
:i think you understand the situation perfectly well. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 23:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Scroll down to Grey Shirts Trial


"The trial, which opened in July 1934, was heard in the Eastern Cape Divi­sion of the Supreme Court in Grahamstown before the Judge President, Sir Thomas Graham. The local and over­seas press gave great prominence to the court proceedings. F.G. Reynolds K.C. (later a judge) assisted by Will Stuart (later a so-called ‘Native Repre­sentative’ in Parliament) appeared for the Rev. A. Levy of the Port Elizabeth Western Road Synagogue."
== Requested comment on Talk:Battle of Jenin ==


The suggestion is that you create a new sub heading between
Hi Jaakobou, thanks for your note. As I'm sure you realize, I'm trying to play somewhat of a facilitating role on Jenin. Since we haven't conversed before, I rather appreciate your asking me to comment ("state your observation") on that death toll discussion. Still, maybe you could clarify what you would like from me by way of commentary. Are you asking for my evaluation of the sources or data? Do you want my impression of the ensuing argumentation (and/or argumentativeness)? I guess I'm not quite sure why I should focus on this item -- while I'm inclined to trust your judgment that this is a key issue, it doesn't look like a current thread and I haven't yet heard folks eager to sustain a discussion on this in particular. Look, I don't really know you and I fear I may sound like I'm dismissing your request -- I'm not, I'm just asking you to think about the context of my participation and how you might yourself continue to constructively guide the Talk toward identifying and resolving disputed issues. Ok? Thanks again for be open to my observations. ] | ] 16:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Switzerland
:my personal perspective is that the complaint of "systematic misrepresentation of the death toll" is frivolous. i wish to get this minor complaint issue fairly well addressed to before i archive it as history and we can move to the second issue raised by PR. considering my aim here, i would like you to either agree that it is a mistaken complaint (as i and kyaa noted ) or state concerns regarding this raised issue. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
and
The Berne Trial, 1934–1935


Entitled "South Africa"
== Inborderline ==


and give a brief summary of the Grey Shirts Trial
I must have typed the word "in" not realizing that my cursor was somewhere else. "Inborderline" is not a word in any language that I'm familiar with and I certainly didn't intend to edit your comments. ] 16:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


and give the source reference in the Reference Section at the end of the article
:based on AGP, i accept your explanation. however, i don't believe the cynical phrasing was related to the location of your cursor. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 04:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


````famabra```` <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Hi Jaakobou ==
==Orphaned non-free image File:Islam What the West Needs to Know - Front Cover.gif==
I think discussion of the inclusion of ] has tapered off while the AfD is in progress. If the article itself is deleted, the appropriateness of linking to it from Jenin is a moot point. If the article is not deleted, then I think we can expect the debate to resume; it certainly will as we move to a holistic solution to this article's POV problems.--] 17:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
:i was aware that we might want it back on discussion and noted it on my archiving. i just didn't expect we want it back so soon. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 04:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).
== Deletion (archival) of live thread ==


'''PLEASE NOTE:'''
You archived the thread "Mediation" at ] for reasons which are unclear to me. You also archived the "Pallywood" section although you seem to have given up on that. I have previously issued strong warnings about this kind of behavior. The thread is only a few days old, yet you have removed it without removing much older threads. Please restore the section, or I will take it to WP:ANI. ] 17:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


* I am a ], and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{tlp|helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
:i don't mind returning it, but if you don't mind my asking, i'm interested in knowing your reasoning for this request. best i was aware, that thread was (a) filled with going nowhere arguments and stricken insults, and (b) there was a high volume of comments in the span of 3 days (5-8 of the month) but nothing afterwards (and it didn't look like there was going to be more either).
* I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
: - '''' <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 04:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
* If you receive this notice ''after'' the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
* To opt out of these bot messages, add <code><nowiki>{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}</nowiki></code> to your talk page.
*If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off ] and leave a message on ].


::I don't feel the need to explain myself further. The thread was only a few days old, yet you removed it without removing much older threads. Please restore it. ] 12:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Thank you. <!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> ] (]) 06:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
:::i'm afraid this really doesn't persuade me that the thread is nothing more than an intrusion to the talk page, have you looked at it lately?<sup></sup> it matters not that there are older threads and unless you have something more substantial to add, other than ''"I don't feel the need to explain myself further"'', then i only see reasons not to return it such is it being a possible ],<sup></sup> and it being totally unproductive for the article. if it matters so much to you, you can start a new subsection with the same introduction, hopefully this time it won't turn into an "insult n' strike fest". <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 12:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


==AE case==


] (]) 17:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
{| class="{{{class|notice}}}" style="{{#if:{{{border|}}}|background:{{{backgroundcolor|#FFFFFF}}}; border:1px solid {{{bordercolor|#AAAAAA}}}; padding:0.5em;|background:transparent;}} margin:0.5em auto; width:100%;"
|]
|I have restated my concerns at ]. ] 22:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
|}


== Present Status paragraph ==


paragraph in the I-P conflict has been significantly altered by NightW. Yours thoughts please<br />Best Wishes ] (]) 17:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


Jakabou, as I pointed out on the talk page your bold edit changed a passage that was factually correct and well sourced (though admittedly overlong and repetitive), to one that contained a glaring factual inaccuracy, and does not fully represent the cited sources. I cannot understand how you feel justified removing the neutrality tag with this still unresolved. Yes concision is an issue, but a clear factual inaccuracy unsupported by sources is far worse surely. ] (]) 14:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
==WP:AN/I#PalestineRemembered_IV==


:The reason I put up the tag was due to an overblown writeup on a single issue. Once that single issue was summarized into a single paragraph, I felt there was no more need for the POV tag as issues were presented in a fairly neutral manner. As far as the accuracy of the revision -- I'm not too attached to the words, but only to the spirit in which they were written (i.e. making the text legible). I have no objection if a consensus can arise regarding a rephrase. Regardless, I don't think the state of the text is quite as bad as you think -- but I might be wrong. From my understanding -- there was condemnation at the UN. The intricacies of that are not that important when we try to convey an idea (who criticized). What matters is that we allow readers to know that there was some type of condemnation. If I mis-explained the type of condemnation in question -- I have no objection to rephrase efforts that will be more accurate. I invite your collaboration and the collaboration of others to get the text to a better state. My idea was only about neutrally presenting the ideas in the section. I'm not even sure I'm interested in going deeper than that into the text -- the floor is yours to persuade others in why your concern is important. I'm not opposing your concern -- I didn't even dive into the material deep enough to understand it. I hope this helps you move forward with your concerns.
Per ] are you prepared to accept me as PalestineRemembered's mentor?] 01:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
:With respect, <b>]'']''</b> 14:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


=== Incitement to vioence ===
:i have one question.
:what do you intend to do if you see that PR is unresponsive ?


Can you construct this paragraph; seeing as your version of the settlement criticism was generally accepted<br />Best Wishes ] (]) 16:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
:-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 01:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
:I'm a tad busy and am trying to stay away from heavy editing, but I'll try to give it a look in the upcoming day-two. <b>]'']''</b> 19:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Ahem, gentle reminder...
Also is the zoological conspiracy theories contained in I-P ArbCom ruling, and if so, can you cite this in the talk page as I may have have inadvertently infringed the rules. Todah<br />Best Wishes ] (]) 22:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


== AE result ==
::Bring the failure of the mentorship approach to arbcom's attention.] 01:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


The recent AE request against you has been closed without formal action. However, I am advising you that, should the edits for which you were reported to AE form part of a pattern that develops in the future, sanctions may be considered. If no such pattern emerges, you should hear nothing more about that AE request. Sincerely, ] &#124; ] 04:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
== P Remembered ==


== A/E ==
Hi.


Could you please remove your double posts from my sections? Thanks. -] (]) 18:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Just back from a few days off and saw your message. I'm afraid that when you play with fire, you end up getting smokey. Even if PR were as bad a user as you believe, your repeated postings to the noticeboards is beginning to give your own name a stain.


== Topic and interaction ban ==
Don't let yourself be drawn into any taint of wikistalking. I suggest you give this user a wide berth and if you run into specific problems (ie reversions of ''your'' edits, incivility on talk pages towards ''you'', inappropriate edit summaries aimed at ''you''), notify their mentor (now that they have one), or an active admin skilled in mediation, rather than posting to any of the noticeboards.


For the reasons stated in , and under the authority of ], as incorporated by ], you are banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces. Further, you are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, {{user|Tiamut}}, broadly construed, anywhere on Misplaced Pages, except in cases of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, and are further indefinitely prohibited from seeking any admin action related to {{user|Tiamut}}, broadly construed, either publicly or privately through any means, except through the ] process or by email to the Arbitration Committee.<p>
I strongly recommend that you turn a blind eye to any general infelicities committed (in your eyes) by PR, unless they are utterly egregious, in which case I'd suggest (again) you consider dropping a note to PR's mentor, to me, or indeed any admin, rather than noticeboards. You'll be able to tell what I mean by "utterly egregious" - it'll be something that requires no background information, and just one diff (the one with the bad behaviour).
These sanctions may be appealed at ] after twelve months, and every twelve months thereafter. They may also be appealed to AE once within twelve months of their imposition, and may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee at any time. ] (]) 04:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)</p>
:I apologize for creating such a fuss about statements I find extremely offensive. <b>]'']''</b> 08:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


::Jaakobou, this was a bad block, to say the least WP:POLEMIC is clear in what action to take, sadly, the admins decided to turn a blind eye to it. It wouldn't be the first time at least on admin's turned a blind eye to that particular policy.
With best intentions... your's, --] 10:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
<span style="color:#00ACF4">@-]]►]-@</span> 17:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


::Whoa! WTF? You deserve more respect than that. So they finally got you and it was a quickie over the holiday too. Take a break, it's good for your health. IMO, you've done well. --] (]) 20:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
:thank you for the note, the mentor issue was the issue i ''had'' to get fixed, and it did get fixed only after the AN/I was opened. your comment is actually a tad late on the issue, but a well intended one and i couldn't agree more, i can't open any more tabs about him (not that i intend to) unless it's something truly "utterly egregious" (your explanation was good). <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


::Excellent. And sorry, I have no access to chat. --] 11:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


::: You presented your case in a dignified coherent manner despite the shenanigans of what was patently a ]. It was a pleasure collaborating with you on various topics and I hope you are still somehow able to provide your input. Than you for keeping the Hamans at bay.<br />Best Wishes ] (]) 22:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


== Pallywood == == March 2012 ==
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] To enforce an ] decision, you have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 month'''&nbsp;for blatant violation of your topic ban and persistent ] behavior . Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the ] and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. ] (]) 14:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC) <hr/><p><small>'''Notice to administrators:''' In a <span class="plainlinks"></span>, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as ] or ]). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the ]. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."</small></p></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock -->


Now I'm using the term :) I've answered your question on my talk page I expect given the shear volume of discussion that others will also comment. ]] 15:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
:replied to email -- IRC? ]] 15:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


Another outrageous decision by Misplaced Pages's biased administrators. Years of laboring on Misplaced Pages and trying to collaborate with extremists just thrown away like it was nothing. Rather than trying to understand the concerns of pro-Israel editors that something may be a polemic and insulting, they merely give pro-Israel editors and their concerns the big FU(K YOU. Why not just let the Jihadists and the Palestine supporters and the garden variety antisemite just take over the area entirely? Oh wait, I forgot. They already did. One decent editor after another is forced out. Jaakabou, I suggest you get a life outside of this antisemitic, Jihadist environment. You will find your personal health improves. Oh and for the record, there are some people who appreciate the work you've done, though most are probably no longer editing themselves. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Re: Archive thread ==


==Dispute resolution survey==
I'm glad that you accept that a three-month-old thread which nobody but you commented in should be archived. The reason for archiving "out of order" was to preserve a roughly chronological archive structure. I might be mistaken, but a glance through the archives seemed to show that they were archived in a very haphazard order, and I did not want to contribute to this. ] 20:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
{| style="background-color: #CCFFFF; border: 4px solid #3399cc; width:100%" cellpadding="5"
:i understood your motives, i only notify you to please keep the archiving, in the future, in the order in which we archive unless there's a special reason (this case fits the special reasons). <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 20:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
| ]

<big>'''Dispute Resolution – ''Survey Invite'''''</big>
== Thank you for Special Barnstar ==
----

Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Thank you for the Special Barnstar. I will cherish it forever. :)
But please praytell what was special about the link I followed? Has there really been nobody else that clicked that particular link? ] 03:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
'''Please click to participate.'''<br>
:i had insider information about this story and was waiting in anticipation for someone to write about it... you made my day. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 03:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
::So it wasn't something special inside Misplaced Pages, it was that I noticed the JPost story and brought it to the Muhammad al-Durrah‎ article. Well I'm glad I could make your day. I wish I could do that more often. ;) ] 03:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
----

<small>You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated ]. <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 12:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)</small>
== Any feedback if appropriate ==
Hi Jaakobou. Feel free to give me feedback or offer advice on my editing the AFA article whenever/if you feel it is appropriate. Use my talkpage, the AFA talkpage, or my email, whichever method you prefer. I'm still fairly new here and climbing the learning curve. I'm open to learn from any admin input. Regards ] 07:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
:i mailed you. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 07:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

==RfA==
Hi Jaakbou. Thanks for your message of congratulations, and I hope we can have a more productive relationship in the future. See you around, ] ]] 16:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

==Incident of Jenin==

In line with say ] alturnative names should be mentioned in the opening.] 21:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

==Cartoon==

Please don't make specious arguments. Kaufmann's article is presented as an example of a more general position; you know as well as I do that he's not alone in his views. ] 02:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

==Fair use rationale for ]==
Thanks for uploading or contributing to ''']'''. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to ] and edit it to include a ].

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no fair use rationale-notice --> ] ] 01:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
==Mohammad Amin al-Husayni==
Jaakobou, you may have an obvious point that escapes me, but nothing in the Abdullah I article supports your text, which is not in very good English. I think that the problem may be that English may not be your first language. I think you are misreading what is there, and writing something that you don't mean to say. Saying that Abdullah had ambitions in Transjordan doesn't make sense. He already ruled it, what further ambitions could he have there? He had ambitions in Palestine, and he was successful in carrying them out, conquering and annexing the West Bank. The point about Palestinian - well, what you write is just bad English, and what I wrote has no different connotation or implication, it is just better English. You used "Palestinian Arab" just as I did, because without it one is forced into clumsy circumlocutions for no real reason. We are talking about the Arabs of Palestine, the only people Husayni ever led - and what other phrase was ever used for them? (Excepting the similar "Palestinian people" or "Palestinians" which I think you would like less.) (Also your phrasing could imply that Husayni led the whole Arab side, which is just not true.) Cheers,] 01:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

:i sent you a note, hope to hear from you soon and fix the conflict. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 01:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
::I don't really have much to add to what I said above, (slightly amended). I don't use anything but Wiki email and discussion pages, sorry. I am going to revert because I think it is very clear - and not only to me - that you simply misunderstand the sentence. Everybody agrees about the facts. Abdullah was the King of Transjordan and wanted to rule some of Palestine and conquered the West Bank. I am sure we agree on that. That is NOT the impression given by what you wrote, which sounds more like King Abdullah of somewhere (Palestine?) wanted to conquer Transjordan! So what you are saying in the article is the opposite of what you mean, and what I think you think Ian and I incorrectly believe. No one is trying to be argumentative, but please listen to native English speakers about English usage.

::(I am sorry if I gave that impression, but I am not ignorant of the history of the area, nor is Ian - you might look at my talk page or ask other people.)

::Cordially, ] 04:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

:::i sent you an email, we'll perhaps discuss it more when i find a little time. for now i'll allow the wiki-error to stay (and it is an error). <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 18:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

==Thanks==
I appreciat eyoru support at CSN. Regarding your recently created ], the proper procedure is to AfD such non-templates. ] 02:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

==See ya==
I'm tired of fighting the deletionists and crusaders. I'm leaving. Have a good one. ] 07:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

==Re sources==

Re your request for sources, I have now added two new ones to the article. Regards, ] 19:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No problemo. I think the section is probably reasonably balanced now, although I might take another look at it in a day or two, I can't be bothered doing any more on it today. Regards, ] 19:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

== Attempting to protect Battle of Jenin ==

in you've mass reverted all the issues that don't relate either to the POV tag or to the "also known as Jenin Massacre" issue.

(i.e. , and )

considering our prolonging history and my belief that you are more than aware to what's going on with the page - i request you fix this issue promptly. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 12:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
:I reverted your changes because they're nonsense.
:*"Three" is consensus (three editors in favour of editing to policy, yourself against).
:*"Prompted by" is opposed by native English speakers, as has been made clear to you.
:*"at least" has got to be in there, otherwise we're publishing a flat-out lie - as you well know. The perpetrators are the *only* people who claim the death toll was 52 in total (other than a few reports apparently deliberately misled by the IDF PR dept falsely telling them what the UN report was going to say). ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
::# wikipedia is ], it matters not that three editors are in favor of the number three when the information on talk indicates it should not be used. (and these editors are clearly avoiding proper discussion)
::# your claim in regards to the prompted by is supposedly ''"roundly rejected on talk"'', according to eleland, however, no such indication has been supplied and you've seemed to have ignored the IDF issue... "i wonder why".
::# you can discuss the at least issue on talk rather than make a fairly blatant mass revert.
::# please correct the issue promptly and participate properly on the discussion.
::-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 14:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I note your understanding of consensus, it might be interesting to compare your understanding with ].
:::I note your reluctance to edit to what the source actually says.
:::Everyone notes your difficulties with wording and language.
:::The "52 deaths" has been extensively discussed - that figure comes from the perpetrators (who lied to the world media that it was going to be the one in the UN report, when it was not). How many times do I have to quote you what is actually in the UN report, is in the Amnesty report, is in the HRW report, is in the Jenin Inquiry report and is in the RS's?
:::I do participate in discussion - though it's questionable why I should, when you're systematically over our protests. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
::::i'm aware that you're (1) avoiding the issues, and (2) ranting on my page, linking to a failed ANI attempt against me.
::::please, if you have further issues, i suggest you follow them up properly rather than ] with them. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 14:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::You went to my TalkPage with your nonsense, you mess with my Talk contributions to ], but it's me harrassing you ..... hmmmm ..... weren't you blocked for harrassment of people on their TalkPages not long ago? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::(1) i belive i've noted to you around 10 times already that this statement of yours is innacurate and false. (2) this does not in any way justify your mass revert. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Which part is false? That you harrassed two admins, were for it? Two more admins took up the case, letting you off with these warnings ''"If Jaakobou is promising to mend his ways and only crap in the litter box in future (metaphorically speaking...) I think he should be given the chance to prove his sincerity."'' and ''"The important thing is to see a change in behaviour and it is clear now that Jaakoubou is apologizing, explaining and promising not to do so in the future"''.
:::::::Question for you - have you or have you not carried out extensive harrassment of people on their TalkPages since you were handed those warnings in April?
:::::::And that particular case of harrassment on TalkPages only exploded because you were simultaneously harrassing two other editors, including publishing the personal details of one of them, see and . ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::i told you already that you are misreading into a complex issue that you were not involved in. try to ] and please stop mentioning this fairly old clash that indicates nothing regarding this content dispute (and your improper mass revert). <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 17:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

== Suggestion to PR and Jaakobou ==

<sigh> You two really can't help yourselves, can you? Suggestion to you both. PR has agreed to being mentored and, to the best of my knowledge, has a mentor. Why not use that mentor? Jaakobou - if you have a problem with PR's edits, please in the first place discuss them with PR's mentor. If you're unsatisfied, go to a forum for mediation or to request a formal ticking off. All you'll find here is an argument. PR - if you're going to make contentious edits, especially direct reverts etc of Jaakobou's edits, please use your mentoring workshop page first.

You should both remember that none of your edits, no matter how radically they alter an article will bring back to life one victim of violence. Misplaced Pages's not a battleground... there's enough real life conflict out there in the bad real world. Yours hopefully... --] 15:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

==1929 Hebron massacre==
General practice on wikipedia that the burden to find a reliable source for something falls on the person wanting to include it.] 00:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
:you are 100% correct, i added a clear cut ref and hope the issue is now fixed and over with. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 01:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
::Your reference appears to come from the people whom an Israeli "senior military man" accused of carrying out It beggars belief that you could remove (from the reference listing at the bottom of the page) an of very good Jewish-Arab relations in 1929 Hebron and then, in the very next edit, put a hate-site reference into the lead. (And of course, your reference is non-English and incompatible with ], a core principle of the encyclopedia). ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
::PS - you appear to claim that Rabbi Baruch Kaplan's words ''"no one in the yeshiva ever told me it was dangerous to go by myself among the Arabs. We just lived with them, and got along very well."'' come from a hate-site. Or at least, that's what ? Are we speaking the same language, does the word hate-site mean the same to me as it means to you? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
=== ] ===
I was under the impression that the Hebron massacre was triggered by reports that gangs of "demonstrators", many of them carrying batons had seized the ] in Jerusalem. This had been threatened for many years, a Palestinian delegation had travelled to Mecca in 1922 warning of the danger, and in 1928 the British had been asked to defend the Muslim ownership of the wall and the passageway. In the event, the British Commissioner and many of his forces left Palestine in August 1929, allowing the takeover to take place.

Do you have information that contradicts this account? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

:i'm well aware of the arab narrative and rumors. do you have any proper citations that validate this account? (p.s. please do this on the article's talk page)<b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
::I'm posting here rather than at the Talk because it's bulky, and in the poisoned atmosphere I'd only be accused of copyvio and another attempt made to block me. Please delete the following as soon as you've seen it. I know you hate long postings so I've tried to keep it short for you. Morris, Righteous Victims, p.112.
::... The contention that the Jews were bent on taking over ... had long been a theme in Arab propaganda. For example, the Palestinian delegation to Mecca during the hajj, or pilgrimage, of 1922 had declared: ''"the Holy Places are in great danger on account of the horrible Zionist aggressions"''
::On September 23-24, 1928 ... the SMC complained that Jews had set up a screen to separate men and women at the Wailing Wall (or Western Wall) in Jerusalem's Old City.
::The screen violated the status quo principle ... Failing to persuade the Jews to take it down, the police forcibly removed it.
::In 1928 the Muslims sought British confirmation of their traditional rights at the Wall, after all, they owned the Wall and the adjacent passage where the Jews worshipped.226 ... Right-wing Zionists began to demand Jewish control of the Wall
::On August 14, 1929, some 6,000 Jews marched in Tel Aviv, chanting, ''"The Wall is ours"''; that evening, three thousand gathered at the Wall for prayer. The following day, hundreds of Jews-some of them extremist members of Betar, carrying batons-demonstrated on the site.
::If the aim of the rioters' leaders had been to shake Britain's commitment to the Balfour Declaration, they succeeded, at least in the short term. Sir John Chancellor on September I ... The Balfour Declaration, he wrote, had been ''"a colossal blunder."''253
::Shaw Commission ... recommended that "excessive" Jewish immigration be halted; that eviction of Arab peasants be stopped; and that the government look into the issues of land sales to Jews immigration, and the Western Wall. The panel said the evictions were giving rise to ''"a landless and discontented class"'' of evictees.257
::Whitehall sent Sir John Hope-Simpson, a retired colonial official, to look into immigration, Jewish settlement, and land sales. ''"... The helplessness of the fellah appeals to the British official. The offensive assertion of the Jewish immigrant is, on the other hand, repellent:"''260
::On October 21, 1930, the British government issued the Passfield White Paper, seriously reducing its commitment to the Balfour Declaration. ... By early 1931 well-applied Zionist pressure in the press and lobbying by Weizmann in London bore fruit.
::I'd fill in the rest of it for you - except I'd be accused of soap-boxing and more efforts made to have me blocked. For 47 years the immigrants had been robbing the natives, and getting away with it. 1929 was the first time the natives make enough of a fuss to recover one part of it. (Well, best as I know - where else had Palestinians ever had their property back between 1882 and 1929?). ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

:::thank you for the text, it would have been better placed on the article talk in a new subsection. but i don't mind so much on this occasion. (p.s. i think you misunderstood the issue of copyvio violations)
:::to the point, your position has a little bit of merit regarding this issue considering the timetable. however, it is still missing a note about the information in the mufti's letter or more notes regarding the messages that the arabs sent in order to incite violence necessarily the next friday. still, i note you that these rumors were still false being that the jews did not actually take full control over the western wall. to be frank, i read somewhere that the incitement messages did not include any special mention of the western wall, but rather stated that the jews were planning a surprise attack on al-aqsa... which is indeed a false (pending on a revelation of information i'm not aware of). please, if you wish to continue this, do it in a new subsection on the proper talk page. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 17:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
::::I'll be slammed for ] if I spell out to you any more specifically the violent ways of the immigrants, their arrogant determination to seize (not buy) whatever they wanted, and the difficulty Muslims had even opposing this particular gross violation. (We know property was being seized with violence since at least 1891 - they'd been threatening the Western Wall since at least 1922).
::::The Muslims, failing to get justice from the British, responded in the only fashion they knew how, with a call from their imams to strike back against the robbers (defined in an entirely racist fashion - but then Sharon was doing the exact same thing 73 years later, a month before the Jenin Massacre). ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::yes, you will be slammed for soapboxing because you refuse to keep to the available references and the actual issue and expand (almost) every conversation into something derogatory about current day israel. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

==Battle of Jenin sandbox page==

Jaakobu, would you mind removing the categories from your Battle of Jenin sandbox page please? If you don't remove the categories, the sandbox page ends up being listed in the mainspace under all the categories listed. Thanks, ] 11:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

:i'm a tad conflicted about this one. i can see your point, but i'm wondering on the damage it will create with my future edits (and it's obviously listed under my name, not on it's own).. is there some type of policy on this issue? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

::Sorry to but in, but you can fix this by adding a leading colon, i.e. changing <nowiki>] to ] (the same trick works for ]</nowiki> too if you want to link to an image without diplaying it). That makes this easy to change back later too. -- ] 19:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

:::AFAIK, there is nothing about it in policy pages, but I think it should be obvious that it is an undesirable practice. I might canvas the subject at wp:categories, but in the meantime I trust you will see the logic of deactivating them on your own sandbox pages. In future though, I am just going to deactivate any categories on sandbox pages I come across. Users can restore the cats if they so choose, but I am going to assume most won't object. Regards, ] 23:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

::::i'll make the change sometime soon, thank you for the civility.. it's become a rare thing in the territories i tread in. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 00:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::Thanks J, appreciate it :) ] 00:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, turns out the guidelines after all. ] 08:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

:good link, thank you for sharing the find. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

==Burgas===

Hi Jaakobou, we discussed at length the issue of "martyrs capital" and I felt that you finally conceded that it should not be in the lead. I personally do have a slight sympathy for the Palestinians generally but I will try to be as neutral as possible, as I hope you will. Nevertheless, I am sure that that one sentence though, was wrong regardless of ones political persuasions.

--] 11:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

::(1) we can maybe leave it out of the intro (pending consensus) if the context of militancy is properly mentioned.
::(2) i really don't know why this is on my talk page and on an irrelevant subsection.
::-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 12:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I will try and act as a mediator from now on in the Israeli-palestinian conflict-related articles from now on rather than take one side. Good luck. Please try and reach consensus with G-dett and PR. They may be biased from your perspective but they seem to discuss issues in a constructive manner with you and other pro-israeli wikipedians.
--] 00:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

:i'd be happy to see you embrace a less one-sided approach to the material.
:p.s. i'd rather you avoid advocacy on my page.<b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 01:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The image you re-added to ] is mislabeled -- I made notes about the image being mislabeled on the image's talk page and with all edit summaries. Please don't launch accusations without doing your homework first. As for the image itself -- it is based entirely on the bible, which is fine, but it needs to be labeled as such. The issue is that the label of the image states the sources as 'historical' -- which implies the rigor of a historian. Since it's impossible to change the caption of the image used, it should not be used until it can be fixed. I would suggest the image author simply remove the caption from the image so that it can be properly labeled in each language required. -] 14:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

== AN/I comments ==

Jaakobou, you just don't get it, do you? You decided to break up one of my comments with snippy remarks like "you weren't involved in this dispute" , making it completely unreadable. And now you're whining to me about "changing the context" of your comments? And in ''the very same'' edit which you claim restored your precious context, you ''wholesale deleted'' a comment of mine!

PR is, yet again, facing a lynch mob based on totally spurious allegations. I demolished those allegations thoroughly; none of your comments had anything to refute what I've said, they just focussed on irrelevant crap like whether you thought your side in the content dispute was right. I don't ''care'' about the content dispute. I care about proving that PR should not be banned, and you're interfering by breaking up my rebuttal post, making it impossible to read. Will you ''please'' abide by talk page policy, which you haven't done for at least six months. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 00:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

:i'm sorry, were you involved on ]?
:anyways, i don't think you should change the comments i replied to, it creates a false image. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 00:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

::To quote ]; ENGLISH ... DO YOU SPEAK IT?
::It '''does not matter''' whether I was involved on ]. As I correctly noted in the comment ''which you deleted'', the entire point of having a noticeboard is to bring in un-involved editors. As for the rest of your comment, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Maybe you should write it in Hebrew, and then refuse to translate it but insist that it proves your point. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 01:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

:::yes, i speak english. no, you are not an uninvolved editor. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 01:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

== I ] ==

I have been watching you for a while now and honestly I do not think that you need to be encouraged to go farther on saying that the whole thing was faked. You have been pushing for this at any moment and using all your will. I have thorough experience in reading IDF statements and the fact that they admitted the posiblity of having shoot the kid from the first moment is paramount. You also know the stuff so for you should also be paramount. But you completely dismiss this fact and you keep filling the article with irrelevant quarrels about how the media reflected the shooting. The whole article have been constructed by you as a debate about press coverage and you have lost no opportunity of intoducing doubts and inuendos in it. The probability that you are doing this because you are consciously pushing you POV is enormous. However you are right in saying that wikipedia rules do not allow me to comment your behaviour. My comment was certainly not a violation of ] since is not included in any of the cases written there. Perhaps it can be considered ] of the ] kind and was certainly a violation of ] since the rule explicitly says that "Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute". I must confess that I have dificulties to ] when we are speaking about a dead kid and this was the reason I gave up editing that page and the reason I cannot aggravate a dispute that does not exist. In any case, since whatever my reasons, I should have not commented on you, I formally apologize. If you want, you can erase my comment and then I will substitute for a comment about content not about contributors.--] 12:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
:if i'm not mistaken, you just echoed your belief in the accusation; try not to repeat it. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 13:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

==Forum shopping==
Would it be possible for you to go a day without a complaint about PalestineRemembered? ] 14:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

:are you an ? if yes, then i respectfully request seriously going over the last ANI instead of jumping at me for asking his repeated harassments and violations addressed. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 14:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
::I don't know about Catchpole but I'm an admin if that makes any difference for you and I also find it rather tiresome to see you starting threads on various boards every couple of days to complain. I did delete a template which Palestineremembered had blanked ''more than two weeks ago'' so I'm not sure why you'd come and ask me to comment on it now. If anything, it shows that he has toned it down. I wish you could do the same. ] 21:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
::# i had not opened the (but did open a when i saw the conversationwas completely sidetracked).
:::# i would not have started anything had he toned it down and stopped harassing me, i assume no one jumps into each and every one of your content dispute talks with accusations about "your long history", so please give me some benefit of the doubt that i am truely in distress at the lack of response from the community (2-3 months already) only because he has some frineds to make discussions very big and hard to follow.
:::# if you do decide to go over the threads (and the links provided), you might grow to agree with me.
::::with respect, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 21:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
:It's not exactly easy to be oblivious to the fact that you have a problem with PR. Indeed, you have started a thread on ], one on ], extensively participated in an ANI thread two days ago, and started a thread 10 days ago on ]. Perhaps it's time for you to consider that this obsession of yours with PR's edits is not entirely warranted and that there may be more productive ways of resolving the conflict than asking for his head every week on a different forum. ] 21:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

::],
::thank you for mentioning tha VPA case in which i asked for directions on DR with ]. PR was not part of the conversation, but he attacked me on that thread regardless<sup></sup>.... so maybe i'm not the obsessed one? please consider that my issue has not been dealt with rather than assume bad faith.<b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 21:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

:::I'm not assuming bad faith. But I am assuming an inability to deal with conflict other than by asking that the other camp be disciplined. Both you and PR edit articles on highly contentious subjects which are prone to edit warring, overstatements, accusations, etc. From what I gather, you have also been guilty of such excesses in the past. That's not to say PR is a model wikipedian, far from it. But many agree that he's toned it down and is more measured in his edits than he used to be. ] 22:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

::::"sure you're not assuming bad faith".. you're only comparing me (based on what exactly?) to the person who accused me of being a war criminal,<sup></sup> and created ] after he accused me of "tampering" with the structure of an in order to get rid of his long standing attempts at changing the article title to ''Jenin Massacre'' and make it seem as though hundreds were killed in jenin and israel covered it up.
::::either go over the material seriously, or don't - but please stop making gross comparisons if you have no intention to get into this seriously. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 22:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

:You seem to be missing my point entirely. Nevertheless, I have deleted ] which is clearly meant to be an attack on Geni's work as a mentor. I do realize that you feel Geni has done a horrible job as a mentor but clearly, that page is not part of a solution to your problems with PR. ] 06:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

== Jews Against Zionism ==

:No, it's jewsagainstzionism.org that is registered in my name. A completely different organisation, secular rather than religious. So I really can't help you on Baruch Kaplan; try contacting ], who I believe knows about this.] 00:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

== Please take a look ==

at seplling and other issues at http://en.wikipedia.org/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni Thanks. ] 08:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

== Hebron zt"l ==

Jaakobou, how are you? I hope that you're at least moderately comfortable with my effort on Hebron. Hopefully, other 3rd parties will contribute too. In any case, I just added a note there to ask you guys to knock off the edit warring. As always, feel free to contact me if you have any further q's or issues that you'd like me to address. Kol tuv, ] | ] 18:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

:Hi. fyi, I'm replying w/an answer to your question at ] and, as you might imagine, replied at PR's AN/I with specific questions for you. I suspect you'll help move things forward through your responses at both spots, thanks. ] | ] 08:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
::ok, replied on my page, give a look, thanks. ] | ] 09:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

==Gideon Levy==
I have removed most of the extremely large criticism section you inserted into this article; whilst there is no doubt that the criticism is a valid part of the article, giving such weight to the Linur letter just seemed a bit OTT. As well as being OTT, it was also a violation of ], as around 80% of the article was given over to criticism, 65% of which was the Linur letter. I don't want this to turn into another spat, so I hope you can accept that the criticism is ensconced into the article, but doesn't need expanding beyong it's current proportions. Thanks, ] ]] 19:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
:PS. I have actually rewritten the criticism section so it goes into more detail about why Linur criticised Levy, but without expanding the section much. The section is still a little large, but I think it is now as succinct as it can be. ] ]] 20:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

::i'll give it a look, but from our history, i tend to think you should have written on talk and find out that my suggestion was to expand the article rather than censor it. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I have also written on the talk page, though effectively what I have written directly to you (I was hoping a more personal approach might stop the nascent flame war which is happening on that page in its tracks). Anyway, even if the article was longer, the Linur letter does not deserve more than the couple of sentences that it has now - censoring it is not, just something which does not deserve so much space - it's not the declaration of independence! ] ]] 22:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

::::i agree, however, the suggestion made by the other two, was unacceptable censorship. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 22:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I did the big revert which you linked to, but then I realised that I had removed some worthwhile stuff, so I made a couple of edits that put it back in and reworded the original ( shows both edits). ] ]] 10:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::please take a deeper look at the diff i gave you rather than assume haven't went over the changes. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Fair enough, then I don't believe it is a blind revert - I haven't blindly removed information - I've kept everything in there (apart from the Glazin bit which I really thought was irrelevant) but just reduced its length. I also believe that calling him a commentator is preferable to an advocant (which a few people will know what it means, most will probably think it means lawyer). ] ]] 10:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::you've removed quite a number of things (go over the diff). also, lookup the term "פובליציסט" and tell me if you have any better suggestions than my own. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::I still can't see anything else that I removed except the Glazin bit. There is still the bit about him opposing the Lebanon War, criticism from Plaut and the bit about Ezra/Shabak, but I just reduced the amount of text on the Linur letter - I don't believe it is necessary to mention every single point she brought up - saying that he "owns" the Palestinian department, is amateurish and prevents negative reporting on the Palestinians is enough without mentioning the settler/Bargouti bits. Mentioning every aspect of any criticism that Levy has ever recieved would probably surpass the 30kb limits on the page!
:::::::::Also, I don't understand what you mean by פובליציסט - ]? I don't think it is used in the same context in English. Having just looked it up, "advocant" is not actually a word (it isn't in the OED, though I guessed your meaning from the context) - "advocate" is the correct term, but I think "commentator" also conveys this and has the benefit of not being able to be confused with "lawyer" - perhaps you could say that he is a left-wing commentator - few people could argue against that. ] ]] 11:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::As I have made it quite clear, it was not a blind revert. I did not remove any sources or information which you added, but merely reduced the unnecessary weight given to one criticising source (which was also a clear violation of ]). And as I have made it quite clear in the past, I do not have an allegience with POV pushers whether it be yourself or pro-Palestinian ones. ] ]] 21:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
(outdent)<br>
repeating yourself, doesn't make you correct, try reading the text instead. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 04:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
===Warning===
Please stop inserting the overly-long criticism section to the Gideon Levy. It is a blatant violation of ]. Thank you. ] ]] 13:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
:i shortened it myself (after re-inserting all the blanketed material)<sup></sup> and we can discuss shortening it further - your warning is more than ridiculous - you've removed information and sources<sup></sup> from the article with a blind revert and now you give me a warning notice?! <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 20:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

:btw, your unexplained source removal , resulted in the removal of the term "left wing" - please fix this issue. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 20:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

::No, what is ridiculous here is your claims. The one that you "shortened it" yourself still resulted in the Linur letter accounting for 51% of the article, and criticism as 73% of the total article. The current version has 42% devoted to criticism, which is still too high, but contains all the valid points. As for removing sources, do you really believe that www.iransolidarity.endofempire.org is a reliable website? I certainly don't, and I'm sure you would go mental if someone tried to use it in an anti-Israeli way (say on ]). I said I have no problem with left-wing being used (note that I left it in; so much for blind revert), but you'll have to sort that out with Nishidani (and you can tell him that as a neutral, I support its inclusion). ] ]] 22:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

::# apparently, you think that if any criticism segment is constructed too early then it must be deleted. if you would have went over talk discussions, i clearly suggested we expand on his political beliefs and activities - maye you're not aware of this - but his political activity and the criticism that follows are a major part of the public perception on him (i.e. his otability). i expanded some on both - but mostly on the criticism, i leave it to people who prefer his POV to '''''ADD''''' materials to the article ('ADD' being the key word). note also that the article was marked as a stub - so the "deletionist" attitude (personally, seeing exactly who edited before you came along - nickhh, G-Dett, Nishidani, Abu Ali - and made your first ever edit on the article. i tend to interpret it as a bold group effort of promoting the POV shared by you and your friends) seems counter productive to the encyclopedia in my opinion.
::# i'm not against any website when it's mentioned by name. i'd be opposing that website if it were supposed to be considered 'the accurate ] on israeli affairs', yes, but i would oppose most material by gideon levi as 'the accurate ] on israeli affairs' no matter what website hosts him - even Haaretz's own website. however, i've already allowed some funny sites when the report was on topics they'd be considered reliable, and in case you was not aware, Gideon Levi indeed both wrote for "hostile contries" media sources and his words were also translated on them - i find no exceptional reason to feel that article was a fake Gideon Levi article - and it seemed like a good english source to back up the (not contenteous at all) note that he's considered a leftist.
:::-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 05:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
===Junk mail===
Please don't use my talk page as a scrawl space for junk mail and bogus warnings.--] 15:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
:i believe you've made a fairly disruptive edit, nothing bogus about or the i've given you. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

== Stop harrassing me ==

I'm sick of your incomprehensible warnings showing up on my talk page. In every forum ( ) you've taken this to, you get told that Misplaced Pages is for big boys and girls, and that a certain back-and-forth on article talk pages is inevitable when working with controversial subjects. You refuse to engage in dialogue on article talk pages, and you rewrite article-space to reflect your personal views of a subject, without regard to proper sourcing or even proper spelling. You use incivility, real or imagined, as an excuse to avoid normal dispute resolution - and repeatedly, you have moved, edited, or deleted my comments in neutral forums to further short-circuit DR. Numerous independent editors have expressed their concern over such actions. Finally, you don't even deliver your warnings in a single edit, thus causing the "new messages" box to popup repeatedly for no reason.

From now on, I will be removing your complaints as soon as I see them. You are, of course, free to take your indignation elsewhere, as you seem to do in any case where you don't get your way. But do know that if you insist on making this an administrative issue, I will feel free to discuss ''your'' disruptive conduct at length. And I actually read and write English at an adult level, so you may be at a disadvantage in such a case. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 17:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

: means you've seen them. that is all that matters if you escalate a step further and i am forced to take the matter to an ANI. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 17:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

:p.s. i'd much rather have you address issues with some civility than <u>so many times</u><sup>, </sup> asking nicely (and now with notices and warnings) that you stop treating wikipedia like a ] to lash out at others in. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 18:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

==Stop==
Have the decency to respect the policy(]) regardless of how you might personally feel. Believe or not we cant change the rules for you. If the ploicy gets changed then fine, call them terrorist. Also remember one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. ] 19:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
:i'm afraid you need to learn to distinguish between militant operations and terrorist operations - there's a difference between a ] and a ]. look it up, and try to be reasonable when reverting attacks on children into "militant attack". <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 20:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be reasonable about it if Israeli attacks against children were also called "terrorist" attacks. Or do you believe that Israeli blood is worth more than Arab blood? ] 20:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

:you must be new to the concept of "encyclopedia" and very familiar with the concept of "bash israeli crimes forum". i will answer your question though... however, it'll be in a private note so that i won't be using this space like a forum. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 09:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That wont be necessary. I have better things to do, and im sure you do as well. I wont change your views and you probably wont change mine. I will try to avoid Israeli/Palestinan for a-while, but lets say in a couple of months i see the word terrorist in a article and its violating the policy, i will revert it. If you wish to prevent that from happening, i strongly encourage you to have this policy changed or altered. Have a good one. ] 20:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

:some people, especially israeli, don't respond well to threats. think about it during those couple of months. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 06:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

== Tell me your problem ==

Hi Jaakobou - I wondered if you'd care to tell me what policies of the project you really think I've contravened? You seem to have gone to an enormous amount of effort to get me either muzzled or blocked and it seems such a shame to come out with so many accusations of me breaching policy, but with virtually no meat on any of them. Your participation seems positively blighted by this irritation you feel.

The problem you have is not just with me, of course - you've done similar things to at least three other editors quite recently, each of them (I think) professional academics - or certainly word-smiths much more skilful than me. Such is the scholarship of those three editors, I'd barely even think of contradicting any of them (despite multiple disagreements with each). It's as if your anger towards me is overflowing and taking over your participation. You were recently for "Forum Shopping", so you're clearly just making a fool of yourself.

I was particularly sad to see "I request he'd be blocked from editing until the community finds him a replacement mentor (this time, someone with admin options)"] - because this came about after you'd harassed poor volunteer ] into silence with ]. If you'd only tell me what irritates you so badly, I'm sure it would be possible to make your contributions less problematic and stressful to you. I'm trying not to go back into your history of harassment of admins and so forth because I know that's not the way to move forwards - but it certainly seems as if I'm doing something that's making your problem get worse and worse. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

:PalestineRemembered, i suggest you find a new mentor fast. otherwise, i might be "making a fool of myself" on Arbcom. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 22:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

== Hello Yidisheryid ==

I must say, I get this feeling that you are User {{User|Yidisheryid}}, correct me if I am wrong. ] 11:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
:you are wrong. i've absolutely no idea on who that user is and i don't recall even encountering his/her edits. mind my question, but what made you think i might be that user? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
::The way you (mis)-spell and type (so poorly) and make the whole world crazy wherever you edit and your determination to destroy articles about Zionism. Just a few small things like that you know. It reminds me of my friend User:Yidisheryid, oh and he is known to abuse sockpuppets, and I haven't seen much of him lately, so I thought maybe he went over to Israel/Palestine and attacked the Jewish homeland (articles) directly since he hates the Zionists so much he will even destroy himself like a peaceful ("Yiddisher") Japanese on a ] mission. But then again, I may be wrong since I have met such a peaceful man like you. ] 12:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
:::what do you mean "determination to destroy articles about Zionism" ?
:::p.s. i don't make the "world" crazy. only people with heavy POV that don't get a free pass in pushing it.
:::p.p.s. "met such a peaceful man"... i don't know, but it seems i should take this comment as a ]. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 12:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
::::Oh don't be silly, you asked me to give my reasons and now when I honestly do you throw accusations at me, you know, that's not fair and it's just what Yidisheryid used to do. Are you sure you are not him? ] 12:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
::::Why not try to give the antisemites a hard time instead of bothering some Israeli and Judaic editors? Turn your gun-sites on the right targets for a change. ] 12:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::there's explaining things, and there's acting guile. perhaps i'm misreading you, but the latter is how your comments come off.
:::::p.s. i don't target any editor for his ideology and i've no idea what you're basing your assessments on. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 12:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

== Image:Ariel_Sharon_by_Latuff.jpg listed for deletion ==
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ] 12:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC) <!-- Template:Idw --> ] 12:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

==Your user page==
Following ] in which another editor pointed out that it may have been inappropriate to create it, I have deleted your user page (as I was its creator and only editor, I assumed that I was able to under ]). If you want to reinstate it or tell us a bit about yourself, feel free. ] ]] 11:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

:why on earth would you do that after i already said i don't mind the edit? (plus it sat there for a few months) <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
::Although I do remember you saying it was no big deal, ] has suggested it was inappropriate to do in the first place and that I should remove it. No harm done anyway, ] ]] 13:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
:::indeed no harm done, have a groovy day. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 22:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

== Got your email ==

I got your email, but I don't use any of the IRC chat like tools. ] instant messaging were widely available, I learned I had the choice of using them or being productive. I choose productivity. You've already commented in the IfD discussion and can do so further; take a look at the commons category now linked directly above your comment, as that will address at least half your comment. ] 14:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

:in the time that passed since the deletion notice came up, i found 4 out of the 5 images with links that mark them clearly as copyright free. regardless, i thought about the comment that perhaps we should only chose one image to represent the (quite large) series, and thinking about it, there are far more interesting images created by the propagandist. i was hoping to go over some of them (public domain images) with you to hear your thoughts on what would work best. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 14:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

::I don't know this editorial cartoonist at all to know which of his work is most significant/well-known Go look at the references for the article. If they consistently use the same example(s) to discuss his work, we probably should also as those are likely the most well known and/or significant examples of his work. If they don't, pick from among the examples they do use, assuming at least some of those are available under an appropriate license. Given the size of the category on commons, I'd bet at least some are. ] 04:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
== List of massacres during the Second Intifada ==

] Looking for outside input into a long-term controversy over the naming and scope of this list. As you participated in the afd, please help us out. Thanks. ] 11:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

== Misunderstanding NPOV on ] ==

Please review ]. This policy does not justify the deletion of content which you keep performing on that article. To quote: ''The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".'' The correct approach under our NPOV policy is to add content which balances the view you believe is being given. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
: i believe that if you are unable to deal with this issue properly (COI per being part of this dispute), then you should refer it to the other mentor.
: p.s. there's nothing to counter pov pushing, out of context, out of time line, ] connection of a cafeteria quote from march 5th to the reasons for ] announced early morning march 29th after a full month of suicide bombings culminating with the ] late night march 27. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
::Clearly, that comment was during the first wave of Israeli attacks, which the hotel bombing was in response to. It seems to be part of the overall timeline of the article. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
:::PalestineRemembered edit-warred over a POV cherry quote - not over "time line".
:::considering you've made a similar edit but haven't expanded on talk after you've been reverted, i would (again) suggest that, ''"if you are unable to deal with this issue properly, then you should refer it to the other mentor."'' <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 21:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
::::nevermind, i've taken the liberty and did it myself. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 21:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::My point is you might want to actually try reading {{cite web
|url=http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1002012,00.html
|title=Streets Red With Blood
|first=Matt
|last=Rees
|publisher=Time Magazine
|date=2000-03-18}} It provides a reliable, contemporary report of what was going on in the weeks prior to the operation. You can quibble about what parts exactly belong as a part of the article background, but there's no reason to keep removing it as a source. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::well then, it seems that we both missed each other's points. i have missed your point, that you are discussing ''your edits of time line events'' (which are in dispute with tewfik); and you have missed that i am discussing a ''quote inserted repeatedly by PalestineRememebred,'' out of context, in an attempt to push the POV that sharon is an evil war criminal.
::::::maybe you should go over the diffs again?
::::::-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 23:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::p.s. sample edit summaries from the 5 provided diffs:
::::::: ''"Sharon's original goal was to "hit" the Palestinians",''
::::::: ''"Sharon intended "to hit the Palestinians" before any of this",''
::::::: ''"Sharon's intended mass killings"''
::::::these comments (diffs listed ) and the quote have little to do with time line; esp. when PalestineRemembered was notified <u>twice</u> of terror attacks on 2,3 and 5th of march , the quote being referred to march 6th.
::::::-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 23:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::(edit conflict) You do have a point about PR's POV being beyond what the sources said, and his choice of inserting this information is temporally in the wrong place. I suppose I'm as guilty as anyone of not using the talk page to foment discussion. All of us need to stop edit warring and attempt to discuss compromise edits at ]. Back and forth accusations about edit warring aren't being productive here. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::the back and forth between you and tewfik is not very interesting to me (even if i tend to think your version minimizes the background to the operation) and i suggest you indeed handle it on the article's talk page. The PR abuse of the quote was moved to the other mentor due to your COI. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 00:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
===offtopic===
Let me butt in, although all of this really belongs on the article talk page. Both the Palestinian Authority, in their submission to the UN on Jenin, and Amnesty International, in their overall report on March and April incursions culminating in Defensive Shield, chose to use the Sharon quote as an ] to introduce the Israeli motivation. Now, obviously we can't write articles solely to Palestinian or AI POV, however, ''excluding'' their POV while keeping the official Israeli POV is just as bad. We should mention ''both'' the officially stated reason, ''and'' the conjectured true goals. If AI and the PA are not considered to be notable enough, I can also provide a great many sources from the Israeli and Western left which are in the same vein. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 23:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
:this comment is irrelevant to the issue raised and indeed should be made on the article's talk page; regardless, thank you for your perspective on how both the palestinians and amnesty (echoing the palesitnian claims) regarded/used this quote. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 23:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
::What are you talking about? You claimed that a quotation is irrelevant to Defensive Shield, I show that notable POV's treated it as not only relevant but ''crucial'', and you come back saying it's got nothing to do with the issue? What IS the issue, then? The fact that you don't like PR? <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 00:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
:::i request that you make your (belated) case regarding content on the article's talk page and avoid personal attacks. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 00:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
::::The quote from Sharon is considered absolutely central to the progress of ], even the pro-Israel ] magazine reported it 2 weeks later in these words in the first paragraph of "Streets red with blood": ''"The Palestinians must be hit and it must be very painful. We must cause them losses, victims, so that they feel the heavy price" He went on to do just that, unleashing a broader military offensive than anything seen so far in the past 17 months of fighting"''.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1002012,00.html</ref> Amnesty International and the PA treat it the same way. This edit-war has been going on for well over 6 weeks now, over a simple, straight-forward edit that properly adds necessary information to the article. How are we ever going to deal with really difficult edits if this one causes us so much trouble? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::am i seeing correctly? are you soapboxing on my page again? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

==note==
I read the discussion and decided the appropriate course of action was to delete the image. -] ] 02:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

== Replaceable fair use Image:HeilIsrael.jpg ==
]
Thanks for uploading ''']'''. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under ], but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our ] in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

# Go to ] and edit it to add {{tlx|di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, '''without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template'''.
# On ], write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, ], or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on <span class="plainlinks"></span>. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:di-replaceable fair use-notice --> ] (]) 13:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

:no. i havn't quite seen a fair use replacement for a "sharon with the hitler salute" comic by latuff. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 14:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

:: Quote mining again? There are several images by the same artist. // ] (])

== Image:HeilIsrael.jpg listed for deletion ==
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ] (]) 15:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC) <!-- Template:Idw --> ] (]) 15:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

== Carlos Latuff ==

A request was made on ] to protect the article due to the edit conflict. ] (]) 15:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

== Warning ==

Your behaviour with regard to Palestine Remembered has crossed the line into disruption. I am warning you that if continue to interject yourself into discussions about him by seeking topic bans without any demonstration of having actually tried to work together with him, I will block you for disruption. Let the mentors mentor him, stop getting in the way. ] 16:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
:i won't assume anything, but this block warning is over the top and uncalled for. i'd go as far as saying i don't believe i have not tried working with him - on many accounts i tried explaining and finding a common ground... (example:) the story behind ]. are you aware it is a result of an RfC i opened , which came after many attempts of finding a consensus?
:p.s. i also don't quite believe i've interfered with the work of the current mentors - i did refer one note to Ryan after it was more than clear that Kendrick has a ] on said article. but that certainly is no call to block me or even warn a block. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

== Request for Arbitration ==

Hi Jaakobou,

I've started a ] regarding the repeated deletion of the term "occpuied territories" by yourself and others .

Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']''' - 28.11.2007 16:01</small>

== "Incivility" ==

I have replied on my talk page. --] (]) 19:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

==Blanking of entire article==

You are kindly asked to refrain from blanking ] by redirecting it to ]. Four editors have expressed their support of this move while not one has articulated a valid rationale against. Please engage in talk to build consensus for your changes. If you blank that page again, I will be asking for a User RfC to be opened against you. Thank you. ] 10:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
:please try reading the edit summaries. an article about non combatants was split in half with no reason other than ]; so i reversed. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, if you refuse to use the talk or edit summaries to justify your change, I will revert them.

Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']''' - 29.11.2007 17:29</small>

Jaakobou please desist from blanking articles because you do not like the content. thankyou.--] (]) 21:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

:i'd appreciate a diff or two. thank you. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 21:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

'''comment''' - anyone interested in knowing a few of the pro-palestinian, anti-israeli editors, can simply take a peak at this subsection. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 21:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

'''comment''' - perhaps you meant to write:
<blockquote>"anyone interested in knowing what an anti-palestinian editor who violates wiki policies can expect to encounter, can simply take a peak at this sub-section."</blockquote> no? ] 00:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

::Neither Jaakobou's comment nor Tiamut's response is ]. Tone it down, both of you! ] 04:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

:::i'd be happy to "tone it down". i think a good first step in resolving this issue would be you asking these three editors to not abuse my page like this, though, just because they want to keep a ].
:::p.s. there's been extremely "revert this person at all cost" atmosphere lately around me, even though at least some of the edits were well based on talk. i suggest to the "secret revert jaakobou society" (who's most undoubtedly watching) to tone it down also so that an arbcom can be avoided. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 04:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

:::'''sample''' - '''edit per''' ] (noted in edit summary).
:::.
:::pedro's response: ''"if you refuse to use the '''''talk or edit summaries''''' to justify your change, I will revert them."'' .
:::-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 04:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
::::How disingenuous of you... I made my comment after reverting edit of yours. Not after your bogus claim to some kind of consensus in the talk. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']''' - 30.11.2007 08:22</small>
:::::clearly, you've ignore the complaint itself. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 09:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

== RfC at ] ==

Hi Jaakobou,

I re-factored the RfC and hope that you will now be able to participate.

Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']''' - 30.11.2007 09:33</small>

:Hello again,
:You might want to re-consider your latest edit at ]. I copied the comments out of the previous, ill-formatted RfC discussion, not from the discussion at large, as you did. I'm no specialist on Misplaced Pages policies, but that could be interpreted as vote-stacking.
:Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']''' - 30.11.2007 15:16</small>

==Please==

I would appreciate it if you would hold off on editing ] while I merge the two articles and format the refs. You can make changes afterward if you still feel it necessary. Thanks. ] 14:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
:please pay close attention to the last rewrite i inserted. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 14:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

== Tantrums ==

Jaakobou, if you reference a guideline in a manner which indicates you haven't even read it, you're wasting everybody's time, and calling you on it is not a "tantrum". You claimed that ] justified the insertion of information from ]'s website, an unreliable extremist source. But WP:UNCENSORED is about images of faeces, racist quotations, and the like, not about source reliability. The guideline explicitly states that content must "not violate any of our existing policies (especially neutral point of view)", and it's those policies you should be discussing, not irrelevancies. Baseless accusations of censorship are ''far'' more problematic than the "tantrums" which they incite. &lt;]/]]&gt; 11:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
:that is very much your own perception, and should be discussed with civility on the talk page. not with uncivil revert commentary.
:p.s. i hope you remember that this is not the first time you've used this aggressive mannerism and i request you go over ] and take notes. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

== RfC at ] (2nd try) ==

Hi Jaakobou,

I've suggested a compromise and it would be nice to have your input on it.

Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']''' - 05.12.2007 08:12</small>

==Media & online sources==

Thought I'd make a general point to you here as it seems to be a bit of a theme that comes up in a lot of your editing, in my view. I'm also a bit surprised that this has to be spelled out to you, but there you are - anyway the point about sourcing is to verify and show that events happened or that certain people said certain things, not so that editors here can extract their favoured interpretation of events and claim it as "sourced" in an article. That's why Misplaced Pages should limit itself a) to mainstream reliable media sources; and b) to lifting only straight facts from those sources.

The New York Times, The Jerusalem Post and yes even the BBC are large organisations, who employ researchers, fact-checkers and editors. Their journalists will also have good contacts with official organisations and their spokespeople, and access to press briefings and the like. They don't publish accounts of things that happened or were said unless, generally, those things did actually happen or those things were said. Yes they make mistakes but they are usually caught out somewhere down the line. Most also tend to strive towards at least a semblance of balance in their reporting, as well as even on their op-ed pages. These are some of the differences between mainstream media outlets and a lot of blogs or other self-published or avowedly partisan websites, whichever side they tend towards.

However at the same time different media do of course have their own biases and editorial rules (whether acknowledged or not), and also tend to write in quite descriptive language even in straight news items. Eg The New York Times might report that "the IDF launched a ''devastating'' raid into the West Bank" or that a "''horrific'' attack hit Tel Aviv yesterday". It would usually be inappropriate to carry these phrases over into a Misplaced Pages article. Equally, different media sources will use different words to describe the same situations, so there is often no consensus in any event. This means that editors here cannot use that aspect of media reporting as if it were a definitive judgement on something and insert it into Misplaced Pages articles, claiming that they have therefore "sourced" their favourite turn of phrase.

Apologies for the lecture, but it may save having to point this all out to you again and again on separate talk pages. --] (]) 13:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

:i agree with you 100% on the stated "lecture". however, the dispute is over arafat politically motivated action and that was the consensus we reached a while back. the first phrasing was 'symbolically donated blood', based on a number of sources and also the text of the image in the BBC article (right click that picture and click properties). however, there were objections to the term symbolically and we ended up agreeing on the text used in the article body. started here: and ended here: . anyways, i'm open to suggestions that stay true to the notion that it was a politically motivated action. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 13:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

== "Rule of the Gaza Strip by Egypt" vs. "Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt" ==

]

Go, knock yourself out. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']''' - 05.12.2007 17:00</small>

:Well, are you going to defend your move or not? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']''' - 12.12.2007 09:17</small>

::my move is just as defensible as yours. however, i was hoping to see a comment or two by less involved individuals than us both. please answer me this question does the term "occupation" imply foreign army in a land not their own? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 09:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

:::As stated in ], the definition given by the ] is
:::{{cquote|Art. 42: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.}}
:::and
:::{{cquote|Art. 43: The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country. }}
:::I'm curious to see how you're going to try to parse this to your advantage... <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']''' - 12.12.2007 10:02</small>

::::pedro, we have opposing opinion regarding this term - but i'm trying to keep an open mind, please do the same. my question was: ''does the term "occupation" imply foreign army in a land not their own?'' and from your given text i see that, ''"the authority of the <u>hostile army</u>"'' which would support my notion that the answer to my question is "yes". do you accept that it is indeed the answer or no (explain why)? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::No, I do not support a strict "boots on the ground" definition. Occupation is when you exercise control. If this control is achieved by having troops there (as in the West Bank or Iraq) or by threatening to move troops there (as in the Gaza Strip) makes no difference.
:::::What is important is that the occupant has ''authority'' over a territory which does not belong to him/her. How it is effectively ''enforced'' (troops or no troops) is not important. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']''' - 12.12.2007 10:15</small>
:::::And by the way, this is a ''discussion'', not an RfC. We should try to work this out ourselves before calling on the community. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']''' - 12.12.2007 10:19</small>

::::::''"by threatening to move troops there"''? i'd appreciate a ] for this addition/extension to the original definition. if someone would apply the same logic in reverse form, than all of israel is occuppied by the arabs/muslims and also the city of mecca which used to be jewish. try to keep emotions/pre-conceptions out of the discussion and keep to what the reliable sources say, please, so we can avoid turning this debate into a facebook style give-and-go.

::::::to quote you: ''"which does not belong to him/her"''. so, do you agree that the definition of "occupation" suggests that the "occupier" is a foreign force? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::::My source is the ]. The phrase "''Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army''" means just that: ''authority'' is important.
:::::::Regarding the ownership issue, no part of the ] was ever given to Egypt (the Gaza Strip was to belong to a new arab state, as stated in the article in question), hence it did not belong to them.
:::::::Look, I'm no big fan of word-games and entrapment. If you have a point to make, make it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']''' - 12.12.2007 10:36</small>

::::::::i agree that 'authority' is important, i also subject that 'hostile' is also important. you are avoiding the question - '''''please answer it''''' in relation to the sources and words you've already used - so that we can move on to the ownership issue.

::::::::to repeat, the question was: ''does the term "occupation" imply foreign army in a land not their own?''. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::I don't see what you don't understand about my answer. "Occupation" implies foreign '''''authority''''' in a land not their own. To answer in one word: ''does the term "occupation" imply foreign army in a land not their own?'' '''No.''' <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']''' - 12.12.2007 11:09</small>

::::::::::thank you for answering the question - per, ''"foreign authority in <u>a land not their own</u>." .

::::::::::now the question rises, who owns these strips of land called gaza and west bank. and that is where the real complications begin. according to the balfour declaration, it's jewish land. according to the arab rejected 1947 UN proposal, it's arab land. according to the pan-arab movement and the islamist movement, it's arab/islamic land. according to the zionist/jewish movement, it's israeli land. these are obviously conflicting narratives, and the UN is rejected by both. i agree that the term "occupied" can be used to some extent in this conflict... '''''but not everywhere'''''. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 12:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

<math>\leftarrow</math> The issue of ownership of the Mandate after its dissolution is a rather large and prickly issue... To make the whole thing easier: It doesn't matter who the "land" (i.e. the Gaza Strip) belonged to exactly -- what is important is that it definitely ''did not'' belong to Egypt. Hence, it was ''occupied'' by Egypt. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']''' - 12.12.2007 12:32</small>

:''']''',
:"what is important is that it definitely ''did not'' belong to Egypt." - .
::- i agree with you on this 100% (glad we agree on this), although they certainly have a stronger case than Jordan over the West Bank considering the history of ].
:"Hence, it was ''occupied'' by Egypt" - .
::this is where ] comes into the picture (again). have you ever given a look to land ownership laws of different countries? what about ownership laws of non countries? ever heard of the "Galactic Government"? (not related to star wars). on point, you are definitely 100% '''incorrect''' with your statement that, '' did not belong to ...then it was occupied''.
:false perceptions are hard to correct, but i trust you will agree (at least on this semi-point) if you explore this issue based on reliable sources. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 18:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

::So your point is that although it didn't belong to Egypt, and Egypt took it by force, it was not an occupation because, perhaps, of "ownership laws" in Egypt? I did not say, as you try to mis-quote me, that the Gaza Strip did not belong to anyone -- I said it did not belong to Egypt. Can you give me a quote for the legal basis of the non-occupation status? Or for "ownership laws" that invalidate the occupation status? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']''' - 13.12.2007 09:02</small>
:::How about "Annexation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt"? This seems to be much more neutral than either of the others. ] (]) 09:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

::::Nope, they didn't ] it. If they had, they would have had to make it part of the state of Egypt (which they didn't) and give all inhabitants political rights (which they didn't). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']''' - 13.12.2007 10:02</small>

::::P.S. I took the liberty of copying this discussion to ], where it belongs.

== Media coverage IPConflict ==

Please lay off the "undo" button there. You're up to five reverts in the last 18 hours or so. &lt;]/]]&gt; 02:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
:if i'm not mistaken, each is a separate issue and mostly resolved - only that a couple of disruptive editors insist to revert without discussion and attempt at compromise. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 03:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
::That's a big "if I'm not mistaken". Your insistence that everybody else is disruptive and reverts without discussion and compromise juxtaposes oddly with your own actions on that article. &lt;]/]]&gt; 03:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
:::what acts, my opening of a subsection explaining the issues whith a reference based breakdown and requesting comments? oh noes! <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 03:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

== Chat ==

I would be glad to chat. You can find me in #wikipedia on IRC, probably until around 5:30 UTC tonight. I'm often online there between 2 and 5 UTC; my IRC name is carl-m. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 04:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
:hopefully we can help resolve a dispute or two on the jenin battle. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 05:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Former Students of Easington Community Science College ==

Category:Former Students of Easington Community Science College, was decided to be kept. Whether or not you voted for this, your contribution to the CFD was valued.Thanks.--]] 17:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

== Edit summary usage ==

{{{icon|] }}}Constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours {{#if:Saeb Erekat|to the article ]}}{{#if:{{{2|}}}| <!-- oldid for diff: {{{2}}}-->}} has an ] that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use ] for any tests you may want to do. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Wrongsummary1 --> ] (]) 09:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
:appreciate the note, it shows that you've been watching. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

== Isr-Palest article ==

Hi. good to have your help recently. just want to ask, do you agree with the compromise which i laid out recently? If so, can we offer it as a way to achieve consensus? Would just like to get your input on this.

(Please reply on my talk page, if not too much trouble.) thanks. --] (]) 15:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

:Hi. I'm taking another try at a compromise, at ]. please feel free to go there, and to post your response and comments. thanks. --] (]) 16:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

== Happy Holidays ==

<div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: solid 1px; background-color: lightyellow;">
]
<br> {{BASEPAGENAME}}, Happy holidays, and Happy New Year See you next year. </br> </div>
'''] ]''' 23:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

== mediation ==


A ] has been filed with the ] that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at ], and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Misplaced Pages, please refer to ]. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, --] (]) 02:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


==Request for mediation not accepted==
{| class="messagebox" style="width:90%"
|-
|]
|A ] to which you were are a party was ] and has been delisted.<br>You can find more information on the case subpage, ].</center><br>
::''For the Mediation Committee,'' ''']''' 07:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
|} |}
<small><center>This message delivered by ], an automated bot account ] by the ] to perform case management.<br>If you have questions about this bot, please ].</small></center>

== ] ==

Hi, I want to try and help, therefore I offer to take this case, and have contacted the other involved parties inviting them to summarise their opinions on the matter. <font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 15:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

==Blind reverting==

At ]. Please engage in talk. Jumping in as a party to an edit-war without reviewing the material and offering cogent arguments for the deletion of sourced material is frowned upon. Thanks. ] 23:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
:thank you for the note - all the needed reply is ''''''. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 01:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, yeah, that was Tewfik's comment, not yours. He is not your representative in the talk, and that was a non-response as I pointed out in . You please use the talk to defend your edits.

You're also deleting sourced information at ] without talking about it (twice now) and making the same edits twice now at ] that I cannot understand. Please talk Jaakobou. Thanks. ] 03:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
:don't overdo the notices. start a talk page section yourself if you feel the material is reliable, neutral and worthy of inclusion - it is not. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 13:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

== CfD: Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues ==

Hi. please help! The category ] has been nominated for deletion. this is a category which is meant to be simply a conveneient ''non-partisan'' gathering-place for all entries which are general overviews of various issues, as opposed to being related to a specific event or location.

The discussion is located at ].
This category is beneficial to all of us who habitually edit these articles, regardless of whether we may be more affiliated with Israeli concerns or Palestinian concerns. The category's deletion is being advocated by editors who rarely edit any articles on this topic, and have little involvement in this topic at Misplaced Pages.

Your help would be greatly appreciated. please go to this category's discussion entry, and express your opinion. Hopefully, you will be willing to advocate keeping this category. thanks for your help.
Thanks, Sm8900 --] (]) 14:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

== email ==

Hi. I just emailed you. let me know what you think. see you. --] (]) 20:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

==3RR==
It is not a breach, as the first edit was not a revert. As for making threats to report me, you are the one at serious risk of being reported to ] for being a long-term POV pusher and ]. ] ]] 11:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
:reply given: . <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
::In that case, I suggest you go over ] and reconsider all the edits you have ever made to Misplaced Pages. ] ]] 11:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Having given it a bit more thought, I have re-worded the article to include the Jewish death. Thoughts? ] ]] 11:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
::::i've made a minor addition after your edit. if you intend on preventing bad blood, i request you strike-through parts of your comment above from 11:27, 28 December 2007 and avoid similar accusations in the future. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

==regarding your idle threats==

i answered you on my talk page. ] 13:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

==WP:V==
WP:V says "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source". This means that you '''must''' provide reliable sources for content you add to wikipedia. No, its not optional. I have said this to you again and again. Why do you keep ignoring this fundamental policy by re-inserting unsourced content? The above policy applies to all content, not just content about living persons. However, it applies more strictly to content about living persons.

The content you re-insert is a BLP vio. How? Because it is talking about living persons. For example you accuse Walid Shoebat of defining the word ] to mean "the struggle to impose Allah's will over the earth, resulting in holy war against the non-Muslim world in order to bring it under the rule of Islam." This is a contentious claim. You need a source for this claim.

Again read over ] and ] and you should understand why you need to provide sources for all content related to living people.] (]) 22:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
:'''Bless sins''',
:walid is in the movie explaining the term jihad. please watch the film and feel free to raise your concerns afterwards if you still have them. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 23:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
::Do you have a reliable and published source that says what you claim Walid is explaining?] (]) 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
:::just watch the movie, this is getting boring real fast. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
::::I'm not here to entertain you, but only tell you to follow wikipedia policies. It doesn't matter if you've watched the movie, or you made it. You '''need sources for all content, particularly contentious content about living persons'''.] (]) 19:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

== 3RR for House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ==

You have reverted text 3 times in less than 24 hours, and you have removed the reference link 3 times for Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. You have violated 3RR. See ]. Please quickly self-revert to Eleland's version to avoid being blocked. You can be blocked for less than 4 reversions in 24 hours. This is a courtesy warning requested by the text of the ] article for newbies to 3RR. But it looks like I am not required to give you this courtesy warning since from looking at your talk page you are well aware of the 3RR rule.--] (]) 17:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
:you've made an error, please re-examine the explanation of the policy and the edits i have made. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 17:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


== Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jaakobou/Polemics and Decorum ==
===You have been reported===
You have been reported for breaching ] on House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You can find the report ]. ] (]) 19:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


Please see ]. --] (]) 03:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
<div style="float:center;border-style:solid;border-color:blue;background-color:AliceBlue;border-width:1px;text-align:left;padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] '''You have been ]''' {{#if:{{{until|}}}|until '''{{{until}}}'''|for a period of '''eighty-four hours'''}} for '''edit-warring and persistent reverting across multiple articles'''. To contest this block, please reply here on your '''talk page''' by adding the text <nowiki>{{unblock|</nowiki>''<nowiki>your reason here</nowiki>''<nowiki>}}</nowiki> along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from ]. -- ''']''' 21:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC) </div><!-- Template:GBlock -->
== File:City of Jenin and refugee camp.jpg listed for deletion ==
A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] ] 10:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
==Category:Interim and Acting Presidents of Israel==


''']''', which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. ] (]) 10:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Copying from ]: "Blocked for eighty-four hours, for edit-warring across multiple articles. I see a pattern of edit-warring behavior &ndash; at ], ], ], ], and, to a lesser degree, at other articles &ndash; that simply needs to stop." -- ''']''' 21:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


== Clarification motion ==
'''Comment regarding block reasoning:'''
:''Following this (static version) ] complaint by ].''
I admit of being involved in a high volume of edits on a number of articles and also admit to what could be construed as an edit war together with ] on ].


A case (]) in which you were involved has been modified by {{oldid2|631252824|Motion|motion}} which changed the wording of the ] to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --]] 15:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
However, inspection into my '"edit warring on a number of articles"' reasoning stated by ] is superficial and incorrect as well:


=== Stealth Canvassing at ] ==
# - My recent conflict with Tiamut, was by no means an edit war. He had a misunderstanding regarding the history of the region and we resolved it (I believe) quite quickly when I added the reference/source to my correction of the error-ed text ().
# - There was a multiple user conflict, which consisted of as many as 6-7 participants. After an edit war was already ensued between two very different versions - I've engaged in the article with a major attempt to resolve the disputes . After resolving two of a the many disputes the discussions devolved into reverts once the issue of "intifada (uprising)" was a bit stuck but I have again reopened, a second discussion attempt on that issue and it seemed to be moving quite reasonably. I don't believe that my attempts to resolve the disputes on said page should be portrayed as an edit war and stand against me on other article disputes.
# - In this article, for some reason, ] (same editor who opened the 3RR) claims that it is a BLP violation to re-write what a participant in the film stated and to support his BLP theory he removes the entire synopsis section. I don't see my objection to this as an edit-war at all.


] It appears that you have been ''']'''—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While ] are allowed, they should be '''limited''' and '''nonpartisan''' in distribution and should reflect a '''neutral''' point of view. Please do not post notices which are ], which espouse a certain ] or side of a debate, or which are ] only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Misplaced Pages's principle of ]-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-canvass -->] (]) 22:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Considering this overview of the disputes and my efforts to resolve them, and considering that Palestinian-Israeli articles are filled with high emotions , incivility , pov accusations , and pov violations .
: are not neutral about policy? <b>]'']''</b> 22:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
::Targeting people with French sympathies and emotions because there was a recent terrorist attack there is not neutral. There's also the stealth canvassing, you contacting members thru email.] (]) 22:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Serialjoepsycho}}
:::My reponse . Let's discuss this though. a) Why do you think French people are not neutral about the phrasing of the policy? b) What do you think about participation of people supporting militancy commenting and voting without disclosing their political affiliation with illegal activities? <b>]'']''</b> 23:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
::::A) It's not a matter of whether French people or neutral or not. That is a straw man tangent that is not worthy of a response. This is about Canvassed people, and and all canvassed people regardless of race, religion, nationality, or what ever else. Canvassing compromises the consensus making process. B) This is another straw man tangent not worthy of a response.] (]) 23:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Serialjoepsycho}}
:::::I think you may have fumbled when you wrote down "straw man tangent that is worthy of a response". Please let me know before we continue discussion. <b>]'']''</b> 23:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::Indeed I did. Thank you.] (]) 23:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::::{{ping|Serialjoepsycho}}
::::::::Focusing on your main argument, I wholly agree and respect your note about 'Canvassing compromises the consensus making process.' I've made some overall notes which I'm not sure if we can come to agreement on (i.e. French are neutral, editors supporting militancy are not) but I cannot discuss the merit or lack-thereof of these points further until that other matter is resolved. <b>]'']''</b> 00:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::You have made no points to which we can agree on. French neutrality is meaningless. Palestinians can be neutral as well. When you taint the jury pool the jury can not be considered neutral, even if they are French. Editors that support Militancy can be neutral as well. I'm guessing that you don't realize that ] was a militant. I recognize the ].] (]) 01:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


: But that is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about of polemics being allowed on user-pages. <b>]'']''</b> 07:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I believe, just as the first admin who inspected the 3RR notice believed , that if 3RR rules are to be applied to me regarding this dispute (where I have reverted 3 exactly times), then they should be applied evenly.


===Poetic militancy===
Lastly, if the descision is made to block anyone, and because I was given 84 hours. An inspection into my block log shows that apart from one 3RR mishap in July, my 3RR blocks were all rescinded. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Your soapboxing, That's great and all but you can save yourself time by not soap boxing me. I disagree with your view. I see no reason to reach any compromise at all. The rules as they stand already cover what you want. Now there's the need for a long conversation and in some cases you might not be able to convince others of your view but that's a good thing. The conversations should actually be much longer especially when you are taking actions to to silence speech.] (]) 03:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
:I want to clear some things up. On the article, ], I never said your editing was illegitimate. It was wrong in the sense it violated WP:3rr. Whether you were following WP:NPOV, or eleland, (or both or neither), I can't say.
:You are, however, wrong in inserting unsourced material about living persons in ]. I've asked you numerous times to source your edits.] (]) 02:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
::''"is a BLP vio. How? Because it is talking about living persons...you accuse Walid Shoebat"'' -
::Walid Shoebat is featured in ] giving commentaries... even for a moment, assuming "i accused him" of something he had not said in the film (watch starting minute 31), it does not justify a complete blanking of the film's synopsis.
::p.s. it is not a sign of good faith now that your friend, Eleland, is after you've reached 3 reverts.
::p.p.s. further comments should be made on the article's talk page, not here. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 04:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


: I shouldn't need to convince that advocacy against Jews, Israelis, Zionists is a violation. That discussions are always tainted by people not understanding the policy as well as the ones who openly want to post such content is absurd. <b>]'']''</b> 07:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
== SALTing ==


== AE 2==
To answer your question, ] is done to ensure that once a crop has been uprooted or destroyed, nothing else can grow there. Hence ], the wikipedia practice of not only deleting a page but protecting the page in its deleted form so that a new article cannot be started. ] (]) 17:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


] <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 23:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)</small>
:thanks for the input. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 07:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:The complaint at AE , with a finding that your edits at ] were a violation of your ban from ]. For now, no other action has been taken. Thanks, ] (]) 15:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


== ] == == It's highly accurate ==


You violated the canvassing policy. It's a simple matter. It's not hard to actually understand. You have no argument against or excuse for it. It's great that two people who responded to your canvassing decided to be upfront about your inappropriate canvass. It's also not relevant or meaningful in anyway. None what so ever. Not even kind of, sort of, or in a round about way. We can not clearly determine who you have improperly canvassed. The closer will be unable to exclude their opinions if they are unable to determine who is meatpuppeting on your behalf. This RFC will not end in a policy change. And it looks like your part in the discussion is over anyway.] (]) 10:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
was not vandalism. Even if you disagree with it, please refrain from characterizing good-faith edits as vandalism. ] (]) 09:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
:The fact that you still don't understand that your message in your highly inappropriate canvassing is not neutral by any standard is also concerning. But again the conversation is over. Hopefully an Admin will have the time to explain this to you when you either block you or give you are warning about your TBAN and IBAN.] (]) 10:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
:Stifle,
::You are not accurate when you assume things without asking or when you repeat things again and again, and now, again.
:# i believe the user should have asked guidance from his assigned mentors rather than address someone who's not aware/watching his conduct history.
::I indiscriminately and without prejudice contacted 10 editors from the contributors of the Paris attacks article with a benign message that makes no attempt to influence their judgement regarding policy discussions. This was a bad idea and I've apologized for it multiple times. The rest of it, contacting Wikiproject France is sanctioned under ]. <b>]'']''</b> 10:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
:# repeated removal of well established and ''very well'' referenced information from articles, without any edit summary or discussion, after all the discussions and edits already made (including two of his mentors) is ] ].
:::I can not verify that you contacted 10 editors thru email. It could be 10 or it could be 200. This is stealth canvassing ]. You have no significant reason for not using a talk page notification. None. Zero. Zip. Evidence provided by one of these stealth canvassed users suggests that your message was an inappropriate attempt at campaigning similar to the one you inappropriately posted at wikiproject France. ] does not sanction your actions. Wikiproject France is not directly related to Misplaced Pages policy. It does not become directly related because you want to play on the emotions of people because there was a terrorist attack in France. This is what the language you choose suggests and there is no reason what so ever to think you were trying to do anything but that. And great you apologized. I'm not sure what you think relevance is of the apology but what ever and apology accepted. You still compromised the consensus making process and this still makes the consensus indeterminable. The RFC still can not result in a consensus to change the policy. But your apology is accepted. Don't poison the well and expect people to drink the water. This is what you are not understanding. But this conversation is pointless. Your part in that conversation is over. That conversation is over without a consensus to change policy. ] (]) 10:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
:-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Again, you assume things without asking or assuming good faith. I disclosed my activity and agreed to my mistake. As for closing the other thing in a fair manner. Ask arbcom if my message on Wikiproject France is "campaigning" or ]. Try to do it without declaring beforehand as to not sway the conversation. Let me know. <b>]'']''</b> 11:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
::"Well established," in this case, means that you edit-warred it in until nobody could be bothered to waste their time fighting you over it. And your "very well referenced" information includes references which do not name or discuss Saeb Erekat. PR should have used an edit summary, but his was a legitimate action, unlike your prolonged highly ]. &lt;]/]]&gt; 18:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::As the long time saying goes on Misplaced Pages goes, "AGF is not a suicide pact." I don't have to ask anything and I did not assume anything at all. I read exactly what you wrote . Would you like to insult my intelligence and lie and say these recent events you are discussing is not the terrorist attack in Paris? That the sympathies you share are not for the people that were effected by this terrorist attack? Yes campaigning but without the scare quotes. You can read all about it at the policy that you violated ]. And no worries the RFC will end fairly. No matter what it will result in no change to policy. This conversation is has met it's end.] (]) 12:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
:::You (and others) might be amused to peruse , where you'll discover that Jaakobou has managed to drive off every other interested editor (eight in total) throughout the whole 16 months of TalkPage discussion about this article!
::::::There's nothing fair about having the joy of encountering pro-terrorism bullshit on user-pages. <b>]'']''</b> 12:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
:::You'll already know that none of his claims are referenced atall - only blogs and the perpetrators of the killings (of which there were 497 according to the official International figure) have called Erekat a liar. His career is long and really rather distinguished under the very difficult circumstances. There is a huge amount of interesting material that could go into this article, but this poisonous edit-war has driven off every other editor interested in improving the project.
::::::A couple more from today: . Was Tel Aviv occupied territory? <b>]'']''</b> 12:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Another thing you might find astounding is that Jaakobou has only just come back from a 3.5 day block for edit-warring (across a range of other articles) and immediately (2nd edit) set about the exact same activity, on an article where he's done so much damage for so long! ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


== ] ==
==Mass blanking at ]==


{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I have asked you on the talk page there to restore the over 17,000 bytes of sourced, attributed and in-line cited material you deleted. I am deadly serious Jaakobou. I will report you to ] for a pattern of disruptive editing if you fail to heed this request. You used the same tactic at ], mass blanking over your objections to one sentence in the introduction. This is not good faith editing and I will not tolerate it. ] 18:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692039973 -->


== Let's go over to AE Then ==
:dear Tiamut,
:i explained the main issue with your use of sources to "rev up" the "resistance" narrative and explained where the problem lyes. instead of addressing the issue, you've went on with a similar direction. removing sources and <s>revving up the "sharon is a killer"</s> (strike 15:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)) plot-line. you may start an ANI case, accusing me of mass blanking... but it doesn't change the facts that this is (a) a content based dispute. and (b) that you've made a huge number of edits in 2 days while ignoring my talk page raised issue. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 18:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


Save your warnings. Let's go over to ]. You can tell them about how I'm just uncivil by stating facts and then you can explain why you are violating your topic ban. If you decide to do so message me accordingly, otherwise stay off my talk page.] (]) 12:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
::Dear Jaakobou,
:{{ping|Serialjoepsycho}} As per my deleted notice, if you want to reiterate and regurgitate allegations of an alleged transgression, that is inappropriate. If that editor violated a policy take your advice and go to AE about it. <b>]'']''</b> 17:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
::I have reported you to ]. While you claim that your edits on the talk page raise real or specific issues with the edits I made, they in fact, do not. I have tried to respond to any specific concerns you have raised, but I do not understand how the material you blanked is related to the one source you seem to have a problem with. It is not my job to read the sources for you or review the content I posted in detail for you. You have to read it and raise specific concerns or make edits to the material accordingly. You cannot mass blank two days of work that is based on reliable scholarly sources and claim that you are justified in doing so based on your vague assertions that my edits are POV. That amounts to ] and it's not fair to those of us trying to improve articles. ] 18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
::Take it to AE. Don't ping me either.] (]) 22:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
:::If that editor violated a policy take it to AE. Anything else you do might be further looked into. End of conversation. <b>]'']''</b> 23:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
::::The conversation was over when you violated your topic ban and made that post on my talk page. Everything you said has been ignored.] (]) 00:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
::::BTW, Was he one of the people that you inappropriately canvassed to that conversation?] (]) 00:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::I hate to break it to you again and again (and again...) for the first time, but I did not notify anyone I shouldn't have. I did not notify him. Now that you got that answer will you stop being a pest about it? ARBCOM concluded that because I mentioned Israel in the lead for the policy issue that it was considered inside the scope of the ban. Anything further, e.g. your repeated allegations, is disruptive and improper conduct. <b>]'']''</b> 06:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::First of AE is not Arbcom. It's a noticeboard to seek admins to enforce ARBCOM sanctions. EdJohnston had addressed that you were canvassing . It's not an allegation that you were in violation of canvassing policies. You are banned from taking part or discussing anything related to the Israel and Arab conflict broadly construed. But you are right, me trying to further to discuss this with editors showing ] behavior is disruptive.] (]) 21:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Ed's mentioning of your notice is irrelevant. He couldn't care less about the facts. In conclusion: If that editor violated a policy take it to AE. Otherwise stop muddying the waters. <b>]'']''</b> 21:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Canvassing muddies the waters. Pointing it out helps the closer to either disregard the positions of editors who are known to have been canvassed or to close it with no consensus because it's impossible to determine the consensus. Bickering back and forth with bad faith editors who show classic signs of IDHT behavior is mostly a waste of time, but it does present a question of their competency. This conversation (and violation of your topic ban) has amounted to nothing and has ended.] (]) 22:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Ah. But here lies the point. If it amounted to nothing and has ended, why do you keep bringing it up as an insidious plot to destroy the Wiki? Why aren't you paying any attention to the plethora of other issues on the project. e.g. uncivil editors with extreme prejudice who go about pointing fingers and chant "foul" at everybody instead of opening an AE thread like a decent person. Best I can see, no one was improperly canvassed in both threads. You're not helping a closer, you're derailing any chance for conversation. What makes the canvassing allegations even more ridiculous is a bit of an examination on the history of the editors involved. If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were part of a scheme to prevent input from less involved editors who might see your bickering and choose to avoid the drama. Seriously, what do you think you're doing? Helping the project by filling it up with drama? Citing IDHT is very appropriate as you're not hearing what you're being told. If that editor violated a policy take it to AE. Otherwise stop muddying the waters. <b>]'']''</b> 07:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Insidious plot to destroy the wiki? Isn't that your whole spiel with the whole terrorist are promoting their cause on wikipedia? That is the reason you opened that RFC in bad faith and inappropriately canvassed people via email and via the wikiproject France? There's no further reason for conversation once you have done such. It's very important regardless of what is said that no change is made from your effort. You don't hear that because somehow saying "the French are neutral" is some how relevant to you. It's not even remotely relevant. Your inappropriate canvass was not neutral, being the reason it was inappropriate. You using off wiki correspondence, such as email, is highly inappropriate. You are an advocacy editor. Your violating your topic ban now lol. There's no point to even discussing anything with you. If you don't want someone to "derail" a conversation consider actually having an honest attempt at seeking a consensus. You ended up getting boot from that conversation due to your canvassing. This is why this conversation amounts to nothing. Hell the only reason you violated your topic ban and started this conversation is because their effort forwards your advocacy.] (]) 10:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::I honestly couldn't continue reading after ''"That is the reason you opened that RFC"''. If you don't bother reading things properly and that absurd hyperbole and personal attacks you employ incessantly... you can't expect people to take you with good faith. You've been nothing but a disruptive force whenever editors have acted in an honest attempt to get input from the less involved community. This nonsense is just one example of a growing list. Summing up (yet again): If that editor violated a policy take it to AE. Otherwise stop muddying the waters.<b>]'']''</b> 12:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
:I loved your "what about the sport of boxing" comment. Should have gone with MMA on account of more blood pouring in it. Cock fighting springs to mind as well. I recently heard an interesting Mexican children's song on a cock learning to fight. Interesting anthropological stuff. Thinking about it and about your boxing comment is quite a thought experiment. Anyway, good to see an attempt at discussion. Best of luck. <b>]'']''</b> 00:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
::Good luck? Is this some type of competition to you? Is that why you continue to violate your topic ban? Thought Experiment? No boxing actually is violent. MMA would have been covered by the other contact sports comment. I mention boxing because of it's history. The condemnation of the sport, such as from medical professionals. The argument was that condoning a recognized right is condoning violence. Such an argument is in itself a request to broadly interpret a policy. But anyway, it's over now and the right thing was done, the userbox remains.] (]) 22:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
:::I honestly stopped reading after ''"Is this sometime of competition to you?"''. Your participation is incompetent if that is your response to a very benign compliment (per ''"good to see an attempt at discussion"''). I wish you the best of luck anyways. <b>]'']''</b> 21:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
::::My participation is incompetent? Because of my response to a snarky "compliment"? You started a discussion and then quickly derailed it by inappropriately canvassing users thru email and non-neutral messages. You have violated your topic ban by starting this very discussion. But it's all over now. You are topic banned from taking any effort to promote your change. Your change has failed. And the userbox that you have such a problem with remains. You seem to have a problem moving on but certainly good luck in doing so.] (]) 22:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::I distinctly remember asking you to stop dangling your canvassing allegation. Due to its weak nature, it was not reviewed even. As you insist on being a disruptive force, I stopped reading after ''"quickly derailed it by inappropriately"''. Try again please, this time with competence. <b>]'']''</b> 22:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::I thought it went without saying that I ignored that request. It's no surprise that you continue to deny your bad faith. That's one of the reasons your RFC failed and that is one of the reasons the MfD opened on your behalf failed. If you had been honest from the start you might have accomplished some part of what you are promoting. But you are "not" reading this and it's all over now, there's nothing left to say.] (]) 05:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::You are dishonest and lying out of your keyboard. Repeatedly. Anything you have proof for. Bring it forward. Otherwise, you are in violation making repeated bogus allegations. Imagine I would do the same, lumping you together with all the familiar names from the MfD. NSH, Nableezy, Nishidani, Zero et al. Now, that would be the only fair thing to do. Not just openly sharing an ideology, but voting patterns as well. Now if that's not canvassing.... loved your boxing argument. Certainly reminds me of the cartoon about a cock learning to fight. I guess when you're so immersed in something, you just can't see all the problems it creates. Best of luck with that. Anyways, I lost my exception by mentioning real world stabbing, so I can't divulge in the matter further. Cheers. <b>]'']''</b> 15:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::You calling anyone dishonest or a liar is a laugh riot. If you feel I'm in violation by all means take it to the appropriate location so we can get you banned.] (]) 15:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Laugh all you want. Regurgitating bogus allegations is why you're here. When you keep it up, it goes on the list. I or others on my "behalf" might take you to task for it. Your "behalf" will surely pop up again then, which should be a real laugh riot when it does. Best of luck.
:::::::::p.s. I have no behalf here and I am not looking for one. Your entire composition as a disruptive force is detrimental for the project's goals. Boxing as permitted violence in comparison with violence against random civilians. Pah! <b>]'']''</b> 23:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Take me to task then so when can go and get you banned. Pro-Tip: When you don't wish for people to make "bogus allegations" of you canvassing, don't actually canvass. Do not use private email correspondence (stealth canvassing) to contact people to seek their input when trying to change a policy. Do not advertise on an unrelated noticeboard with a non-neutral message (campaigning). Do not target people, like those at wikiproject France, on the basis of their association with to a recent terrorist attack. Attempting to appeal to their emotions in such a manner is highly dishonest and disrespectful. Since 2012 you have made no substantial contribution to wikipedia. Your primary contribution has been the same behavior that got you topic banned in the first place. You are a single purpose account and there's not anything in your contribution history suggests that you are here to help create an encyclopedia.
::::::::::P.S. Boxing is permitted violence as is fighting against an occupation force. The userbox, that you can't discuss due to your topic ban, a topic ban that you are trying to skirt, does not mention attacking civilians or purport to support that. Your sniping doesn't actually bother me. Let's review: The userbox remains. Your proposed changes to WP:UP did not succeed. You are still topic banned.] (]) 01:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
:Ah. But I don't care about that userbox. The principal is on whether or not it is allowed to promote violence against civilians on your user-page. For me, actually naming the party is more serious than not naming them and using ridiculous userboxes. You seem to think it is a matter of winning vs. losing. That is such an incompetent way of looking at wikipedia.
:p.s. it is pretty sad you use hyperbole and make things up, repeatedly, when discussing others' participation. If that is the norm, it would make a fine list indeed. <b>]'']''</b> 03:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
:p.p.s. "Fighting against occupation" sure sounds like a debased euphemism. I wonder if beheading is included in your profound definition... perhaps you don't read the news. <b>]'']''</b> 03:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
::No it's not about winning or losing to me but it actually is to you. Your a SPA that has been prevented from taking part in their single purpose. You came back after 3 years and climbed on same soapbox and got knocked off it. Make what up? The emails? Two users in the RFC you started make it clear that they were emailed by you. You are the one provided the evidence that you tried to manipulate the emotions of wikiproject France members due to the Paris attack. Euphemism? Yeah the 4th Geneva convention is a euphemism. Beheading? I've not promoted beheading or seen anyone on wikipedia due so. Before your already clear topic ban was clarified you were asked for an example of this on wikipedia. You failed to provide any. Well you did provide the userbox that you no longer care about now and something else. None of which matched your narrative. I'm going to let you get back to not editing wikipedia and you can go plan your next attempt for 3 years from now.] (]) 03:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
:::How about mowing random civilians down by ramming a car into a bus stop and leaving the car to stab the lot? Sounds a lot like 4th Geneva convention stuff. Pah! What do you think "violence against X" means exactly? Are you really that incompetent to compare it to boxing or is that a cheap trick to try and get a rise out of people like your "behalf", the genius and his Vietnam fighting dad? As long as you try to assign win/lose to someone's view it reflects on you. I could care less about what is permitted here. My interest is purely for even-handedness. You can imagine my "behalf" might be happy to add a few words supporting Jewish retaliation against terrorist activity as well as a few words that explain why it is within their natural right to do so. That is a basic human right and free speech as well. See, either it is permitted, or it isn't. Right now, you seem quite unclear on the matter. Beheadings are perfectly legitimate in the eyes of ISIS. Just because you and the geneva convention don't support it doesn't mean your peronsal bias against it should get in the way. Either promoting violence is allowed or it isn't. But you think you've won something. SMH. <b>]'']''</b> 09:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
:::This is all about a win to you. This is why you have been topic banned. Your inability to drop the stick and walk away. You have rhetoric and bad faith tactics, but no evidence or legitimate position for the change you promoted in that RFC. The same rhetoric you have here. Ramming random civilians? Who's promoting the ramming of random civilians on wikipedia or the beheading by ISIS? Where is this promotion at? You have the rhetoric. You have made the narrative. Where's the evidence? And boxing, you don't understand the argument. This is not surprising, you after all were arguing that the French are neutral as if that some how relevant to your bad faith canvassing. Note your own argument, "Either promoting violence is allowed or it isn't." Again boxing is violence. Your are arguing, as was argued, that the prohibition is against violence broadly construed and with no consideration. You aren't looking for an even hand. You are a single purpose account on a soapbox and it's the same soapbox your were on 3 years ago. The only change is now you've added ISIS to your rhetoric. Where is a wikipedia user promoting ISIS beheading on wikipedia? Where are they promoting ramming into civilians? It's not in Nableezy's userbox. Does it actually exist outside your head?] (]) 12:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
::::I honestly stopped reading after ''"This is why you have been topic banned."'' You haven't got a clue as to why I got herded off the site. I got fed up with text promoting stabbings and other forms of rising for "victory" against Jews, Israeli settlers, and Zionists. I went through proper channels, but as in every instance of this type, there are disruptive forces hanging about. I got fed up with them and allowed myself a farewell action from the topic. Whatever your interpretation of it as winning/losing is absurd incompetence. I won by allowing myself to either have the material taken off, or having the chance to leave the site peacefully. Which I did. As for your personal bias in favor of promoting beheading activity (aka "right to violence in favor of freedom from occupation"), that's great. Keep it up. <b>]'']''</b> 13:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::You did not get herded off the site. You got a boomerang for your tendentiousness. There's still a paper trail. Your contribution history. Your inability to drop stick. IDHT behavior. Again, you calling anyone incompetent is a laugh riot. And again I ask, Where are the diffs? Where are the diffs that I support or it's beheading? You have a narrative. You have rhetoric. People in occupied countries have the right to use violence to fight the occupying force. You don't like this? I'm not exactly sure how that is relevant. Maybe you could start a blog or write an angry letter to the UN to promote changing this.] (]) 22:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::When you compare a movement of violence that specifically targets civilians with boxing, you are basically condoning any violent activity. Any. Let's for a moment take your (naive) perspective about occupation and assume you have a point: From the near 300 Israelis (read: Jews) injured in the past 3 months, how many you think were occupying soldiers doing their subjugating work? Sample: ''"After hitting two people with his car, the assailant exited the vehicle and stabbed a pedestrian."'' Wait... wasn't this stabbing of pedestrians equivalent to boxing? As with your other misstatements, it is an incompetent argument. The one you chose to lead with after letting go of disruption. Not that it mattered since I know the usernames, gaming and tendentiousness patterns of of nearly every one who participated. Your "behalf" would ''support kicking Ronda Rousey in the face'' if it were passable (replace a few words in there). <b>]'']''</b> 07:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
:Here's a classic. Feel free to use it.
<blockquote>''Girl: "I do not fear the rifle''<br>
''because your throngs are in delusion and are ignorant herds''<Br>
''Jerusalem is my land, Jerusalem is my honor''<br>
''Jerusalem is my days and my wildest dreams''<br>
''Oh, you who murdered Allah’s pious prophets'' (i.e., Jews in Islamic tradition)<br>
''Oh, you who were brought up on spilling blood''<br>
''Oh Sons of Zion, oh most evil among creations''<br>
''Oh barbaric monkeys''<br>
''Jerusalem opposes your throngs''<br>
''Jerusalem vomits from within it your impurity'' <br>
''Because Jerusalem, you impure ones, is pious, immaculate''<br>
''And Jerusalem, you who are filth, is clean and pure''<br>
''I do not fear barbarity''<br>
''As long as my heart is my Quran and my city''<br>
''As long as I have my arm and my stones''<br>
''As long as I am free and do not barter my cause''<br>
''I will not fear your throngs, I will not fear the rifle"''<br>
''PA TV host: "Bravo! Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Palestine, we will never forget it."''</blockquote>
::If that is not your position, ''"Maybe you could start a blog or write an angry letter to the UN to promote changing this."''
::Best of luck. <b>]'']''</b> 07:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
:::Again, Where are the diffs showing that users are promoting the ISIS beheading or ramming civilians with cars? You keep violating your topic ban to discuss it so where is the evidence? Yes you have an endless stream oh nonsensical rhetoric and loads of meaningless comments that you can make, but where is the evidence that issue you are promoting actually exists on wikipedia? Any evidence at all? Where?] (]) 10:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
::::It is a matter of naive interpretation. You might think they are supporting new scientific methods when they say 'Intelligent Design', but it is still Creationism. You might think they are promoting heroic actions against an illegally occupying force when they write "armed resistance against Israeli aggression", but the user page that I was herded off Misplaced Pages for was and still is an open call to use any weapon available against random Jews wherever they may be. As for the userbox, I concur with Sandstein's view: ''I'll not remove this box, but I don't object if other admins want to. Yes, this is obviously a silly userbox, but we prohibit disruption, not silliness. As noted below, this general kind of "I hate someone!" userbox may at least be useful in quickly identifying problematic editors.'' Sandstein (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC). I care not if it stays or not and no one opened anything on my behalf. Your previous assertions of victory/loss only reflected on your views of the project. That you (supposedly) fail to see the true nature of these advocacy driven pages is reminds me of the Swedish MFA.
::::p.s. ISIS view is they fight against military occupation. I hope that much is clear to you.
::::-- <b>]'']''</b> 11:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::So in other words you don't have any evidence? Just rhetoric? Well I think that was already clear. Back and forth between you have an issue with Nableezy's box and you don't have an issue. The box is such evidence and I'm just to naive to see it but the box is not an issue at all. This type of nonsense is why you got "herded" off of wikipedia. Although you haven't been herded off of anything. You have been topic banned from editing ARBPIA articles where you have proven to cause alot of disruption that wastes. You are free to edit other articles. But you are a single purpose account here to advocate and this topic ban has prevented that.] (]) 11:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::From the example you requested: A Palestinian using an antisemitic piece where a Jew is a merciless blood thirsty villain seeking to purchase a living pound of flesh; abiding by the law, yet with a gruesome nature of his interpretation. Replacing the word 'Jew' (Shylock) with 'Palestinian'. It would only be a funny thing if it weren't meant as a call to attack Jews. As expected, it is followed by other similarly advocating quotes. ''"at the moment he realizes his humanity that he begins to sharpen the weapons with which he will secure his victory"''. It is not my failure when this bullshit stays on Misplaced Pages. It is incompetent to distinguish language and actions of "the resistance" (ISIS at el.) of nowadays.
::::::p.s. I was not a cause for disruption on any article. Feel free to check (unlike my provided example).
::::::Regards, <b>]'']''</b> 11:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::So again, no evidence? ] (]) 13:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::How about trying for a little competence? <b>]'']''</b> 16:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::I see one more mention of Tiamut's user (talk) page I'm going to ask that you be blocked. You are well aware that you have an interaction ban with her, and quoting from her page and claiming that it is "antisemitic" is a straightforward violation of that ban. Regards, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 18:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)</small>
::::::::::Shakespeare’s antisemitic depiction of Jews, esp. in the Merchant of Venice, is a known hot potatoe. I found myself herded off Misplaced Pages for a similar mistake as the one you've just made. Misinterpreting comments. Albeit, there was a major difference. I was fed up with content promoting attacks on innocent civilians, your mistaken reading makes false assumptions regarding someone I have no interest in whatsoever. I do not speak about them and don't have any interest in doing that. Serialjoepsycho missed how ISIS view is that they fight against military occupation puts a damper on his boxing argument. He also repeatedly made a few false claims about why I was topic banned and requested, (again, repeatedly), an exampled explanation.
::::::::::p.s. was a great laugh seeing all the familiar names on the userbox discussion vote stacking to keep it. I might have done the same but from the Sandstein point of view. Cheers. <b>]'']''</b> 19:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC) minor correction. <b>]'']''</b> 20:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::p.p.s. Here's a few words on . <b>]'']''</b> 21:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::{{ping|Nableezy}}
::::::::::How many times were you topic banned? If memory serves, there were at least four but I lost count at some point and I wouldn't want to write down the wrong number and misrepresent the facts. Asking first and accepting explanations, where reasonable, seems like better form than hyperbole and making shit up. Right?
::::::::::Let me know, <b>]'']''</b> 22:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::Jaak, with all due respect, how many times Ive been topic banned isnt really relevant to your existing topic and interaction ban. One more mention of Tiamut or her page and I will ask that the ban be enforced with a block. And as the violation is happening on your talk page that block should include edits to your own talk page. You are directly quoting from her userpage, that is a violation of your ban. If you want to challenge that fine, but just as Im fairly certain you will, once again, be proven wrong. As far as your question, Im pretty sure every ban of mine is listed on my user page, so add em up if it makes you feel better. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 03:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)</small>
:::::::::::::Obviously, if there are false claims on my page, I have to explain why they are false. Making it personal is your doing and I reject that way of thinking. As for your user page, it does not list your bans. How many were there? <b>]'']''</b> 07:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::Still no evidence? <s>Me topic banned? Change that 4 to a 0.</s>] (]) 23:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::You've reached your highest level of incompetence. <b>]'']''</b> 00:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::And yet where is the evidence?] (]) 00:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::First step made. Now, take another. Read a bit, you will find it, then ignore it and repeat your last 6 words. A reversion to the disruptive behavior this thread was started over. <b>]'']''</b> 07:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I'll find where you suggested something without providing any evidence of it. Your willing to attempt to manipulate the emotions of people due to recent terrorist activities and attempt to them to a discussion. This is so much simpler, show that the issue you have been so disruptive about actually exists on wikipedia and is not taken care of. You've not provided evidence of this. You say that people are promoting the ramming of civilians and the beheading by ISIS. Where? I can say the grass is purple but that doesn't actually make the grass purple. If I said the Capital of Tennessee is Jackson that wouldn't actually make the capital Jackson. You want continue to violate your topic ban, first by coming to my talk page and inserting yourself into a discussion you are banned from and Then continuing to do so on your talk page. You are not concerned at all with it. So again, where is this evidence?] (]) 09:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::When you repeat bogus allegations over and over, it is Misplaced Pages's policy that this is improper. I notified you of this and in our discussion here, which you opened, have reminded you of this several times more. Visiting your page with a reminder about policy does not amount to being involved in content discussions on another page. Your reaction, starting a conversation here, rejecting the policy, and explaining why you think your boxing comment was worthwhile was taken with good faith and not as a baiting attempt. I cannot help but discuss it with you here once you've opened a discussion about it. Topically, you defended the right to act with violence against "occupation". I explained this to be tantamount to arguing an ISIL supporter -- they view their territory as occupied and act with violence. You rejected the premise and made bogus allegations as to why I'm not editing the subject of I-P anymore. If I did not think it were a baiting attempt, I might think it now. Gaming the system to try and get other editors banned is improper conduct. Either you have faith in your argument, or you shouldn't bring it up. <b>]'']''</b> 10:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::If I was trying to get you banned I would took you to AE when you violated your topic ban by starting this conversation on my topic page. I could have done so at any of the many points thru out this conversation where you have violated your topic ban. I have made no bogus allegations against you. You did canvass users via email to the RFC at WP:UP. You did canvass people from wikiproject France. These aren't allegations. These are already known facts. I've not rejected the policy at all. I've rejected an interpretation of that policy that you support and an interpretation that failed to achieve a consensus at the mfd. I reject that the portion of the policy that mentions violence is to be broadly construed. It refers to only grossly improper violence. Legal actions that are violent such as boxing or using violence against military occupation forces are not grossly improper. There is no legitimately recognized military occupation in lands under control of ISIS. Your argument that supporting a principle in international law is tantamount to supporting ISIS is simply asinine. Though I note your cop out, you suggesting that people are supporting ISIS and ramming cars and such in to civilians is not new to this conversation. Your are an immensely disruptive force to wikipedia and I should never even wasted my time talking to you after your bad faith became clear. That became clear quickly into the RFC when you started canvassing people. However none the less, put up or shut up. Where are these supporters of ISIS beheading on wikipedia or these supporters of ramming cars into civilians? Where is a legitimate justification for your proposed changes to wikipedia? Oh, that's right, you don't have any.] (]) 12:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::I noted ] to you and suggested we close this matter properly by bringing it up for review. You can't reject dispute resolution and insist you are right. That is the definition of TE. As for "grossly improper violence", that really depends on interpretation. Now that you're finally addressing the ISIL example, I can note to you that there are about a billion people (possibly more) who do consider the middle easy as occupied territory. Iran, Turkey, the US, Russia, France et al. They have extensive military presence in the region. Thus, the term "legitimately" is up for your personal view. To top things off, you focus on the term 'against military', but we both know who are the main targets. There's further explanation to this above. It wouldn't hurt if you read it. To cap things off: ''"The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited."'' - Passed 11 to 0
::::::::::::::::::-- <b>]'']''</b> 14:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::I am right. I don't need to go to AE to prove myself right. Ed Johnston pointed out that it was canvassing. Why would I go to AE because a bad faith editor exclaims they were not canvassing? The issue is already stale. It has been resolved. You were removed from the conversation and that conversation resolved with no consensus for your change. Go open another RFC and canvass users in bad faith via email or thru non-neutral messages that try to manipulate peoples emotions due to a recent disaster. I'm not aware of a Billion people who find the middle east to be occupied. The Palestinian territories (including East Jerusalem) and the Golan Heights are occupied. This is a small part of the middle east. Syria and Iraq are not under the effective provisional control of the United States, Iran, Turkey, Russia or Etc. It's occupied if you feel it's occupied is an asinine argument.There's a fringe movement suggesting Hawaii is under military occupation. I focus on "against military" because that is the right. I'm sure the purpose of your rant about attacking civilians. The fact that some groups do illegally attack civilians does not take away from their right to attack military occupation forces. The Userbox does not promote the support of attacking civilians. It promotes a legitimate action. This is no different than a userbox that supports boxing. You just don't like it. It's always funny to see single purpose accounts target advocacy. It's always one sided. Something that doesn't align with their single purpose. I'm not going to be for censorship simply because someone doesn't like something. There's been people that don't like boxing.] (]) 16:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
:a) What does "bad faith editor" mean?
:b) What is stale is not your repeated claims, that posting on WikiFrance was canvassing, but my policy related discussion. Deemed an extension into the ban due to my mentioning of a wave of stabbing attacks in Israel as a lead. Insisting on your point does not negate my earlier response to the WikiFrance message. IDHT won't turn your argument right. Rejecting dispute resolution and repeating unsubstantiated claims is TE.
:c) You mention an occupation that is a bit of a complex matter. e.g., there's an historic matter and in your brief note you made a clear mistake where you assigned the Golan to, but I won't go further into this Israel connected matter since I'm sure someone will end up taking me to task for it. As for your claims that Syria and Iraq are not under "effective provisional control", I did not state my own opinion but a widely accepted one among the residents of the Levant and like-minded hundreds of millions outside the Levant. E.g., (relevant quote: ''"we launched two fronts against the enemies of Islam in Iraq and Syria"'', ''"No to humiliation!"''). Here's another (relevant quote: ''"By Allah, we will revenge."'', ''"France was the beginning, and tomorrow it will be Washington, New York, and Moscow."''). Both these examples could be wikilawyered as "against military", but that would be a lie as to who these groups really target.
:d) There is nothing wrong with an editor caring mostly about a specific topic as long as they care about the nature of the project being an encyclopedia which respects mainstream views. There is something wrong, as stated in the 'Passed 11 to 0' ARBCOM decision, with using the project for other purposes. Is it that you fail to understand that decision or that you choose to ignore it because you believe you are right and Misplaced Pages user-space should be used as a forum for advocacy?
:-- <b>]'']''</b> 09:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
::a) Use a dictionary.
::b)My repeated claims are not stale and you wish to take action by all means do so. An unsubstantiated claim is a lacking evidence. The facts I pointed out about your canvassing have been substantiated.
::c)1500 years ago? Would you like to point out another irrelevant detail? This would be like me going to England and telling them they must give me citizenship because of some Celtic ancestry. It's an appeal to emotion and not a legal argument. I made no mistake about Golan. It's occupied. It's a part of Syria. The illegal and unrecognized annexation of it by Israel does not change this. Here's a source that talks about the Hawaiian occupation . It's still a fringe movement lacking legitimacy, like your claim that Golan and Palestinian terrirtories are not occupied and Syria and Iraq are.
::d)The is nothing with a neutral editor mostly caring about one topic. You are not a neutral editor. Advocacy is excluded. Not completely. On user pages editors are given plenty of leeway. The difference between the boxing userbox and the userbox in question is you do not support this advocacy in the latter. Advocacy alone is not enough to call for deletion.] (]) 22:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
:::c) I did not say anything about the occupation status regarding Israel, only that it is a complex subject with more than one viewpoint, I did say your statement was incorrect regarding the Golan. Specifically, I've misread that you thought Syria was Palestinian. Rereading it, I see it was my own blunder. I'm sure now that you don't think so. Still, you've made a mistake in thinking Syria exists. Ten years ago, sure. But who would you return the territory to now? P.S. mock it as much as you like, but historically speaking, the Golan was Israelite territory. Considering the population shift in the Levant between 1850-1950, perhaps you should try extending your Celtic arguments to everybody rather than just the side you agree with. Might extend your perspective just doing that as a thought experiment.
:::d) You haven't read my words if you think I care about that silly user-box. I said it before and I'll say again that I don't. I specifically talked about promotion of violence against civilians and made clear that games as well as clear advocacy have been used. Your leeway argument extends into anything that involves your political persuasion, but you've not been neutral enough to see that your pro-violence argument extends to include any form of mukawama as well, including current "military aggression" in the Levant and the freedom fighters resisting it. You say "military", but the targets have been mostly civilians. To advocate your political persuasion in a real world conflict on your userpage is not akin to saying "I love boxing". ARBCOM ruled on this 11 to 0. That a few examples, all in the topic I am barred from, have been allowed to circumvent policy is a long term detriment to the project. The users who promote use of this site for advocacy complain about IPs popping up with another view -- this can mostly be blamed on their own activity as well as the activity of enablers, e.g. . On the enabling topic, we still didn't get a reply how many times Nableezy was topic banned. I'd like to think myself capable of more neutrality than him. i.e. I don't look at Misplaced Pages as a battlefield.
:::-- <b>]'']''</b> 04:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
::::Most your retort is asinine, if not all of it. I can't be bothered to read it all. You've not shown evidence of a userbox or etc that anyone of wikipedia supports or condones attacking civilians yet this unrelated conversation you keep inserting in. You don't care about that box and you care about that userbox. It's all one side and takes no consideration beyond the POV that you came to Misplaced Pages to push. The difference between you and nableezy is that they are not currently topic banned. As far as you being more neutral... Well I've not seen Nableezy post a non-neutral canvass that is a an appeal to emotion to an RFC who might be sympathetic due to a recent terrorist attack but are in no way related to the RFC that was created. I've seen you do that.] (]) 06:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::Have you really missed the same names in every discussion? You think Nableezy and Nishidani were watching WP:UP? Pah! Anyway, you consider proper arguments "asinine" and reject the ARBCOM conclusion. Your pro-violence argument includes ISIL supporting test just as much as it does attacks on the civilians of Tel Aviv. Should be fun to see the growth of that argument with the inevitable growth in violence in Europe and the US in upcoming years. Best of luck. <b>]'']''</b> 08:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::Proper argument? Your argument is shear idiocy. You keep talking about attacks on civilians but again where is the evidence of wikipedia users promoting violence against civilians. The userbox that you do care about and don't care about doesn't contain it. I don't reject ARBCOM conclusion. I reject your conclusions. The userbox does not advocate any political persuasion in any real world conflict. It advocates for a real world right and it advocates against unilateral admin action in place of an actual consensus. You are an incompetent editor. You go to wikiproject France and appeal to emotion. Here you make an appeal to fear. You aren't even capable of an honest discussion. You want to mention those two say there aren't neutral and shouldn't have taken part in that RFC. This is not actually the case. It's really just another sign of your incompetence. But let's pretend for a moment that was the case and it was wrong of them to take part in the RFC. How's right for you to open that RFC if it was wrong for them to take part in it because they are not neutral? Let's ignore that you were topic banned. You are highly biased and take actions specifically to bias the discussion such as your canvassing. Again, here the appeal to fear. It is a universal right for people to fight against colonial domination, alien occupation and/or racist regimes. They have a customary international law to not attack non-combatants. But oh, because I point out the fact that they have that right, soon America will be attacked by Muslim terrorists. Muslims already commit acts of Terrorism in the United States and Europe. Jewish Extremists were responsible for 7% of terrorist attacks in the USA from 1980 to 2005. Muslim Extremists were responsible for 6%. But this now going to somehow change because someone mentions a right on wikipedia that has existed longer than wikipedia by decades. ] (]) 10:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::You ignore what I wrote about the userbox, and, it would seem, did not read what I wrote about Shylock. On top of that, it would seem you are arguing in support of Jewish terrorist activities in the US, or alleging that I would have. My point, again, is that promoting violence against civilians, using Misplaced Pages for advocacy is not permissible. That you give leeway to one kind of it, opens the door to any type of it, including ISIL related "resistance". You can't skip reading the arguments of others, insist on your correctness, reject dispute resolution, wikilawyer ARBCOM decisions - and consider your actions neutrally motivated and/or proper. Or can you? <b>]'']''</b> 13:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::More IDHT behavior on your part. I just skipped to the bottom. I haven't rejected dispute resolution. You are free to open any dispute resolution that you wish. Do of course mind your topic ban.] (]) 21:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Though it was obvious, I appreciate your conceding to skipping what was written. Have you read what I wrote about Shylock? <b>]'']''</b> 12:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::No. Because again you have said something exists on Misplaced Pages but again provided no verification. So what dispute resolution process are you opening?] (]) 12:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::You need a diff in order to find the page which includes the misused Shylock text or is that a baiting attempt? <b>]'']''</b> 13:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::I need a diff to verify this exists. I need a diff to review what is said and what is in context. It's not a baiting attempt at all. If you would violate your topic ban by providing a diff you have already violated it by discussing it in the first place. By opening this conversation in the first place you violated your topic ban. Besides the fact you are not a trust worthy individual, it's just a good policy on wikipedia to verify everything. you'd probably be better served by not providing a diff and not discussing the matter at all.] (]) 15:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::You're smart enough to find what you need without the actual diff. Pretty sure you've found it already and insist on playing dumb. Considering the boxing argument, maybe I'm wrong. <b>]'']''</b> 20:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::It's possible that I could but the onus is on you to make your own case. Noting the dishonesty you've already shown there's little reason for me to put any effort in by searching for evidence for you.] (]) 23:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
:Just as before, when you were hiding your strong political affiliation while chanting "no one needs to disclose anything", you're being dishonest. I was upfront about my activity. You, on the other hand, were not and you again, and again (again again again...) repeat bogus statements and allegations. This thread was opened because you can't resist the temptation to make false allegations. Try to get over yourself. Don't take a page from the company you keep. Now, take that onus if you truly believe in your argument. Otherwise, you're just being ridiculously repetitive. <b>]'']''</b> 00:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
::I'm not hiding any strong political affiliation. I'm not affiliated with any political group. I can not help that you lack the competency to understand what a conflict of interest is. I've not made any false allegations. You have canvassed people. Either you now denying it in bad faith or your lack the competency to understand another policy. It doesn't matter to me which. The onus? That's on you. We are still waiting for your evidence. The onus is not on me to seek out the evidence for the case you have made.] (]) 01:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
:::* '''Canvassing:''' I've said this a few times before, but here goes again. We disagree about the interpretation of the WP:CANVASS policy. I've linked to the allowed section a few times but I'm not sure if you've taken the time to look it up. Assuming the best, You read it but still disagree and use one comment which I believe was not a thorough examination but simply based itself on your estimation. If you want to continue insisting on your interpretation, it is only fair to bring this for dispute resolution. I am willing to renegotiate my perspective per community values. You, on the other hand, insist on TE. If you believe in your perspective so much, put it up to the task.
:::* '''Boxing vs. Violent "resistance":''' Carlos Latuff, a person of high consideration among militant endeavors, understands that there is no difference between one mukawama and another mukawama. . Pardon me if I am wrong with my understanding of your views, but it seemed you agree with freedom of speech on user-pages (against ARBCOM ruling of 11 to 0) when it comes to one conflict in particular but reject that same promotion and advocacy when it comes to another. This is not how the project should work and it is a shame that you allow your personal (naive) understanding of one conflict persuade you off a neutral examination of the issue.
:::* '''Onus:''' It is clear that I am not at liberty here. If you think your argument is worthwhile. Make it without wikilawyering.
:::-- <b>]'']''</b> 16:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
::::You have referenced ] while ignoring the actual policy. Ignoring ] with your particular use of email. You were ''campaigning'' in that email as well as over at wikiproject France. You were also ''votestacking'' by contacting wikiproject France, your advertisement was highly bias. They are not a wikiproject related to the RFC and you were hoping they would sympathize with your opinion due to the Paris Attack. You specifically invoked the Paris attack for this purpose. You are free to take this to any dispute resolution that you wish. I'd urge you against it. They will either find that you don't have the competency to understand clearly written policy or they will find that you are wikilawyering in bad faith. I have actually figured out which is the problem yet myself.


::::Great for Carlos. It's not actually relevant to the discussion. But certainly great for him. It's a simple matter. Under international law Occupied people have the right to use force to fight their occupier. They can attack any part of the occupation force other than those deemed non-combatants under international law. Be it France during World War II, Palestine in 2015, or the Galaga Empire in 2255. You have a problem with this specific advocacy but not other advocacy on wikipedia, probably due to your personal relation with this. Advocating for a right that may be violent is not different than advocating for a violent sport. Neither of which violate the traditional leeway given to user pages.
== Solomon / Shalom / Peace ==


::::Liberty? No Liberty? The onus regardless remains with you. My case had been made. The user bo that you can't decide whether you care about or not remains. the situation is resolved.] (]) 04:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey Jaakobou, I noticed that a little while ago you removed the claim that "Solomon" or "Sulaymin" are cognate with "Shalom" or "Salaam" meaning "peace". You said that whoever wrote that must have been unfamiliar with old Hebrew. The ''American Heritage Dictionary'' thinks that Solomon = S-L-M = peace, and so does ], () who I'm pretty sure is familiar with Old Hebrew! &lt;]/]]&gt; 00:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


:::::* Your interpretation of campaigning is absurd. I did not use a single argument in my message in favor or against my suggestion. On top of that, I only wished for clarification on the policy -- I have no preferred version. ''Votestacking'' is what your little clique is doing. I am against such deplorable actions. I am willing to renegotiate my perspective per community values, not per your repetition of the same assertions.
:i wasn't aware that americans are suddenly an authority on hebrew and it's structure. the root S-L-M means whole, the extra meaning of peace is not the original one, and it most certainly was not the meaning of bible day names who are all (almost all) refer to god in some manner... shlomo (solomon), means the wholeness of god or god is complete, or god made me complete with this child... it has nothing to do with peace and anyone who writes that it is, is making an error, even if they are supposedly a serious scholar. the root S-L-M is older than the hebrew language and it's been used for example in jerusalem at its creation -- i just now went over , and to be frank, i'm shocked at how much room is given to the peace interpretation of the "Some say it means" compared to the ] one.
:::::* ARBCOM ruled about advocacy in favor of terrorist attacks on civilians. Yes, assuming good faith, advocacy for mukawama is not equal to your naive interpretation. But even assuming the advocacy explicitly states one military or another rather than the more serious suggestion to 'stab', 'vengeance', 'humiliation' and 'victory' or some other mukawama clap-trap, it is a violation of the ARBCOM ruling. Latuff's cartoons on Syria are a good example of "occupation" in the minds of mukawama. At least he's consistent.
:p.s. the root can mean peace, but not in a biblical name. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 09:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::* Your arguments do not gain credence just because I'm not at liberty.
:::::-- <b>]'']''</b> 19:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Your use of the Paris attack to promote your RFC is absurd, loathsome, and dishonest. You weren't asking for clarification, you wee asking for a change to the policy. My clique? Who's that? Anyone that doesn't agree with you? You actually seeking to bias a discussion by bringing in others using dishonest tactics is not the same as individuals such as my self independently showing up.


:::::::We are not talking about advocacy in favor of terrorist attacks, We are talking about advocacy in favor of an international right. "But the terrorist say they are fighting against Military occupation." And yet Hawaiians state they are under military occupation. Neither meet the definition under international law of Military occupation. Neither are viewed with any actual legitimacy. It's just half ass straw grasping argument on your part. Or I could assume good face and view you as completely incompetent. It's one or the other.
::Uhm, Aryeh Kaplan is obviously well aware of Hebrew and its structure, being best known for his English translation of the Torah. I'm really not going to take this on your authority alone... have you any references? &lt;]/]]&gt; 16:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


:::::::I've taken view to the mfd. The mfd resolved with no consensus for deletion. Your arguments were brought by others. I'm satisfied with the results. Your not. I have no reason to do anything further. I've asked you to provide evidence that people are promoting car attacks on civilians or beheading by ISIS as you have suggest they have. This is a legitimate concern. Instead you've chosen to rant. I have no reason to take any further action the subject, especially not when it's because a user who doesn't understand simple wikipedia polices (wp:canvass for instance) is unsatisfied. I've continued this battleground discussion only because I wrongly assumed that you might provide evidence of an actual issue but it's remained a battleground since you violated your topic ban and started this discussion on my talk page. This matter is resolved.] (]) 21:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
:::i looked a bit for references on the web and couldn't find a proper one (just yet). after that, i went over the biblical text - per samuel 2, chapter 12 verses 13-25 (first mention of solomon in the biblical text) - going over the context, i can now understand why someone would attribute the term "peace" to the name - however, i don't believe this to be the correct meaning of the hebrew text (there is no implication for such an interpretation), and plan on calling a friend of mine (tomorrow) to help me out finding the midrash related text (i don't have the related books). i'll keep you posted. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 22:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::p.s. where does arieh kaplan say this root means peace? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 22:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


::::::::* ''absurd, loathsome, and dishonest'' - Your opinion on the matter was duly noted several times already (). If you believe in the veracity of such an accusative and inappropriately repetitive statement ('Comment on content, not contributors.'), don't be TE about it. I'd be happy to see what "independently showing up" means when you finally agree to open it for review (one can be optimistic).
::::In the commentary attached to his English translation of the Bahir, on page 130; the details are all in the citations on ], and if the Google Books link given above isn't working for you (it decides what you're allowed to see based on what you've already read) I'll transcribe the relevant portion. &lt;]/]]&gt; 22:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::* ''advocacy in favor of an international right'' - *smh* is that really what's been advocated by Nableezy (*wave*), Nishidani and the unmentionable, undiscoverable Shylock? You're really only fooling yourself. As for "legal" definitions, you're ignoring the other legal definition of more than a billion people. That you don't like it in one particular context doesn't make this a straw argument. I used Latuff as example. Your response was: "It's not actually relevant to the discussion. But certainly great for him."
::::::::* Any mfd should not be "resolved" while people misunderstand policy and involved parties chime in and vote stack with numbers. Even then, I've noted several times my view that said userbox does not advocate anything other than stupidity and I would have supported it myself had I been allowed. I don't understand why you continually bring this anti-example forward. My lack of examples on attacks on civilians are a result of not being at liberty and that the only examples of pure advocacy I've encountered are in this topic area. Considering systematic bias, I doubt any such "sharpen the weapons", and "victory" proclamations would be permitted to remain outside the scope in which I am not at liberty. This is quite unfortunate considering this type of advocacy is at the core of daily racially motivated attacks on civilians ().
::::::::p.s. reminder: I placed a notice on your page to avoid repeated accusations against fellow editors.
::::::::-- <b>]'']''</b> 13:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
== File:Islam What the West Needs to Know - Back Cover.gif listed for discussion ==
] A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] ] ] 00:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
== Palestinian terrorists listed at ] ==
]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Palestinian terrorists'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 22:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


== ]: Voting now open! ==
:::::Thank you for repeating the input in the link, I missed it in your first comment. Going over the extra input, and discussing it also with a "talmid chaham" (smart student) friend of mine, I can now completely understand where the Peace translation comes from... apparently, there is a "source" attribution by scholars to the 'chronicles' mythology text... this text is believed to have been written some 100-200 years after Solomon died and in it David is saying that god told him he'll give Solomon peace and that should be his name... a less religious scholar than Aryeh Kaplan, would go by the "original" text (from the actual period) in Samuel 2 where it is told that David lost a previous son because of his sins (and despite not eating anything) and afterwards attests to the greatness of god by naming his son Shlomoh... anyways, even though i still believe the orthodox peace interpretation to be incorrect, i am faced with a serious referenced perspective. I won't contest this interpretation in the future. cheers. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 13:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


{{Ivmbox|Hello, Jaakobou. Voting in the ''']''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
== AN/I ==


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You should know about . ] (]) 01:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
==Your e-mail==
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
A few notes from your e-mail - I choose to reply in public rather than hide on messenger.
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/19&oldid=750577592 -->
*''"I have noticed that recently you have constantly been lashing out against my edits and assuming that I'm a bad editor doing harm on purpose"''
== ] listed for discussion ==
**I have been "lashing out" against your edits since I came into contact with you. You know full well that you are a "bad" editor and that not only are you one of the biggest POV-pushers around, you are guilty of being probably the worst violator of ] that I have come across. The evidence I put on ] (multiple instances of blocked for breaking ], of reverting "vandalism" of others <sup> </sup>, accusing others of censorship <sup></sup> and violations of ] (constant of a massive criticism section at ])) is only part of what I hold against you.
] A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. <!-- User:FastilyBot/Task12Note -->
*''"I believe you are a sensible editor involved in much more on wikipedia than the Israeli-Arab conflict, therefore more neutral than many of the other editors involved"''
<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">ATTENTION</span>: This is an automated, ]-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details. Thanks, ] (]) 23:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
**How two faced are you? You constantly accuse me of having "POV issues" and telling me to adhere to ]. Then coming to me in private and saying that I am a "sensible" and "neutral" editor?!? What is up with you?
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
*''"I can probably explain my overall position to you by instant messaging"''
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].
**I know your overall position. You are an unashamed anti-Palestinian POV pusher. I might describe you as pro-Israel, but that is an insult to good Zionist editors who do not let their personal opinions affect their work. Your entire purpose on Misplaced Pages is to denigrate Palestinians. Whilst on a very few occasions you may well have a point (I also believe the ] "killing" was most likely staged), you take it way too far and I personally do not believe that you can ever be a productive editor on controversial Middle Eastern topics. Yes, there are also unashamed anti-Israeli POV pushers on here. However, on occasions where someone has come in to a disputed article with an actual ] stance, you will still push for a more pro-Israel slant, whereas the Palestinian POV pushers tend to leave it at that. I would suggest the only way to redeem yourself is to leave such topics well alone and work on something such as getting rid of all the redlinks at ] or something similar.
] ]] 11:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
:sent you a reply. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 12:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd notice --> ] (]) 14:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
== Detwinkled ==
==] nomination of ]==
]
{{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}}
A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the page appears to be an unambiguous ]. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/5334594.stm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of ''information'', but not as a source of ''sentences''. This part is crucial: ''say it in your own words''. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators '''will be ]'''.


If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Misplaced Pages to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you ''must'' verify that externally by one of the processes explained at ]. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see ] for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at ] for more details, or ask a question ].
Due to persistant misuse of the tool; - I've removed twinkle from your monobook and protected it for two weeks. When you are able to readd it, please be more careful with the tool. ] 13:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. <!-- Template:Db-copyvio-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ] (]) 03:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
:i'm not sure why this de-twinkle was implemented (the large amount of diffs say very little) and would appreciate some explanation. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 13:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
== "Disputed territories (Gaza Strip, Judea and Samaria)" listed at ] ==
::You shouldn't be using automated reversion tools in content dispute - all those diffs I point to above are you using the tool whilst in a content dispute. When you decide to revert another user in the future, please do it manually and give a fell explanation for doing so in the edit summary. ] 13:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it ]. This discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)</small> 15:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:44, 18 June 2023

Aah!
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
Ooh!
The man who smiles when things go wrong has thought of someone to blame it on.
The man who smiles when things go wrong has thought of someone to blame it on.
The In-Control Wikipedian Barnstar: for keeping cool and in-control while in a dispute. The Rescue from Deletion Barnstar: For restructuring and setting up wikification guidelines on 'Revolving door policy (Palestinian Authority)'. The Israeli Barnstar of National Merit: For Israel/Palestine related articles. The Golden Wiki Award: For helping Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Political parties. WikiCookie: For constructive edits on Misplaced Pages. The Working Man's Barnstar: For efforts on the Wiki Page of CMKC. The Special Barnstar: For creating a Wiki Page on Haim Farhi. The WikiProject:Islam Barnstar: For "long-suffering" on Battle of Jenin. Break icon Valued image contribution: Lieut. Col. Danny Magen Valued image contribution: Stamp of Yehoshua Hankin Valued image contribution: Albert Einstein (Cropped) Valued image contribution: Albert Einstein (Full) DYK contribution: Stern House DYK contribution: Yaakov Bodo DYK contribution: Shaike Levi DYK contribution: Asi Cohen DYK contribution: Mark Goffeney DYK contribution: CMKC Group DYK contribution: Shnaim Ohazin DYK contribution: Bli Sodot Featured content: File:Sadat and Begin clean3.jpg Featured content: Muhammad al-Durrah incident Featured content: Image:Peasant Family of Ramallah 1900-1910.jpg Featured content: Image:17th century Central Tibeten thanka of Guhyasamaja Akshobhyavajra, Rubin Museum of Art2.png Featured content: Image:Three chiefs Piegan p.39 horizontal.png Featured content: Israel
Soxred93 edit summary
(refresh) Thursday 9 January17:28 UTC

Welcome to Jaakobou's talk page.

Please see Is it already prohibited? (Question to ARBCOM).

Talk page guidelines

Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and try to be be polite.


If you're new to Misplaced Pages, see WP:UP#POLEMIC and WP:ARBPIA#Purpose_of_Wikipedia
If you're you're Jewish, though, WP:IGNORE content which promotes violence against your people.

The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.
~Albert Einstein

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

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)

Hello. I would like to connect with you if you are still active. February 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:9003:DC6:90E8:7FB0:77C8:E517 (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:ANEW

Please stop removing nableezy's comment from WP:ANEW. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 03:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

He's stepped on my edit, breaking my bullet structure, and I was in the process of reinserting them. The guy can't even wait 10 seconds to allow someone to finish adding a diff to his edit. I can't stress this enough, but a pressure cooker would handle the situation better.
Anyways, thanks for the note. I'm hoping you can extend my sentiments of the matter to Nableezy. Jaakobou 03:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

VPC

You are being contacted because you have in the past participated in the Valued Picture project. The VPC project is suffering from a chronic lack of participation to the point that the project is at an impasse. A discussion is currently taking place about the future of this project and how to revitalize the project and participation. If you're interested in this project or have an idea of how to improve it please stop by and participate in the discussion.

— raekyT 10:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy's talkpage

When I remove something from my talk page do not reinsert it. I think you already know that should not be done, so dont do it anymore. If you want to waste your time leaving a note you know will be removed you can, but dont reinsert it once removed. nableezy - 13:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't be held accountable for an update overriding your comment removal.
p.s. it is poor form to mention someone by name and then remove their comment.
Warm regards, Jaakobou 15:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
PS, I dont care what you think is "poor form". One of two things happened. You either saw I removed the comment and reinserted making a small addition, or you immediately attempted to make the addition, in which case you would have gotten an edit conflict and then would have seen the comment had been removed. And then you saved it anyway. Either way, dont revert me on my own talk page. That is "poor form". nableezy - 16:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I haven't reverted you. Jaakobou 16:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


Heyo

I've sent you an email. Jaakobou 02:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the Gideon Levy article; I do not want to be involved in the dispute. -- tariqabjotu 02:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Mitzpe Ha'ai

Mitzpe Ha'ai is the outpost pictured in the satellite photos here, as identified by Peace Now, and also named Givat Ha'ai. Are you really claiming that PN would be compelled by its "fringe" agenda to make this outpost up?--Carwil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not the outpost exists and is called by that name, it is not in the report Peace Now claimed as their source of information. We cannot use sources that repeatedly falsify information even if some of their input is correct.
p.s. Please don't address Peace Now publications as factual, they've been disproven countless times.
With respect, Jaakobou 07:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page

You are not allowed to revert me on my own talk page to reinsert comments I have removed. You have done this multiple times now, so now let me make the following point to you crystal clear. I dont care what you think is "disruptive", "gaming", "uncivil" or really anything else. Accusing me of saying you are "lying" with a diff in which I do not say you are lying is just icing on the cake in that it demonstrates just how dishonest and intentionally disruptive you are. Stay off my talk page, there is nothing that I wish to discuss with you at all. I only do so on article talk pages because I have to. Thankfully, my own talk page is not a place where I have to suffer <redacted> quietly. Bye. nableezy - 15:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

AE refactor of Nableezy's filing

You're walking on very thin ice over there, and likely to see administrative action against yourself for refactoring Nableezy's filing. I highly suggest self-reverting. ← George 22:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


Do NOT edit my comments or change my complaint. If you wish to open a complaint against me or against me and Shuki feel free to do so. nableezy - 22:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, and based on the discussion in this AE thread, you are hereby admonished for personal attacks and ad hominem comments and are prohibited from commenting on or interacting with Nableezy (talk · contribs) anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Please see WP:IBAN for the complete scope of the interaction ban. If you believe that Nableezy has violated their ban from interacting with you, you may not react to that alleged violation except by the procedure specified in the AE thread linked above. T. Canens (talk) 22:05, 29 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) 08:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of Jewish control of the media

Hi, Just to let you know that I support most of what you're arguing over there. I'm currently in a state of semi-retirement from WP and so am only making passing comments. I had tried to get JayJG involved but haven't followed up the reply he gave me. Basically, I think the anti-Semitic origins of much discussion of the relationship between Jews and the media needs to be highlighted and I regard the conspiratorial elements as crucial to this.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Bli-Sodot stamp.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bli-Sodot stamp.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Kelly 08:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Jaakobou, Thank you for your post on AE. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Your AE request

Hi, this is to let you know that another administrator has asked you to explain why you should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous request. If you choose not to offer the requested explanation, you may be made subject to sanctions.  Sandstein  20:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning: Arab-Israeli conflict

Hello. For the reasons explained by another administrator and I at WP:AE#Tiamut (permalink), you are warned not to make clearly meritless requests for enforcement, especially requests that make obvious misrepresentations of fact. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

AE

WP:AE#Jaakobou. nableezy - 13:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Closed without action, but please be more careful. Good luck and happy editing. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

By motion of the Arbitration Committee voted on at requests for amendment,

The editing restrictions placed on Nishidani (talk · contribs) in the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Nishidani is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply.

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold 17:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

AE

WP:AE#Jaakobou. nableezy - 06:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion

There is an item omited that I would like inserted

This is the source of the omission http://raleighstshul.blogspot.com/ Scroll down to Grey Shirts Trial

"The trial, which opened in July 1934, was heard in the Eastern Cape Divi­sion of the Supreme Court in Grahamstown before the Judge President, Sir Thomas Graham. The local and over­seas press gave great prominence to the court proceedings. F.G. Reynolds K.C. (later a judge) assisted by Will Stuart (later a so-called ‘Native Repre­sentative’ in Parliament) appeared for the Rev. A. Levy of the Port Elizabeth Western Road Synagogue."

The suggestion is that you create a new sub heading between Switzerland and The Berne Trial, 1934–1935

Entitled "South Africa"

and give a brief summary of the Grey Shirts Trial

and give the source reference in the Reference Section at the end of the article

````famabra```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Famabra (talk • contribs) 18:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Islam What the West Needs to Know - Front Cover.gif

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Islam What the West Needs to Know - Front Cover.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

AE case

Gatoclass (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Present Status paragraph

This paragraph in the I-P conflict has been significantly altered by NightW. Yours thoughts please
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Jakabou, as I pointed out on the talk page your bold edit changed a passage that was factually correct and well sourced (though admittedly overlong and repetitive), to one that contained a glaring factual inaccuracy, and does not fully represent the cited sources. I cannot understand how you feel justified removing the neutrality tag with this still unresolved. Yes concision is an issue, but a clear factual inaccuracy unsupported by sources is far worse surely. Dlv999 (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason I put up the tag was due to an overblown writeup on a single issue. Once that single issue was summarized into a single paragraph, I felt there was no more need for the POV tag as issues were presented in a fairly neutral manner. As far as the accuracy of the revision -- I'm not too attached to the words, but only to the spirit in which they were written (i.e. making the text legible). I have no objection if a consensus can arise regarding a rephrase. Regardless, I don't think the state of the text is quite as bad as you think -- but I might be wrong. From my understanding -- there was condemnation at the UN. The intricacies of that are not that important when we try to convey an idea (who criticized). What matters is that we allow readers to know that there was some type of condemnation. If I mis-explained the type of condemnation in question -- I have no objection to rephrase efforts that will be more accurate. I invite your collaboration and the collaboration of others to get the text to a better state. My idea was only about neutrally presenting the ideas in the section. I'm not even sure I'm interested in going deeper than that into the text -- the floor is yours to persuade others in why your concern is important. I'm not opposing your concern -- I didn't even dive into the material deep enough to understand it. I hope this helps you move forward with your concerns.
With respect, Jaakobou 14:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Incitement to vioence

Can you construct this paragraph; seeing as your version of the settlement criticism was generally accepted
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a tad busy and am trying to stay away from heavy editing, but I'll try to give it a look in the upcoming day-two. Jaakobou 19:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahem, gentle reminder... Also is the zoological conspiracy theories contained in I-P ArbCom ruling, and if so, can you cite this in the talk page as I may have have inadvertently infringed the rules. Todah
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

AE result

The recent AE request against you has been closed without formal action. However, I am advising you that, should the edits for which you were reported to AE form part of a pattern that develops in the future, sanctions may be considered. If no such pattern emerges, you should hear nothing more about that AE request. Sincerely, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A/E

Could you please remove your double posts from my sections? Thanks. -asad (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Topic and interaction ban

For the reasons stated in this AE thread, and under the authority of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, as incorporated by WP:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions, you are banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces. Further, you are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Tiamut (talk · contribs), broadly construed, anywhere on Misplaced Pages, except in cases of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, and are further indefinitely prohibited from seeking any admin action related to Tiamut (talk · contribs), broadly construed, either publicly or privately through any means, except through the arbitration enforcement process or by email to the Arbitration Committee.

These sanctions may be appealed at WP:AE after twelve months, and every twelve months thereafter. They may also be appealed to AE once within twelve months of their imposition, and may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee at any time. T. Canens (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for creating such a fuss about statements I find extremely offensive. Jaakobou 08:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Jaakobou, this was a bad block, to say the least WP:POLEMIC is clear in what action to take, sadly, the admins decided to turn a blind eye to it. It wouldn't be the first time at least on admin's turned a blind eye to that particular policy.

@-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 17:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Whoa! WTF? You deserve more respect than that. So they finally got you and it was a quickie over the holiday too. Take a break, it's good for your health. IMO, you've done well. --Shuki (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


You presented your case in a dignified coherent manner despite the shenanigans of what was patently a kangaroo court. It was a pleasure collaborating with you on various topics and I hope you are still somehow able to provide your input. Than you for keeping the Hamans at bay.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for blatant violation of your topic ban and persistent battleground behavior here. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. T. Canens (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."


Another outrageous decision by Misplaced Pages's biased administrators. Years of laboring on Misplaced Pages and trying to collaborate with extremists just thrown away like it was nothing. Rather than trying to understand the concerns of pro-Israel editors that something may be a polemic and insulting, they merely give pro-Israel editors and their concerns the big FU(K YOU. Why not just let the Jihadists and the Palestine supporters and the garden variety antisemite just take over the area entirely? Oh wait, I forgot. They already did. One decent editor after another is forced out. Jaakabou, I suggest you get a life outside of this antisemitic, Jihadist environment. You will find your personal health improves. Oh and for the record, there are some people who appreciate the work you've done, though most are probably no longer editing themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.9.78 (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Jaakobou. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 12:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jaakobou/Polemics and Decorum

Please see Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jaakobou/Polemics and Decorum. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

File:City of Jenin and refugee camp.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:City of Jenin and refugee camp.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Interim and Acting Presidents of Israel

Category:Interim and Acting Presidents of Israel, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DGtal (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion

A case (Palestine-Israel articles) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

= Stealth Canvassing at Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Rephrase_suggestion_to_WP:UP.23POLEMIC

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Misplaced Pages's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

French people are not neutral about policy? Jaakobou 22:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Targeting people with French sympathies and emotions because there was a recent terrorist attack there is not neutral. There's also the stealth canvassing, you contacting members thru email.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@Serialjoepsycho:
My reponse here. Let's discuss this though. a) Why do you think French people are not neutral about the phrasing of the policy? b) What do you think about participation of people supporting militancy commenting and voting without disclosing their political affiliation with illegal activities? Jaakobou 23:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
A) It's not a matter of whether French people or neutral or not. That is a straw man tangent that is not worthy of a response. This is about Canvassed people, and and all canvassed people regardless of race, religion, nationality, or what ever else. Canvassing compromises the consensus making process. B) This is another straw man tangent not worthy of a response.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@Serialjoepsycho:
I think you may have fumbled when you wrote down "straw man tangent that is worthy of a response". Please let me know before we continue discussion. Jaakobou 23:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed I did. Thank you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@Serialjoepsycho:
Focusing on your main argument, I wholly agree and respect your note about 'Canvassing compromises the consensus making process.' I've made some overall notes which I'm not sure if we can come to agreement on (i.e. French are neutral, editors supporting militancy are not) but I cannot discuss the merit or lack-thereof of these points further until that other matter is resolved. Jaakobou 00:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
You have made no points to which we can agree on. French neutrality is meaningless. Palestinians can be neutral as well. When you taint the jury pool the jury can not be considered neutral, even if they are French. Editors that support Militancy can be neutral as well. I'm guessing that you don't realize that George Washington was a militant. I recognize the Right of revolution.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
yes, you do. But that is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about this type of polemics being allowed on user-pages. Jaakobou 07:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Poetic militancy

Your soapboxing, That's great and all but you can save yourself time by not soap boxing me. I disagree with your view. I see no reason to reach any compromise at all. The rules as they stand already cover what you want. Now there's the need for a long conversation and in some cases you might not be able to convince others of your view but that's a good thing. The conversations should actually be much longer especially when you are taking actions to to silence speech.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I shouldn't need to convince that advocacy against Jews, Israelis, Zionists is a violation. That discussions are always tainted by people not understanding the policy as well as the ones who openly want to post such content is absurd. Jaakobou 07:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

AE 2

WP:AE#Jaakobou nableezy - 23:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The complaint at AE has now been closed, with a finding that your edits at WT:UP were a violation of your ban from WP:ARBPIA. For now, no other action has been taken. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

It's highly accurate

You violated the canvassing policy. It's a simple matter. It's not hard to actually understand. You have no argument against or excuse for it. It's great that two people who responded to your canvassing decided to be upfront about your inappropriate canvass. It's also not relevant or meaningful in anyway. None what so ever. Not even kind of, sort of, or in a round about way. We can not clearly determine who you have improperly canvassed. The closer will be unable to exclude their opinions if they are unable to determine who is meatpuppeting on your behalf. This RFC will not end in a policy change. And it looks like your part in the discussion is over anyway.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you still don't understand that your message in your highly inappropriate canvassing is not neutral by any standard is also concerning. But again the conversation is over. Hopefully an Admin will have the time to explain this to you when you either block you or give you are warning about your TBAN and IBAN.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
You are not accurate when you assume things without asking or when you repeat things again and again, and now, again.
I indiscriminately and without prejudice contacted 10 editors from the contributors of the Paris attacks article with a benign message that makes no attempt to influence their judgement regarding policy discussions. This was a bad idea and I've apologized for it multiple times. The rest of it, contacting Wikiproject France is sanctioned under Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification. Jaakobou 10:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I can not verify that you contacted 10 editors thru email. It could be 10 or it could be 200. This is stealth canvassing Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Stealth_canvassing. You have no significant reason for not using a talk page notification. None. Zero. Zip. Evidence provided by one of these stealth canvassed users suggests that your message was an inappropriate attempt at campaigning similar to the one you inappropriately posted at wikiproject France. Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification does not sanction your actions. Wikiproject France is not directly related to Misplaced Pages policy. It does not become directly related because you want to play on the emotions of people because there was a terrorist attack in France. This is what the language you choose suggests and there is no reason what so ever to think you were trying to do anything but that. And great you apologized. I'm not sure what you think relevance is of the apology but what ever and apology accepted. You still compromised the consensus making process and this still makes the consensus indeterminable. The RFC still can not result in a consensus to change the policy. But your apology is accepted. Don't poison the well and expect people to drink the water. This is what you are not understanding. But this conversation is pointless. Your part in that conversation is over. That conversation is over without a consensus to change policy. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Again, you assume things without asking or assuming good faith. I disclosed my activity and agreed to my mistake. As for closing the other thing in a fair manner. Ask arbcom if my message on Wikiproject France is "campaigning" or Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification. Try to do it without declaring beforehand as to not sway the conversation. Let me know. Jaakobou 11:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
As the long time saying goes on Misplaced Pages goes, "AGF is not a suicide pact." I don't have to ask anything and I did not assume anything at all. I read exactly what you wrote . Would you like to insult my intelligence and lie and say these recent events you are discussing is not the terrorist attack in Paris? That the sympathies you share are not for the people that were effected by this terrorist attack? Yes campaigning but without the scare quotes. You can read all about it at the policy that you violated WP:Canvass. And no worries the RFC will end fairly. No matter what it will result in no change to policy. This conversation is has met it's end.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing fair about having the joy of encountering pro-terrorism bullshit on user-pages. Jaakobou 12:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
A couple more from today: . Was Tel Aviv occupied territory? Jaakobou 12:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's go over to AE Then

Save your warnings. Let's go over to WP:ARE. You can tell them about how I'm just uncivil by stating facts and then you can explain why you are violating your topic ban. If you decide to do so message me accordingly, otherwise stay off my talk page.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: As per my deleted notice, if you want to reiterate and regurgitate allegations of an alleged transgression, that is inappropriate. If that editor violated a policy take your advice and go to AE about it. Jaakobou 17:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Take it to AE. Don't ping me either.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
If that editor violated a policy take it to AE. Anything else you do might be further looked into. End of conversation. Jaakobou 23:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The conversation was over when you violated your topic ban and made that post on my talk page. Everything you said has been ignored.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
BTW, Was he one of the people that you inappropriately canvassed to that conversation?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I hate to break it to you again and again (and again...) for the first time, but I did not notify anyone I shouldn't have. I did not notify him. Now that you got that answer will you stop being a pest about it? ARBCOM concluded that because I mentioned Israel in the lead for the policy issue that it was considered inside the scope of the ban. Anything further, e.g. your repeated allegations, is disruptive and improper conduct. Jaakobou 06:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
First of AE is not Arbcom. It's a noticeboard to seek admins to enforce ARBCOM sanctions. EdJohnston had addressed that you were canvassing . It's not an allegation that you were in violation of canvassing policies. You are banned from taking part or discussing anything related to the Israel and Arab conflict broadly construed. But you are right, me trying to further to discuss this with editors showing WP:IDHT behavior is disruptive.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Ed's mentioning of your notice is irrelevant. He couldn't care less about the facts. In conclusion: If that editor violated a policy take it to AE. Otherwise stop muddying the waters. Jaakobou 21:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Canvassing muddies the waters. Pointing it out helps the closer to either disregard the positions of editors who are known to have been canvassed or to close it with no consensus because it's impossible to determine the consensus. Bickering back and forth with bad faith editors who show classic signs of IDHT behavior is mostly a waste of time, but it does present a question of their competency. This conversation (and violation of your topic ban) has amounted to nothing and has ended.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah. But here lies the point. If it amounted to nothing and has ended, why do you keep bringing it up as an insidious plot to destroy the Wiki? Why aren't you paying any attention to the plethora of other issues on the project. e.g. uncivil editors with extreme prejudice who go about pointing fingers and chant "foul" at everybody instead of opening an AE thread like a decent person. Best I can see, no one was improperly canvassed in both threads. You're not helping a closer, you're derailing any chance for conversation. What makes the canvassing allegations even more ridiculous is a bit of an examination on the history of the editors involved. If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were part of a scheme to prevent input from less involved editors who might see your bickering and choose to avoid the drama. Seriously, what do you think you're doing? Helping the project by filling it up with drama? Citing IDHT is very appropriate as you're not hearing what you're being told. If that editor violated a policy take it to AE. Otherwise stop muddying the waters. Jaakobou 07:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Insidious plot to destroy the wiki? Isn't that your whole spiel with the whole terrorist are promoting their cause on wikipedia? That is the reason you opened that RFC in bad faith and inappropriately canvassed people via email and via the wikiproject France? There's no further reason for conversation once you have done such. It's very important regardless of what is said that no change is made from your effort. You don't hear that because somehow saying "the French are neutral" is some how relevant to you. It's not even remotely relevant. Your inappropriate canvass was not neutral, being the reason it was inappropriate. You using off wiki correspondence, such as email, is highly inappropriate. You are an advocacy editor. Your violating your topic ban now lol. There's no point to even discussing anything with you. If you don't want someone to "derail" a conversation consider actually having an honest attempt at seeking a consensus. You ended up getting boot from that conversation due to your canvassing. This is why this conversation amounts to nothing. Hell the only reason you violated your topic ban and started this conversation is because their effort forwards your advocacy.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I honestly couldn't continue reading after "That is the reason you opened that RFC". If you don't bother reading things properly and that absurd hyperbole and personal attacks you employ incessantly... you can't expect people to take you with good faith. You've been nothing but a disruptive force whenever editors have acted in an honest attempt to get input from the less involved community. This nonsense is just one example of a growing list. Summing up (yet again): If that editor violated a policy take it to AE. Otherwise stop muddying the waters.Jaakobou 12:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I loved your "what about the sport of boxing" comment. Should have gone with MMA on account of more blood pouring in it. Cock fighting springs to mind as well. I recently heard an interesting Mexican children's song on a cock learning to fight. Interesting anthropological stuff. Thinking about it and about your boxing comment is quite a thought experiment. Anyway, good to see an attempt at discussion. Best of luck. Jaakobou 00:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Good luck? Is this some type of competition to you? Is that why you continue to violate your topic ban? Thought Experiment? No boxing actually is violent. MMA would have been covered by the other contact sports comment. I mention boxing because of it's history. The condemnation of the sport, such as from medical professionals. The argument was that condoning a recognized right is condoning violence. Such an argument is in itself a request to broadly interpret a policy. But anyway, it's over now and the right thing was done, the userbox remains.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I honestly stopped reading after "Is this sometime of competition to you?". Your participation is incompetent if that is your response to a very benign compliment (per "good to see an attempt at discussion"). I wish you the best of luck anyways. Jaakobou 21:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
My participation is incompetent? Because of my response to a snarky "compliment"? You started a discussion and then quickly derailed it by inappropriately canvassing users thru email and non-neutral messages. You have violated your topic ban by starting this very discussion. But it's all over now. You are topic banned from taking any effort to promote your change. Your change has failed. And the userbox that you have such a problem with remains. You seem to have a problem moving on but certainly good luck in doing so.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I distinctly remember asking you to stop dangling your canvassing allegation. Due to its weak nature, it was not reviewed even. As you insist on being a disruptive force, I stopped reading after "quickly derailed it by inappropriately". Try again please, this time with competence. Jaakobou 22:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I thought it went without saying that I ignored that request. It's no surprise that you continue to deny your bad faith. That's one of the reasons your RFC failed and that is one of the reasons the MfD opened on your behalf failed. If you had been honest from the start you might have accomplished some part of what you are promoting. But you are "not" reading this and it's all over now, there's nothing left to say.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
You are dishonest and lying out of your keyboard. Repeatedly. Anything you have proof for. Bring it forward. Otherwise, you are in violation making repeated bogus allegations. Imagine I would do the same, lumping you together with all the familiar names from the MfD. NSH, Nableezy, Nishidani, Zero et al. Now, that would be the only fair thing to do. Not just openly sharing an ideology, but voting patterns as well. Now if that's not canvassing.... loved your boxing argument. Certainly reminds me of the cartoon about a cock learning to fight. I guess when you're so immersed in something, you just can't see all the problems it creates. Best of luck with that. Anyways, I lost my exception by mentioning real world stabbing, so I can't divulge in the matter further. Cheers. Jaakobou 15:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
You calling anyone dishonest or a liar is a laugh riot. If you feel I'm in violation by all means take it to the appropriate location so we can get you banned.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Laugh all you want. Regurgitating bogus allegations is why you're here. When you keep it up, it goes on the list. I or others on my "behalf" might take you to task for it. Your "behalf" will surely pop up again then, which should be a real laugh riot when it does. Best of luck.
p.s. I have no behalf here and I am not looking for one. Your entire composition as a disruptive force is detrimental for the project's goals. Boxing as permitted violence in comparison with violence against random civilians. Pah! Jaakobou 23:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Take me to task then so when can go and get you banned. Pro-Tip: When you don't wish for people to make "bogus allegations" of you canvassing, don't actually canvass. Do not use private email correspondence (stealth canvassing) to contact people to seek their input when trying to change a policy. Do not advertise on an unrelated noticeboard with a non-neutral message (campaigning). Do not target people, like those at wikiproject France, on the basis of their association with to a recent terrorist attack. Attempting to appeal to their emotions in such a manner is highly dishonest and disrespectful. Since 2012 you have made no substantial contribution to wikipedia. Your primary contribution has been the same behavior that got you topic banned in the first place. You are a single purpose account and there's not anything in your contribution history suggests that you are here to help create an encyclopedia.
P.S. Boxing is permitted violence as is fighting against an occupation force. The userbox, that you can't discuss due to your topic ban, a topic ban that you are trying to skirt, does not mention attacking civilians or purport to support that. Your sniping doesn't actually bother me. Let's review: The userbox remains. Your proposed changes to WP:UP did not succeed. You are still topic banned.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah. But I don't care about that userbox. The principal is on whether or not it is allowed to promote violence against civilians on your user-page. For me, actually naming the party is more serious than not naming them and using ridiculous userboxes. You seem to think it is a matter of winning vs. losing. That is such an incompetent way of looking at wikipedia.
p.s. it is pretty sad you use hyperbole and make things up, repeatedly, when discussing others' participation. If that is the norm, it would make a fine list indeed. Jaakobou 03:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
p.p.s. "Fighting against occupation" sure sounds like a debased euphemism. I wonder if beheading is included in your profound definition... perhaps you don't read the news. Jaakobou 03:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
No it's not about winning or losing to me but it actually is to you. Your a SPA that has been prevented from taking part in their single purpose. You came back after 3 years and climbed on same soapbox and got knocked off it. Make what up? The emails? Two users in the RFC you started make it clear that they were emailed by you. You are the one provided the evidence that you tried to manipulate the emotions of wikiproject France members due to the Paris attack. Euphemism? Yeah the 4th Geneva convention is a euphemism. Beheading? I've not promoted beheading or seen anyone on wikipedia due so. Before your already clear topic ban was clarified you were asked for an example of this on wikipedia. You failed to provide any. Well you did provide the userbox that you no longer care about now and something else. None of which matched your narrative. I'm going to let you get back to not editing wikipedia and you can go plan your next attempt for 3 years from now.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
How about mowing random civilians down by ramming a car into a bus stop and leaving the car to stab the lot? Sounds a lot like 4th Geneva convention stuff. Pah! What do you think "violence against X" means exactly? Are you really that incompetent to compare it to boxing or is that a cheap trick to try and get a rise out of people like your "behalf", the genius and his Vietnam fighting dad? As long as you try to assign win/lose to someone's view it reflects on you. I could care less about what is permitted here. My interest is purely for even-handedness. You can imagine my "behalf" might be happy to add a few words supporting Jewish retaliation against terrorist activity as well as a few words that explain why it is within their natural right to do so. That is a basic human right and free speech as well. See, either it is permitted, or it isn't. Right now, you seem quite unclear on the matter. Beheadings are perfectly legitimate in the eyes of ISIS. Just because you and the geneva convention don't support it doesn't mean your peronsal bias against it should get in the way. Either promoting violence is allowed or it isn't. But you think you've won something. SMH. Jaakobou 09:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
This is all about a win to you. This is why you have been topic banned. Your inability to drop the stick and walk away. You have rhetoric and bad faith tactics, but no evidence or legitimate position for the change you promoted in that RFC. The same rhetoric you have here. Ramming random civilians? Who's promoting the ramming of random civilians on wikipedia or the beheading by ISIS? Where is this promotion at? You have the rhetoric. You have made the narrative. Where's the evidence? And boxing, you don't understand the argument. This is not surprising, you after all were arguing that the French are neutral as if that some how relevant to your bad faith canvassing. Note your own argument, "Either promoting violence is allowed or it isn't." Again boxing is violence. Your are arguing, as was argued, that the prohibition is against violence broadly construed and with no consideration. You aren't looking for an even hand. You are a single purpose account on a soapbox and it's the same soapbox your were on 3 years ago. The only change is now you've added ISIS to your rhetoric. Where is a wikipedia user promoting ISIS beheading on wikipedia? Where are they promoting ramming into civilians? It's not in Nableezy's userbox. Does it actually exist outside your head?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I honestly stopped reading after "This is why you have been topic banned." You haven't got a clue as to why I got herded off the site. I got fed up with text promoting stabbings and other forms of rising for "victory" against Jews, Israeli settlers, and Zionists. I went through proper channels, but as in every instance of this type, there are disruptive forces hanging about. I got fed up with them and allowed myself a farewell action from the topic. Whatever your interpretation of it as winning/losing is absurd incompetence. I won by allowing myself to either have the material taken off, or having the chance to leave the site peacefully. Which I did. As for your personal bias in favor of promoting beheading activity (aka "right to violence in favor of freedom from occupation"), that's great. Keep it up. Jaakobou 13:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
You did not get herded off the site. You got a boomerang for your tendentiousness. There's still a paper trail. Your contribution history. Your inability to drop stick. IDHT behavior. Again, you calling anyone incompetent is a laugh riot. And again I ask, Where are the diffs? Where are the diffs that I support or it's beheading? You have a narrative. You have rhetoric. People in occupied countries have the right to use violence to fight the occupying force. You don't like this? I'm not exactly sure how that is relevant. Maybe you could start a blog or write an angry letter to the UN to promote changing this.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
When you compare a movement of violence that specifically targets civilians with boxing, you are basically condoning any violent activity. Any. Let's for a moment take your (naive) perspective about occupation and assume you have a point: From the near 300 Israelis (read: Jews) injured in the past 3 months, how many you think were occupying soldiers doing their subjugating work? Sample: "After hitting two people with his car, the assailant exited the vehicle and stabbed a pedestrian." Wait... wasn't this stabbing of pedestrians equivalent to boxing? As with your other misstatements, it is an incompetent argument. The one you chose to lead with after letting go of disruption. Not that it mattered since I know the usernames, gaming and tendentiousness patterns of of nearly every one who participated. Your "behalf" would support kicking Ronda Rousey in the face if it were passable (replace a few words in there). Jaakobou 07:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Here's a classic. Feel free to use it.

Girl: "I do not fear the rifle

because your throngs are in delusion and are ignorant herds
Jerusalem is my land, Jerusalem is my honor
Jerusalem is my days and my wildest dreams
Oh, you who murdered Allah’s pious prophets (i.e., Jews in Islamic tradition)
Oh, you who were brought up on spilling blood
Oh Sons of Zion, oh most evil among creations
Oh barbaric monkeys
Jerusalem opposes your throngs
Jerusalem vomits from within it your impurity
Because Jerusalem, you impure ones, is pious, immaculate
And Jerusalem, you who are filth, is clean and pure
I do not fear barbarity
As long as my heart is my Quran and my city
As long as I have my arm and my stones
As long as I am free and do not barter my cause
I will not fear your throngs, I will not fear the rifle"

PA TV host: "Bravo! Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Palestine, we will never forget it."

If that is not your position, "Maybe you could start a blog or write an angry letter to the UN to promote changing this."
Best of luck. Jaakobou 07:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, Where are the diffs showing that users are promoting the ISIS beheading or ramming civilians with cars? You keep violating your topic ban to discuss it so where is the evidence? Yes you have an endless stream oh nonsensical rhetoric and loads of meaningless comments that you can make, but where is the evidence that issue you are promoting actually exists on wikipedia? Any evidence at all? Where?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
It is a matter of naive interpretation. You might think they are supporting new scientific methods when they say 'Intelligent Design', but it is still Creationism. You might think they are promoting heroic actions against an illegally occupying force when they write "armed resistance against Israeli aggression", but the user page that I was herded off Misplaced Pages for was and still is an open call to use any weapon available against random Jews wherever they may be. As for the userbox, I concur with Sandstein's view: I'll not remove this box, but I don't object if other admins want to. Yes, this is obviously a silly userbox, but we prohibit disruption, not silliness. As noted below, this general kind of "I hate someone!" userbox may at least be useful in quickly identifying problematic editors. Sandstein (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC). I care not if it stays or not and no one opened anything on my behalf. Your previous assertions of victory/loss only reflected on your views of the project. That you (supposedly) fail to see the true nature of these advocacy driven pages is reminds me of the Swedish MFA.
p.s. ISIS view is they fight against military occupation. I hope that much is clear to you.
-- Jaakobou 11:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
So in other words you don't have any evidence? Just rhetoric? Well I think that was already clear. Back and forth between you have an issue with Nableezy's box and you don't have an issue. The box is such evidence and I'm just to naive to see it but the box is not an issue at all. This type of nonsense is why you got "herded" off of wikipedia. Although you haven't been herded off of anything. You have been topic banned from editing ARBPIA articles where you have proven to cause alot of disruption that wastes. You are free to edit other articles. But you are a single purpose account here to advocate and this topic ban has prevented that.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
From the example you requested: A Palestinian using an antisemitic piece where a Jew is a merciless blood thirsty villain seeking to purchase a living pound of flesh; abiding by the law, yet with a gruesome nature of his interpretation. Replacing the word 'Jew' (Shylock) with 'Palestinian'. It would only be a funny thing if it weren't meant as a call to attack Jews. As expected, it is followed by other similarly advocating quotes. "at the moment he realizes his humanity that he begins to sharpen the weapons with which he will secure his victory". It is not my failure when this bullshit stays on Misplaced Pages. It is incompetent to distinguish language and actions of "the resistance" (ISIS at el.) of nowadays.
p.s. I was not a cause for disruption on any article. Feel free to check (unlike my provided example).
Regards, Jaakobou 11:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
So again, no evidence? -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
How about trying for a little competence? Jaakobou 16:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I see one more mention of Tiamut's user (talk) page I'm going to ask that you be blocked. You are well aware that you have an interaction ban with her, and quoting from her page and claiming that it is "antisemitic" is a straightforward violation of that ban. Regards, nableezy - 18:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Shakespeare’s antisemitic depiction of Jews, esp. in the Merchant of Venice, is a known hot potatoe. I found myself herded off Misplaced Pages for a similar mistake as the one you've just made. Misinterpreting comments. Albeit, there was a major difference. I was fed up with content promoting attacks on innocent civilians, your mistaken reading makes false assumptions regarding someone I have no interest in whatsoever. I do not speak about them and don't have any interest in doing that. Serialjoepsycho missed how ISIS view is that they fight against military occupation puts a damper on his boxing argument. He also repeatedly made a few false claims about why I was topic banned and requested, (again, repeatedly), an exampled explanation.
p.s. was a great laugh seeing all the familiar names on the userbox discussion vote stacking to keep it. I might have done the same but from the Sandstein point of view. Cheers. Jaakobou 19:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC) minor correction. Jaakobou 20:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
p.p.s. Here's a few words on "winning". Jaakobou 21:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
@Nableezy:
How many times were you topic banned? If memory serves, there were at least four but I lost count at some point and I wouldn't want to write down the wrong number and misrepresent the facts. Asking first and accepting explanations, where reasonable, seems like better form than hyperbole and making shit up. Right?
Let me know, Jaakobou 22:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Jaak, with all due respect, how many times Ive been topic banned isnt really relevant to your existing topic and interaction ban. One more mention of Tiamut or her page and I will ask that the ban be enforced with a block. And as the violation is happening on your talk page that block should include edits to your own talk page. You are directly quoting from her userpage, that is a violation of your ban. If you want to challenge that fine, but just as the last time you claimed I was wrong on the scope of your ban Im fairly certain you will, once again, be proven wrong. As far as your question, Im pretty sure every ban of mine is listed on my user page, so add em up if it makes you feel better. nableezy - 03:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, if there are false claims on my page, I have to explain why they are false. Making it personal is your doing and I reject that way of thinking. As for your user page, it does not list your bans. How many were there? Jaakobou 07:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Still no evidence? Me topic banned? Change that 4 to a 0.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
You've reached your highest level of incompetence. Jaakobou 00:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
And yet where is the evidence?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
First step made. Now, take another. Read a bit, you will find it, then ignore it and repeat your last 6 words. A reversion to the disruptive behavior this thread was started over. Jaakobou 07:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll find where you suggested something without providing any evidence of it. Your willing to attempt to manipulate the emotions of people due to recent terrorist activities and attempt to them to a discussion. This is so much simpler, show that the issue you have been so disruptive about actually exists on wikipedia and is not taken care of. You've not provided evidence of this. You say that people are promoting the ramming of civilians and the beheading by ISIS. Where? I can say the grass is purple but that doesn't actually make the grass purple. If I said the Capital of Tennessee is Jackson that wouldn't actually make the capital Jackson. You want continue to violate your topic ban, first by coming to my talk page and inserting yourself into a discussion you are banned from and Then continuing to do so on your talk page. You are not concerned at all with it. So again, where is this evidence?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
When you repeat bogus allegations over and over, it is Misplaced Pages's policy that this is improper. I notified you of this and in our discussion here, which you opened, have reminded you of this several times more. Visiting your page with a reminder about policy does not amount to being involved in content discussions on another page. Your reaction, starting a conversation here, rejecting the policy, and explaining why you think your boxing comment was worthwhile was taken with good faith and not as a baiting attempt. I cannot help but discuss it with you here once you've opened a discussion about it. Topically, you defended the right to act with violence against "occupation". I explained this to be tantamount to arguing an ISIL supporter -- they view their territory as occupied and act with violence. You rejected the premise and made bogus allegations as to why I'm not editing the subject of I-P anymore. If I did not think it were a baiting attempt, I might think it now. Gaming the system to try and get other editors banned is improper conduct. Either you have faith in your argument, or you shouldn't bring it up. Jaakobou 10:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
If I was trying to get you banned I would took you to AE when you violated your topic ban by starting this conversation on my topic page. I could have done so at any of the many points thru out this conversation where you have violated your topic ban. I have made no bogus allegations against you. You did canvass users via email to the RFC at WP:UP. You did canvass people from wikiproject France. These aren't allegations. These are already known facts. I've not rejected the policy at all. I've rejected an interpretation of that policy that you support and an interpretation that failed to achieve a consensus at the mfd. I reject that the portion of the policy that mentions violence is to be broadly construed. It refers to only grossly improper violence. Legal actions that are violent such as boxing or using violence against military occupation forces are not grossly improper. There is no legitimately recognized military occupation in lands under control of ISIS. Your argument that supporting a principle in international law is tantamount to supporting ISIS is simply asinine. Though I note your cop out, you suggesting that people are supporting ISIS and ramming cars and such in to civilians is not new to this conversation. Your are an immensely disruptive force to wikipedia and I should never even wasted my time talking to you after your bad faith became clear. That became clear quickly into the RFC when you started canvassing people. However none the less, put up or shut up. Where are these supporters of ISIS beheading on wikipedia or these supporters of ramming cars into civilians? Where is a legitimate justification for your proposed changes to wikipedia? Oh, that's right, you don't have any.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I noted WP:APPNOTE to you and suggested we close this matter properly by bringing it up for review. You can't reject dispute resolution and insist you are right. That is the definition of TE. As for "grossly improper violence", that really depends on interpretation. Now that you're finally addressing the ISIL example, I can note to you that there are about a billion people (possibly more) who do consider the middle easy as occupied territory. Iran, Turkey, the US, Russia, France et al. They have extensive military presence in the region. Thus, the term "legitimately" is up for your personal view. To top things off, you focus on the term 'against military', but we both know who are the main targets. There's further explanation to this above. It wouldn't hurt if you read it. To cap things off: "The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited." - Passed 11 to 0
-- Jaakobou 14:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I am right. I don't need to go to AE to prove myself right. Ed Johnston pointed out that it was canvassing. Why would I go to AE because a bad faith editor exclaims they were not canvassing? The issue is already stale. It has been resolved. You were removed from the conversation and that conversation resolved with no consensus for your change. Go open another RFC and canvass users in bad faith via email or thru non-neutral messages that try to manipulate peoples emotions due to a recent disaster. I'm not aware of a Billion people who find the middle east to be occupied. The Palestinian territories (including East Jerusalem) and the Golan Heights are occupied. This is a small part of the middle east. Syria and Iraq are not under the effective provisional control of the United States, Iran, Turkey, Russia or Etc. It's occupied if you feel it's occupied is an asinine argument.There's a fringe movement suggesting Hawaii is under military occupation. I focus on "against military" because that is the right. I'm sure the purpose of your rant about attacking civilians. The fact that some groups do illegally attack civilians does not take away from their right to attack military occupation forces. The Userbox does not promote the support of attacking civilians. It promotes a legitimate action. This is no different than a userbox that supports boxing. You just don't like it. It's always funny to see single purpose accounts target advocacy. It's always one sided. Something that doesn't align with their single purpose. I'm not going to be for censorship simply because someone doesn't like something. There's been people that don't like boxing.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
a) What does "bad faith editor" mean?
b) What is stale is not your repeated claims, that posting on WikiFrance was canvassing, but my policy related discussion. Deemed an extension into the ban due to my mentioning of a wave of stabbing attacks in Israel as a lead. Insisting on your point does not negate my earlier response to the WikiFrance message. IDHT won't turn your argument right. Rejecting dispute resolution and repeating unsubstantiated claims is TE.
c) You mention an occupation that is a bit of a complex matter. e.g., there's an historic matter and in your brief note you made a clear mistake where you assigned the Golan to, but I won't go further into this Israel connected matter since I'm sure someone will end up taking me to task for it. As for your claims that Syria and Iraq are not under "effective provisional control", I did not state my own opinion but a widely accepted one among the residents of the Levant and like-minded hundreds of millions outside the Levant. E.g., (relevant quote: "we launched two fronts against the enemies of Islam in Iraq and Syria", "No to humiliation!"). Here's another (relevant quote: "By Allah, we will revenge.", "France was the beginning, and tomorrow it will be Washington, New York, and Moscow."). Both these examples could be wikilawyered as "against military", but that would be a lie as to who these groups really target.
d) There is nothing wrong with an editor caring mostly about a specific topic as long as they care about the nature of the project being an encyclopedia which respects mainstream views. There is something wrong, as stated in the 'Passed 11 to 0' ARBCOM decision, with using the project for other purposes. Is it that you fail to understand that decision or that you choose to ignore it because you believe you are right and Misplaced Pages user-space should be used as a forum for advocacy?
-- Jaakobou 09:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
a) Use a dictionary.
b)My repeated claims are not stale and you wish to take action by all means do so. An unsubstantiated claim is a lacking evidence. The facts I pointed out about your canvassing have been substantiated.
c)1500 years ago? Would you like to point out another irrelevant detail? This would be like me going to England and telling them they must give me citizenship because of some Celtic ancestry. It's an appeal to emotion and not a legal argument. I made no mistake about Golan. It's occupied. It's a part of Syria. The illegal and unrecognized annexation of it by Israel does not change this. Here's a source that talks about the Hawaiian occupation . It's still a fringe movement lacking legitimacy, like your claim that Golan and Palestinian terrirtories are not occupied and Syria and Iraq are.
d)The is nothing with a neutral editor mostly caring about one topic. You are not a neutral editor. Advocacy is excluded. Not completely. On user pages editors are given plenty of leeway. The difference between the boxing userbox and the userbox in question is you do not support this advocacy in the latter. Advocacy alone is not enough to call for deletion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
c) I did not say anything about the occupation status regarding Israel, only that it is a complex subject with more than one viewpoint, I did say your statement was incorrect regarding the Golan. Specifically, I've misread that you thought Syria was Palestinian. Rereading it, I see it was my own blunder. I'm sure now that you don't think so. Still, you've made a mistake in thinking Syria exists. Ten years ago, sure. But who would you return the territory to now? P.S. mock it as much as you like, but historically speaking, the Golan was Israelite territory. Considering the population shift in the Levant between 1850-1950, perhaps you should try extending your Celtic arguments to everybody rather than just the side you agree with. Might extend your perspective just doing that as a thought experiment.
d) You haven't read my words if you think I care about that silly user-box. I said it before and I'll say again that I don't. I specifically talked about promotion of violence against civilians and made clear that games as well as clear advocacy have been used. Your leeway argument extends into anything that involves your political persuasion, but you've not been neutral enough to see that your pro-violence argument extends to include any form of mukawama as well, including current "military aggression" in the Levant and the freedom fighters resisting it. You say "military", but the targets have been mostly civilians. To advocate your political persuasion in a real world conflict on your userpage is not akin to saying "I love boxing". ARBCOM ruled on this 11 to 0. That a few examples, all in the topic I am barred from, have been allowed to circumvent policy is a long term detriment to the project. The users who promote use of this site for advocacy complain about IPs popping up with another view -- this can mostly be blamed on their own activity as well as the activity of enablers, e.g. . On the enabling topic, we still didn't get a reply how many times Nableezy was topic banned. I'd like to think myself capable of more neutrality than him. i.e. I don't look at Misplaced Pages as a battlefield.
-- Jaakobou 04:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Most your retort is asinine, if not all of it. I can't be bothered to read it all. You've not shown evidence of a userbox or etc that anyone of wikipedia supports or condones attacking civilians yet this unrelated conversation you keep inserting in. You don't care about that box and you care about that userbox. It's all one side and takes no consideration beyond the POV that you came to Misplaced Pages to push. The difference between you and nableezy is that they are not currently topic banned. As far as you being more neutral... Well I've not seen Nableezy post a non-neutral canvass that is a an appeal to emotion to an RFC who might be sympathetic due to a recent terrorist attack but are in no way related to the RFC that was created. I've seen you do that.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Have you really missed the same names in every discussion? You think Nableezy and Nishidani were watching WP:UP? Pah! Anyway, you consider proper arguments "asinine" and reject the ARBCOM conclusion. Your pro-violence argument includes ISIL supporting test just as much as it does attacks on the civilians of Tel Aviv. Should be fun to see the growth of that argument with the inevitable growth in violence in Europe and the US in upcoming years. Best of luck. Jaakobou 08:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Proper argument? Your argument is shear idiocy. You keep talking about attacks on civilians but again where is the evidence of wikipedia users promoting violence against civilians. The userbox that you do care about and don't care about doesn't contain it. I don't reject ARBCOM conclusion. I reject your conclusions. The userbox does not advocate any political persuasion in any real world conflict. It advocates for a real world right and it advocates against unilateral admin action in place of an actual consensus. You are an incompetent editor. You go to wikiproject France and appeal to emotion. Here you make an appeal to fear. You aren't even capable of an honest discussion. You want to mention those two say there aren't neutral and shouldn't have taken part in that RFC. This is not actually the case. It's really just another sign of your incompetence. But let's pretend for a moment that was the case and it was wrong of them to take part in the RFC. How's right for you to open that RFC if it was wrong for them to take part in it because they are not neutral? Let's ignore that you were topic banned. You are highly biased and take actions specifically to bias the discussion such as your canvassing. Again, here the appeal to fear. It is a universal right for people to fight against colonial domination, alien occupation and/or racist regimes. They have a customary international law to not attack non-combatants. But oh, because I point out the fact that they have that right, soon America will be attacked by Muslim terrorists. Muslims already commit acts of Terrorism in the United States and Europe. Jewish Extremists were responsible for 7% of terrorist attacks in the USA from 1980 to 2005. Muslim Extremists were responsible for 6%. But this now going to somehow change because someone mentions a right on wikipedia that has existed longer than wikipedia by decades. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
You ignore what I wrote about the userbox, and, it would seem, did not read what I wrote about Shylock. On top of that, it would seem you are arguing in support of Jewish terrorist activities in the US, or alleging that I would have. My point, again, is that promoting violence against civilians, using Misplaced Pages for advocacy is not permissible. That you give leeway to one kind of it, opens the door to any type of it, including ISIL related "resistance". You can't skip reading the arguments of others, insist on your correctness, reject dispute resolution, wikilawyer ARBCOM decisions - and consider your actions neutrally motivated and/or proper. Or can you? Jaakobou 13:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
More IDHT behavior on your part. I just skipped to the bottom. I haven't rejected dispute resolution. You are free to open any dispute resolution that you wish. Do of course mind your topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Though it was obvious, I appreciate your conceding to skipping what was written. Have you read what I wrote about Shylock? Jaakobou 12:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
No. Because again you have said something exists on Misplaced Pages but again provided no verification. So what dispute resolution process are you opening?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
You need a diff in order to find the page which includes the misused Shylock text or is that a baiting attempt? Jaakobou 13:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I need a diff to verify this exists. I need a diff to review what is said and what is in context. It's not a baiting attempt at all. If you would violate your topic ban by providing a diff you have already violated it by discussing it in the first place. By opening this conversation in the first place you violated your topic ban. Besides the fact you are not a trust worthy individual, it's just a good policy on wikipedia to verify everything. you'd probably be better served by not providing a diff and not discussing the matter at all.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
You're smart enough to find what you need without the actual diff. Pretty sure you've found it already and insist on playing dumb. Considering the boxing argument, maybe I'm wrong. Jaakobou 20:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
It's possible that I could but the onus is on you to make your own case. Noting the dishonesty you've already shown there's little reason for me to put any effort in by searching for evidence for you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Just as before, when you were hiding your strong political affiliation while chanting "no one needs to disclose anything", you're being dishonest. I was upfront about my activity. You, on the other hand, were not and you again, and again (again again again...) repeat bogus statements and allegations. This thread was opened because you can't resist the temptation to make false allegations. Try to get over yourself. Don't take a page from the company you keep. Now, take that onus if you truly believe in your argument. Otherwise, you're just being ridiculously repetitive. Jaakobou 00:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not hiding any strong political affiliation. I'm not affiliated with any political group. I can not help that you lack the competency to understand what a conflict of interest is. I've not made any false allegations. You have canvassed people. Either you now denying it in bad faith or your lack the competency to understand another policy. It doesn't matter to me which. The onus? That's on you. We are still waiting for your evidence. The onus is not on me to seek out the evidence for the case you have made.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Canvassing: I've said this a few times before, but here goes again. We disagree about the interpretation of the WP:CANVASS policy. I've linked to the allowed section a few times but I'm not sure if you've taken the time to look it up. Assuming the best, You read it but still disagree and use one comment which I believe was not a thorough examination but simply based itself on your estimation. If you want to continue insisting on your interpretation, it is only fair to bring this for dispute resolution. I am willing to renegotiate my perspective per community values. You, on the other hand, insist on TE. If you believe in your perspective so much, put it up to the task.
  • Boxing vs. Violent "resistance": Carlos Latuff, a person of high consideration among militant endeavors, understands that there is no difference between one mukawama and another mukawama. example. Pardon me if I am wrong with my understanding of your views, but it seemed you agree with freedom of speech on user-pages (against ARBCOM ruling of 11 to 0) when it comes to one conflict in particular but reject that same promotion and advocacy when it comes to another. This is not how the project should work and it is a shame that you allow your personal (naive) understanding of one conflict persuade you off a neutral examination of the issue.
  • Onus: It is clear that I am not at liberty here. If you think your argument is worthwhile. Make it without wikilawyering.
-- Jaakobou 16:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
You have referenced WP:APPNOTE while ignoring the actual policy. Ignoring WP:STEALTH with your particular use of email. You were campaigning in that email as well as over at wikiproject France. You were also votestacking by contacting wikiproject France, your advertisement was highly bias. They are not a wikiproject related to the RFC and you were hoping they would sympathize with your opinion due to the Paris Attack. You specifically invoked the Paris attack for this purpose. You are free to take this to any dispute resolution that you wish. I'd urge you against it. They will either find that you don't have the competency to understand clearly written policy or they will find that you are wikilawyering in bad faith. I have actually figured out which is the problem yet myself.
Great for Carlos. It's not actually relevant to the discussion. But certainly great for him. It's a simple matter. Under international law Occupied people have the right to use force to fight their occupier. They can attack any part of the occupation force other than those deemed non-combatants under international law. Be it France during World War II, Palestine in 2015, or the Galaga Empire in 2255. You have a problem with this specific advocacy but not other advocacy on wikipedia, probably due to your personal relation with this. Advocating for a right that may be violent is not different than advocating for a violent sport. Neither of which violate the traditional leeway given to user pages.
Liberty? No Liberty? The onus regardless remains with you. My case had been made. The user bo that you can't decide whether you care about or not remains. the situation is resolved.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Your interpretation of campaigning is absurd. I did not use a single argument in my message in favor or against my suggestion. On top of that, I only wished for clarification on the policy -- I have no preferred version. Votestacking is what your little clique is doing. I am against such deplorable actions. I am willing to renegotiate my perspective per community values, not per your repetition of the same assertions.
  • ARBCOM ruled about advocacy in favor of terrorist attacks on civilians. Yes, assuming good faith, advocacy for mukawama is not equal to your naive interpretation. But even assuming the advocacy explicitly states one military or another rather than the more serious suggestion to 'stab', 'vengeance', 'humiliation' and 'victory' or some other mukawama clap-trap, it is a violation of the ARBCOM ruling. Latuff's cartoons on Syria are a good example of "occupation" in the minds of mukawama. At least he's consistent.
  • Your arguments do not gain credence just because I'm not at liberty.
-- Jaakobou 19:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Your use of the Paris attack to promote your RFC is absurd, loathsome, and dishonest. You weren't asking for clarification, you wee asking for a change to the policy. My clique? Who's that? Anyone that doesn't agree with you? You actually seeking to bias a discussion by bringing in others using dishonest tactics is not the same as individuals such as my self independently showing up.
We are not talking about advocacy in favor of terrorist attacks, We are talking about advocacy in favor of an international right. "But the terrorist say they are fighting against Military occupation." And yet Hawaiians state they are under military occupation. Neither meet the definition under international law of Military occupation. Neither are viewed with any actual legitimacy. It's just half ass straw grasping argument on your part. Or I could assume good face and view you as completely incompetent. It's one or the other.
I've taken view to the mfd. The mfd resolved with no consensus for deletion. Your arguments were brought by others. I'm satisfied with the results. Your not. I have no reason to do anything further. I've asked you to provide evidence that people are promoting car attacks on civilians or beheading by ISIS as you have suggest they have. This is a legitimate concern. Instead you've chosen to rant. I have no reason to take any further action the subject, especially not when it's because a user who doesn't understand simple wikipedia polices (wp:canvass for instance) is unsatisfied. I've continued this battleground discussion only because I wrongly assumed that you might provide evidence of an actual issue but it's remained a battleground since you violated your topic ban and started this discussion on my talk page. This matter is resolved.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • absurd, loathsome, and dishonest - Your opinion on the matter was duly noted several times already (sample). If you believe in the veracity of such an accusative and inappropriately repetitive statement ('Comment on content, not contributors.'), don't be TE about it. I'd be happy to see what "independently showing up" means when you finally agree to open it for review (one can be optimistic).
  • advocacy in favor of an international right - *smh* is that really what's been advocated by Nableezy (*wave*), Nishidani and the unmentionable, undiscoverable Shylock? You're really only fooling yourself. As for "legal" definitions, you're ignoring the other legal definition of more than a billion people. That you don't like it in one particular context doesn't make this a straw argument. I used Latuff as example. Your response was: "It's not actually relevant to the discussion. But certainly great for him."
  • Any mfd should not be "resolved" while people misunderstand policy and involved parties chime in and vote stack with numbers. Even then, I've noted several times my view that said userbox does not advocate anything other than stupidity and I would have supported it myself had I been allowed. I don't understand why you continually bring this anti-example forward. My lack of examples on attacks on civilians are a result of not being at liberty and that the only examples of pure advocacy I've encountered are in this topic area. Considering systematic bias, I doubt any such "sharpen the weapons", and "victory" proclamations would be permitted to remain outside the scope in which I am not at liberty. This is quite unfortunate considering this type of advocacy is at the core of daily racially motivated attacks on civilians ("an international right"?).
p.s. reminder: I placed a notice on your page to avoid repeated accusations against fellow editors.
-- Jaakobou 13:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Islam What the West Needs to Know - Back Cover.gif listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Islam What the West Needs to Know - Back Cover.gif, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. gobonobo 00:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Palestinian terrorists listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Palestinian terrorists. Since you had some involvement with the Palestinian terrorists redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jaakobou. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Pallywood cover.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pallywood cover.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Congo Malaysia Korea Consortium Group for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Congo Malaysia Korea Consortium Group is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Congo Malaysia Korea Consortium Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Praxidicae (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nasir Abbas

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Nasir Abbas requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/5334594.stm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Misplaced Pages to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Misplaced Pages's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Jack Frost (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

"Disputed territories (Gaza Strip, Judea and Samaria)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Disputed territories (Gaza Strip, Judea and Samaria) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 9#Disputed territories (Gaza Strip, Judea and Samaria) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. nableezy - 15:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC) 15:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)