Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:05, 8 January 2008

Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, Oct 2007, Nov 2007, Dec 2007

Re: mentorship

I've responded at WP:AN. east.718 at 15:20, 11/5/2007

Edit summaries

Please don't start slipping back into your old habits. I'm not sure what's up here but it's the kind of diff that could land you back in hot water. Blanking material, no edit summary? Not good. -- Kendrick7 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

3rr as a weapon

Wish they'd seriously discuss that, but they don't. It isn't just the Palestine/Israel conflict where its used as a club, of course, but it happens much too much. I wish everyone would get along. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Israeli-Palestinian conflict

hey there. i appreciate the fact that seem to want to contribute to this article. however simply stating on the talk page that something is wrong doesn't really achieve much. i would encourage you to make edits to the article itself, so that real progress can be made. cheers. Suicup (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I know getting your edits reverted is a pain the the arse (happens to me too), however perhaps if you try again but a little differently. eg in the Dershowitz example, rather than just removing the reference, put a new one in its place. That will make it much less likely that your edit will be reverted. And if it is, you will be in a much better position to argue on talk page. cheers Suicup (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is that sometimes you just have to play the game. Replacing a reference, rather than just removing it is a much better way of going about it. You said on the talk page that you believe the claim to be true anyway, and you sound knowlegable enough about the topic at hand, so how hard is it to find a source to put there? That way, the article gets the citation and not an annoying <fact> tag, you don't get reverted, and all is well. Suicup (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if you are knowedgable enough to remove a reference, you are knowledgeable enough to replace it, or short of that, remove the phrase with your reasoning on the talk page. Suicup (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that the article is protected, it is difficult to take action, however, i still hold that if you are knowledgable enough to believe that Dershowitz is 'unreliable' than you should be knowledgable enough to come up with another source. After all, how did you know Dershowitz was unreliable in the first place? Perhaps you should propose removing those two sentences which use Dershowitz as a citation? Note i am not necessarily against your opinion, it just annoys me when people come and make statements on talk without any action. Right now, my perception, rightly or wrongly, is that you are doing just that. Suicup (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I will, however if in the meantime you outline your proposed edits on talk (eg state your alternative source for dershovitz) that could be productive. Suicup (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Saeb Erekat

It is with extreme reluctance I engage in edit-warring like activity, but I have scrapped the section on "lied over Jenin Massacre" at Saeb Erekat on BLP grounds (it's also a breach of notability, see extensive and conclusive discussion here).

I have also excised a portion of the "Jewish State Controversy" and renamed the whole section. It seems difficult to accept that Erekat really meant to say "no state in the world connects its national identity to a religious identity", again it's inclusion is both non-notable and seems calculated to make him look like a fool. The first part of this paragraph is significant in his public life, however, and seems to accurately reflect his current "Negotiating position" (which is what I've re-named the section, instead of "Controversies"). Such a section should probably become the most important part of the article, except that I think ......

It would be helpful if you could lock the article at this point. There is a vast amount about Saeb Erekat that is very interesting, but with the extraordinarily tendacious editing that's been going on here, it'll be a long time before we can treat this subject in a fashion worthy of the project. The last thing I (or the other 6 editors who've tried to improve the article and stop the disruption here) want to do is waste still more of my/our time with editors so flagrantly in breach of every kind of WP:POLICY. PR 09:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I decline to protect the page as it has only been edited twice in the last three weeks. I am not sure you understand the purpose of protection. Stifle (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeking your feedback at an RFC

Hi, I've found a historic photo that might be feature-worthy but the caption from the century-old stereoscope looks politically loaded by today's standards (Mideast issues). So I'm seeking feedback on how to craft NPOV language and move forward with a nomination. The discussion is located here. Your input would be much appreciated. Best regards, Durova 23:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Pakistan-Israel conflict

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)