Misplaced Pages

User talk:Stellarkid: 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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:24, 8 March 2010 editStellarkid (talk | contribs)2,114 edits →Zionist Occupation Government← Previous edit Revision as of 17:17, 10 March 2010 edit undoMbz1 (talk | contribs)22,338 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 427: Line 427:


* ''"Many of the members of these groups are avid believers in the "Zionist Occupation Government." Zionist Occupation Government (abbreviated as ZOG) is an antisemitic conspiracy theory according to which Jews secretly control a country, while the formal government is a puppet regime. ..... found in neo-Nazi William Pierces's The Turner Diaries... * ''"Many of the members of these groups are avid believers in the "Zionist Occupation Government." Zionist Occupation Government (abbreviated as ZOG) is an antisemitic conspiracy theory according to which Jews secretly control a country, while the formal government is a puppet regime. ..... found in neo-Nazi William Pierces's The Turner Diaries...

== How is your English :)==

Hi Stellar, I wrote an article , but you know my English, is not so great. If you have a time please do improve it. You are also welcome to add new Info. Best.--] (]) 17:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:17, 10 March 2010

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Stellarkid, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Talk:List of towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestine War. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

No problem. I noticed that you are incorrectly marking all your comments as "minor". You can fix that at the "Editing" tab at "my preferences", which is at the top of each page when signed in. Also, make sure to sign your comment with four tildes, which you can easily do by clicking on the 10th tab to the left of the tabs that open at the top of the page when you are editing. Things can get a bit complicated here, but you'll get a hang of it. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Brewercrewer is correct ... you are marking virtually all your edits as minor, when many are not minor at all -- such as recent changes to the Steven Emerson entry for example. Please do not mark such edits as minor, it is confusing to other editors. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be the default position at wiki. I forget to uncheck that box but I try to add a summary to the edit. Is there some way to uncheck the minor edit box and use it as the default position? Thanks. Stellarkid (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Read this for more on "minor edits". Go to "My preferences" then to "edit" and unclick the box that says "mark all edits minor by default". That box should not have been clicked by default so I'm not sure why yours is. If that doesn't solve the problem you're going to have to ask someone more knowledgeable for help.PelleSmith (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks PelleSmith, I think that will do it. Appreciate your help.  :)

"Pro-Israel lobby"

In the CAIR entry you changed "Israel lobby ..." to "Pro-Israel lobby ..." stating that the article uses pro-Israel, WP uses pro-Israel. That is incorrect. WP uses "Israel lobby" and the other term redirects there. I note that a fringe POV attempted to change the other article title recently. Please do not bring that mess over to other entries. The current usage is common usage. Also regarding "co-conspirator" in fact most dictionaries have now moved to remove the hyphen. I agree that the hyphenated term may still be used more often in the popular press, etc. but I was simply reflecting the CSM usage since the phrase was in quotation marks.PelleSmith (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the NYT usage of "Pro-Israel lobby", your own opinion based upon a handful of sources doesn't matter. Misplaced Pages clearly uses "Israel lobby." Regarding your statement about redirects and disambiguation I'm not sure what you are talking about. Pro-Israel lobby redirects to Israel lobby which is a disambiguation page. Pro-Israel lobby in the United States (which is what we are linking as you know) redirects to Israel lobby in the United States. Are you still confused? I'm having a hard time believing you did not already know this.PelleSmith (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, yesterday the pro-Israel lobby went directly to the Israel lobby in the United States whereas today both go to a disambiguate page. Someone has apparently changed it since then. Either way, the article should say "pro-Israel" since that is what the quote says. Then you can do the disambiguation in-line, if you know what exactly it was that was meant by the speaker. Stellarkid (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Wrong again. The redirect I mention has been in place since 2006. Please see the history of pro-Israel lobby. You can link directly to it here. Are you actually confused or simply making things up? "Pro-Israel" used as an adjective is not the same as "pro-Israel lobby", besides which neither is to the point since it is not part of a quote. Accurate usage remains "Israel lobby".PelleSmith (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
No response?PelleSmith (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I have made my case and won't argue for the sake of argumentation. Stellarkid (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Noted. Since you have professed no confusion I'll have to assume you simply made up your story about the redirect. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
As your assumption of good faith (or lack thereof) is noted here. Stellarkid (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I think I assumed plenty of good faith. Had you said something like ... "oh I must have messed up ... clearly the pro entries redirect to the 'Israel lobby' entries" then my initial assumption would have been justified'. Since you chose instead to oddly stand by what is clearly an untruth about these redirect you lose my good faith assumptions. That's only fair. WP:AGF is not a protection blanket for those editing without good faith. I'm still open to a change of mind should you change your approach. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I said what I believed to be the truth, and may have been mistaken, but to accuse me of lying -- not to mention other accusations implying I have been editing at other sites under false pretenses etc etc -- is over the top for me. I am not interested in any kind of "protection." The original article used the expression "pro-Israel lobby" and you have edited it out in favor of what you claim is a wiki policy. I will not revert your change on the CAIR page, even though I disagree with it. I did check out the Israel lobby page and noted that there was barely a consensus for maintaining it one way or the other (pro- or not), so apparently it stands as it was. That is a very thin "policy", but I will not argue any more for this as there is plenty to do on wiki without getting embroiled in such pettiness. Please do not engage me any more on this. Stellarkid (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Other accusations implying that have been editing at other sites under false pretenses"? What on earth are you talking about? By the way there is nothing thin about WP:NAME. I suggest reading it.PelleSmith (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The implication (and lack of good faith) was here: "I note that a fringe POV attempted to change the other article title recently. Please do not bring that mess over to other entries." To the other issue, I respectfully ask that you honor my request and do not engage me on it. I made my argument, consider that you have had the last word. Stellarkid (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That quote does not make any claims about you editing anywhere "under false pretenses". I merely noted that there was a recent controversial page move made by a specific POV, against our naming conventions. It was properly changed back. The CAIR entry is not a place to make similar controversial moves. Nothing to do with you editing under false pretenses. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

Please leave a rationale for the tag on the talk page. Create a new section and explain why you put the tag up.PelleSmith (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

1948 Palestine War

I would like to ask you how you would refer to the period covering both the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Because that time period is what the list is covering. nableezy - 02:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

How I would refer to it is unimportant. The question would be how most historians would refer to it. Some historians call it the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.... some the 1947-'48 Arab-Israeli war... and more refer to it as the First Arab-Israeli war. Some refer to it as the 1948 Palestine war. Most historians consider those six months to be the lead-up to the war, a stage of it, a first wave. Regarding the list, it is way too long, too vague, nowhere near explicit enough. It's a total rip-off from Khalidi's book. Stellarkid (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

gaza massacre

I am asking you to self-revert that change. Yes consensus can change but it has not yet and we have an open RfC to try to find what consensus is. Edit-warring over this is not wise. Please self-revert the change. nableezy - 03:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not wise? Then I urge you to take a look at your own recent revert history.

The edit summaries invariably revert based on "consensus" or lack thereof, violating CCC-- "Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action."

and this also on WP:CONSENSUS : Edits that are neither changed nor removed are always presumed to have consensus until someone actually challenges them. Consequently, you should not remove a change solely on the grounds that there is no formal record indicating consensus for it: instead, you should give a policy-based or common-sense reason for challenging it.

Once the edit has been challenged, there is no longer consensus. The edit has been challenged. Therefore the WP:burden is on those who wish to include the material (you, for one) to find policy-based common-sense reasons to include it. I don't think that you have met that burden, sorry. Stellarkid (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not reverting because it is consensus, I am asking you not to revert when you dont have consensus. I have reverted it for reasons given on talk, and you should read WP:BURDEN to see what it actually says. Reliable sources have been provided that support the wording "Hamas has called the conflict the Gaza massacre". If you cant see that I cant help you, but you should not be reverting repeatedly, especially when an RfC is open. nableezy - 04:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Gaza War

Saw ur post on Agada's page and couldn't agree with u more. It seems that any position that even remotely presents and Israeli viewpoint is immediately reverted. By way of example check out the discussion page. My edits regarding Garlasca and his Nazi fetishes were reverted as were edits explaining the reasons for Israeli strikes on mosques. Tony Cordesman and Colonel Richard Kemp concluded that the IDF did NOT commit war crimes and these sources were omitted as well. Yet Goldstone's report is placed on a pedistal and is considered untouchable and not subject to criticism.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Unfortunately, work obligations prevent me from dedicating more time to this nonsense and dealing with these abusive censors. It seems that they've adopted a tactic of coordinating their reverts and come at you in swarms and try to overwhelm and exhaust you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This

Please elaborate, as you prefer on jiujitsus talkpage Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gaza War. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. tedder (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

How come you both editwarring and complaining about it on admins talkpage at the same time? Urging them to protect the side! Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Gaza War - from Nableezy's talk page

Nableezy started by putting up a report on me on his talk page, which I will reproduce here. I returned the favor by putting a report on his edits on his talk page. He made a couple of comments which I will reproduce here, before he dumped the whole section, (with the comments below) keeping of course his report on me. I am reproducing it here just to help me think this thing through.

FROM STELLARKID: Quite fascinating. Now here are your reverts from the past few weeks. I included your commentaries, my comments are in italics. The vast majority of these are straight reverts, with no reference to the discussion being held in TALK regarding issues of WP:CCC, WP:NONENG, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:BURDEN. The very day the protection period was over you rushed in and reverted again to the most hotly debated text without getting agreement on the TALK page:

( restore started per the sources, this is specifically about the Gaza War; change to called by Hamas, treat both Cast Lead and Gaza massacre as names from the governments) reinserted Massacre

(Undid revision 316440696 by Brewcrewer (talk) yes and you need to show consensus has changed, no consensus for removal of long standing text)

(there is no consensus for the removal of this text and verifiable sources have been provided on talk and at the end of the

(Revert to revision 316682478 dated 2009-09-28 13:56:50 by 77.127.53.97 using popups)

rv, the sources cited show "people in Gaza" using that name, your belief that it is not real does not matter)

(there is no consensus for this change, open an RfC if you wish)

(Undid revision 317725599 by AgadaUrbanit (talk) this is amply sourced and an RfC is open)

(Undid revision 317733746 by AgadaUrbanit (talk) an RfC is ongoing and 10 different sources have been provided)

(this source should end this)changes the lead from Hamas to Arab world

(Undid revision 318200531 by Stellarkid (talk) nonsense, the text is directly supported by the citations)

(here is an actual compromise)reverted back to embolden, and capitalized

One week of locked then Protected Gaza War: Edit warring / Content dispute ( (expires 04:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)) (expires 04:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC))))

(move up, bold and capitalize per source)reverted to the most disputed version

(Undid revision 320039469 by Stellarkid (talk) removal of reliably cited and there is no consensus to completely remove gaza massacre)

(Undid revision 320078418 by Stellarkid (talk) again, completely removing "gaza massacre" with no consensus)

If this is collaborative editing, you sure have put one over on me! It is clear to anyone who takes the time (the horrors) of looking back over the archives of this that there has really not been a 10-month consensus, but merely an ongoing enforcement, similar to what you and a couple others have been doing on this page in the last few weeks. Because editors have given up rather than get caught up in an edit war does not mean there was consensus to include this. There have been numerous reasons/policies given (per above) but you have ignored them. Stellarkid (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I really have no respect for you, so your moronic assertions that I only have 1 source or that I have a willingness to edit war while you think your actions are acceptable only annoy me. All you have contributed to that article is the removal of a term you dont like and bullshit. Nothing else. And you make the exact opposite argument depending on the POV advanced. Seeing as that is the case, kindly leave this talk page alone. But you have no idea what you are talking about. "Gaza massacre" barely came up in the past 10 months. But you cant be bothered to actually give a factual argument. nableezy - 13:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • And for each of the policies you think support you: WP:CCC is not a reason to change the text, WP:NONENG does not require English sources despite your repeated lying as to what it requires, it cannot be WP:OR if the source cited says exactly what is in the article, WP:BURDEN is met if a verifiable source is provided (and many have been), same with WP:V (they are the same policy though you probably just felt like adding some more to your list to make it seem more than it is), and the WP:POV argument is completely retarded and without any merit at all. The idea we should not include what Arabs call it is what is POV-pushing. nableezy - 13:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

.....................................

This is the list of my edits as extrapolated by Nableezy's page, along with his comments

  • completely removes "gaza massacre" with source
  • completely removes with source
  • exactly the same as below, though he thinks it is "another" attempt at a compromise instead of the same edit he made previously
  • changes to "known as a 'massacre'" when every source calls it "the gaza massacre"
  • completely removes
  • other
  • removes from lead and places in media as "a 'massacre'"
  • completely removes
  • completely removes
  • other names he inserts using the exact opposite reasoning as he is using to remove gaza massacre

This has been in the lead for going on 10 months, 10 sources of Hamas officials using it as the name in both English and Arabic have been presented and 2 sources that explicitly say "known in the Arab world as the 'Gaza Massacre'" have been provided. Stellarkid's sole purpose at this article has been to edit war out a name that he does not like. Users have said that they accept that it has been used as a name but they want to remove it because it is "defamatory" to Israel. There has been a consistent push to eliminate a significant POV, which NPOV requires we include, by a set of editors. It is difficult to restrain myself to just allow that set of editors to continually remove something that they find personally objectionable. I find many things that are cited to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs objectionable, but I have not removed them, in fact I have put them in and reverted to keep them in. nableezy - 23:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly this was removed from nableezy's page as "Bullshit" and a comment which can be seen here Stellarkid (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Gaza Massacre"

Let's assume that it's rephrased "known to Hamas as the 'Gaza Massacre,'" would you be cool with that phrasing?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to say yes but I can't. Not in the lede. It is not sourced verifiably. The only sources that presumably say this are in the Arab media thus violating WP:NONENG. This is a POV and doesn't belong in the lede in my opinion. The Arab media calls this a massacre and every other thing a massacre as I showed with news articles from prior years. This is the Arab POV and belongs in the article, but not in lede as a name! It is not a name but a POV. It would be much better to have a section that explains the views of both sides without being polluted by the the others' view. In other words, the Arab writers write the Arab viewpoint and the Israeli writers write the Israeli viewpoint and we let the readers decide. "Massacre" does not belong in the lede for the reasons I have given on the talk page. Stellarkid (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I actually concur with you that historically, in the past, they had a tendency to describe any loss as a massacre. So technically you are correct and I agree, that it is a POV. However, I think there are greater errors in this article that require correction and emphasis should be made on either correcting erroneous stats or countering them with RS. Incidentally, Mr Anon Unsigned has filed another complaint against me.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I as u already know, I was a bad boy and was blocked but I do appreciate ur advice. I didn't realize immediately that I was blocked cuz I was off-line for a few days. In any event, I'm back. Hope the article wasn't buthchered too much in my absence:)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes you are correct. I'll make note of that in my next series of edits. BTW, what did you think of my latest edit in the Fact Box. Seems to have generated some controvesy in the discussion page despite the fact that I quadrupled sourced it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for what?

Can you tell why you put a list of edits in ANI? Why did you made a list of my edits at all to start with? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

== This ==
Please elaborate, as you prefer on jiujitsus talkpage Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Remember? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Opinions. You spit out accusations in shed of "Hey but that's just my opinion." Well. News for you: Things is not as it seems like if you either not look closly or have a set of belifs or opinion, or whatever, that obscure the mind. If you havnt been in that combatative mood you could get some help with interpretation of the diffs. Same goes about the "the comments that Juijitsui guy put up at ANI that you put on his talk page". Do you even know which of them I put on his page, did you noted the time for his Godwin on Gaza War Talk? Did you read the context, on the talkpage? Guess not. I dont think you have good intent and sure I dont have faith in that anything I say to you will be of use. Luck for me I got some time over to vaste. "I believe in apologizing for my mistakes and correcting my errors". What can I say? As for now I dont think you can. Apologizing implicate you know the errors. Your writings on my talkpage says you dont. Your actions says you dont. Im sitting here laughing at you. You made my day. Thanks. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
You are a native english speaker? Yes? How come you use plural "making charges against others". Is it a 'language thing' like a expression when you mean singular? And this "And I see what is going on, where you make POV edits and then when someone reverts them, you report him," should this be interpretated literally or somehow else? I mean is it your view of reality or a way of talk, expressing general disapproval? Also plural/singular ambiguity here. Im not sure if you also imply a trend. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have no trouble understanding English. so you see when you take someone to (more than one) wikiboards it would be a plural thing. Further you have made charges against me as well, that I am teaming up, combative, etc. That would make for "charges against others." But really, the charges up on the ANI board are not directed at you but at Juijitsuguy. The charges he made against you were by way of explanation and justification. Perhaps they are sufficient, perhaps not. If I were you I would strike them if I could and try to come to an understanding with him on his talk page. But that of course is your call. Stellarkid (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I still dont follow you. Untill I went to ANI 18th october there was only Wikiquette I filed a complain. So you had good faith in my editing before that. Well thats good then. But still, "others", when you use it, you mean jiujitsuguy or jiujitsuguy and you? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

noticeboards

My point in going to the reliable source noticeboard was to address one, and only one, of the arguments presented, the reliability of the source, and there seems to be general agreement that the source is reliable. Next we can address another part of the argument, and the one that seems to be the one flaring up right now is the neutrality of the statement. If you would like we can go to that noticeboard as well to get answers on that question, and neutrality includes WP:WEIGHT which is the argument on whether or not it should be in the body and not the lead. If we could work out a a few short sentences that you, Cptnono, and I agree with to ask for opinions on those specific issues we can work through these issues and determine a consensus either way. The only way we move forward and not just continue the nonsensical cycles we have been going through is to work through and get consensus on each issue. I promise that I will cease with the bickering from my side if you do the same and we can start out like we have never seen each others username before. Would that be agreeable to you? nableezy - 21:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't agree that the question is only the neutrality of the statement. There is also the question of the accuracy of the statement. We have 100 citations from respectable reliable sources NYT ABC NBC whatever, that suggest that when the Arabs or others refer to the conflict as 'the Gaza massacre' that they are describing it not giving it an alternative name as you are claiming. Interpreting the sources. Is there a board for that? - How about removing the "offending" sentence as a show of good faith, per WP:BURDEN & WP:CCC at least for the duration of the question on the board? After all, you and your "side" have been reverting on grounds that it was omitted against consensus. Then we go to the board with the sentence you want in and the specific sources you want to support it. That would be worth a shot if we can get perspectives from a fair number of objective others. Hopefully we can get perspectives on the issue and not just bias. Stellarkid (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

AE

If you debate every rebuttal the AE will just get bogged down. Let the edit summaries and edit history of 3 edit wars in less than a week speak for themselves.Cptnono (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I felt obligated to make a quick mention regarding Timut's potential gaming of the talk page. This is how it starts. Pushing for a long debate jumping between multiple comments and then inserting a wall of text to make it seem OK. Did you see Mr. Hicks perfect comment? I want to be concise like that!21:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I came across like a dick and bogged down the talk page and that is against the rules. I still think the talk page is where these discussions should be taking place since it is an open central venue but I don't make the rules and will abide by them. The closing admin gave me a perfect example of how it should have been worded and I agree that would have been better. I also have not been the best at keeping my cool at all times so all in all this is a great reminder. I am not upset to tell the truth. Thanks for the good words. I am actually pretty stoked that I have rescued a few articles and reviewed a few to GA. This is a great reminder to a)not be a dick and b)get out of the trenches and into the article. I'm considering going back on my promise to stay off the article if Nableezy gets a block for some period since the hammer of justice has finally fallen on me but I think that would be a jerk move on my part so will keep it. Cptnono (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Stellar, I'm won't me engaging over there while Nableezy is out. It looks like there are some new eyes on it which is a good thing. Looks like everything is nice and civil which is even better. I noticed that google news hits came up so I wanted to make sure you had all of the numbers. I threw this in one of the discussions and saw that hits was mentioned again. The numbers have adjusted a fraction. "الحرب على غزة" ("the war on gaza") gets 3,320,000 standard google hits. 7,170 hits in a google news search since the start of the conflict. "مجزرة غزة" (the gaza massacre) receives 121,000 in a standard search and 833 in a news search. Double check my work obviously if you think this has any bearing on the discussion. Also, don't be afraid to be wrong. I don't think you are but always keep that in mind just in case. Have fun and since I am not blocked you are always welcome to ask for a second thought at any time if you would like.Cptnono (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy and I were bickering too much. One admin even mention a house cleaning was in order. After some chat on Nableezy's page I thought it would be the right thing to do. At the time I had received 0 repercussions and the AE case was archived so I felt like justice hadn't been done in the grand scheme of things. Since I did eventually get sanctioned I might go back on it sooner or later but for now I think the break from that page is needed. I also don't want to be accused myself of rail roading content and taking advantage of the situation (ie: Nableezy is gone lets go for the jugular bwahaha). There are also so many peopl rallying for him on the admin's talk page that I wouldn't be surprised if it got reduced. I full on support his topic ban. It sucks because he likes editing the articles so much but he had warnings. Cptnono (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope you are pleased with yourself

Do you really think that asking for Nableezy to be topic-banned from I-P articles is justified based on your disgreements over the inclusion of "Gaza massacre" at Gaza War? If so, I hope you pleased with yourself. I, for one, am appalled. Congratulations on your coup d'etat. I hope you enjoy removing all phrases you do not like from the Gaza War article. I certainly won't be stopping you, since I'm not looking to garner a ban myself. The chilling effect on this decision should be very good for you. Enjoy it while it lasts. Tiamut 08:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand how you feel. You and Nableezy are clearly friends and colleagues editing from a similar perspective. Indeed I do believe that a short topic ban for Nableezy is justified, or would never have asked for it. This particular word has been edit-warred into the article on the flimsiest of evidence and against the policy-based arguments of many of his (and your) editing colleagues. Consensus was claimed for the edit and consensus did not exist. Much too much time and energy was spent over this, and a short vacation for Nableezy will hopefully help him to get his priorities in order. He isn't the first, nor will he be the last, to get a topic ban. I meant it when I said that Nableezy was intelligent and a good writer and a net asset to the project. I hope he will continue to edit outside of his topic ban area during the next four months, and come back refreshed with a new sense of camaraderie toward his colleagues on both sides of the I-P conflict. I hope you too can do the same, and try not to let this decision have a "chilling effect" on good editing based on Misplaced Pages policy. Best wishes, Stellarkid (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Hypocritical to discuss Nableezy's edit warring while ignoring your own. Much of the energy wasted on that sentence was yours, as your contributions at Gaza War consist wholly of edits removing the words "Gaza massacre", and talk page edits invoking various guidelines you think support your position to remove it. I would note that you removed those words repeatedly even while there was an RfC open on the issue (generally, one waits to see the outcome before changing the text being discussed) and during the RS noticeboard discussion on the issue (using disingenous edit summaries to boot). Nableezy opened both of those discussions seeking input from the wider community, indicating his interest in consensus and policy based discussions.
Editing based on Misplaced Pages policy requires editors acting in good faith. I find it difficult to believe that is the case here on the part of some. As such, like Nableezy, I will be staying away from discussion with those I don't think are operating in good faith.
Thank you for your reply and happy editing. Tiamut 21:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR at Gaza War

Please be aware that you have made 3 reverts at Gaza War in a little more than 1 hour. As you probably know, the article is under Misplaced Pages general sanctions. Please stop edit warring. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 06:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I was coming here to give you the formal warning, I see Malik has warned you about it already today. Any further reverts or POV edits to the page will result in administrator action against you, so please discuss it here before edit warring. tedder (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I take exception to your warnings. I think you are both mistaken. I did not make 3 reverts in less than an hour. Here are the diffs:

First diff took removed a section of the first sentence, with proper edit summary and preceded by discussion at TALK earlier in the day. Second diff took into account TALK discussion, and was also preceded by talk. The third diff was altogether different and removed material that was inproperly placed in this section as well as absolutely unimportant to the Gaza War article. I believe your warning is inappropriate and I fear it may have been taken in retaliation for the recent AE I filed against another editor. Stellarkid (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in. I know that you are relativity new so if I come across preachy say so.
I want to assume good faith but I expect you to be scrutinized and get some garbage from other editors who feel that justice was not done. In this case, the editor does have a point. WP:3RR states: "A revert... reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." So even though you are talking about it you have to be extra cautious when removing content. Take it slow. Also, it doesn't need to be 3rr to be edit waring. As one editor said about Nableezy's editing at AE: it isn't an "entitlement".Cptnono (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I personally think that since you are going about on the talk page and no wildly hitting the revert button it is OK but that isn't the way it works. You have provided crystal clear reasoning for its removal or reworking and that is echoed by multiple editors over the last several months. Both you and I removing it over and over would just get us blocked so we have to find a better option.Cptnono (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. It doesn't matter whether you've explained your edits on the article's Talk page or in your edit summary. You shouldn't engage in edit warring. Period.
  2. I don't know about any action you may have taken at WP:AE. This wasn't in retaliation for anything; it was simply a reminder about WP:3RR. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 19:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Really? I guess you were unaware that I initiated this action in response to which you made this edit on Nableezy's talk page, and that you have recently started editing the article based on the same arguments that we have just spend the last month debating starting here in Archive 58 and starting here in Archive 59. And arguing with you on the talk page at the moment. Stellarkid (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know who got nableezy blocked, and frankly it doesn't matter to me. Don't engage in edit warring. That has nothing to do with me, it has to do with you. Goodbye. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 20:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Edit conflict and chill out
I think Stellar already got the point on edit warring (he responded on my talk page so maybe it wasn't clear here). And two admins (Malik Shabazz and Tedder) saying knock it off means knock it off so there should be no worries.
All edit warring aside, it is madly frustrating to see Stellar provide evidence and it is completely disregarded or missed. For example, right above your last comment on the discussion page, the numbers for "the war on gaza" in both Arabic and English show that it is used more than "the gaza massacre" in both Arabic and English in both standard and news hits yet you refute it. The problem with the article and why I'm trying not to get into it too much until I'm properly cooled down is that editors have become entrenched or new ones don't look at all of the information available.Cptnono (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Apology

No problem. I'm sorry if I came off heavy-handed. I think we both just got off on the wrong foot. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 04:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification about AE

I have requested arbitration enforcement regarding you here Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

AE

Dude get up there and make a statement on your behalf! Defend yourself man.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I self reverted the offending sentence. Too much fighting lately. Thought I'd make a peace overture of sorts. I hope it's reciprocated.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Good to see that is settled. I trust you'll be keeping your nose clean. I'm also stoked to see Jiujistuguy making this new effort. I haven't been editing over a the talk page or article but will for sure throw my two cents in at a formal mediation regarding the line if that is the next step. Cptnono (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Not sure it is settled per AGK's talk page. He says something about some other sysops wanting to dispense with formal warning procedures and going straight for the jugular ahead with bans (on moi) anyway. At any rate, I am taking upon myself some small punishment (1 RR limitation) and hoping to have a bit of a time off, since I have been spending far too much time at this. I used to have a life before WP! I do feel the issue is important or heaven knows I would not have expended so much energy on it. I've also asked AGK to reconsider the lock, and agreed to stay off of it for full two months (except for mediation). I think everyone will behave a bit better now that some of the principals have been warned or given a punishment. Take care, Stellarkid (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
All of the long messages and changing blame shouldn't change Nableezy's. It looks like you are OK with whatever is coming to you so that aspect is settled enough. Want to do mediation before you take off? This This one line has been argued about for almost a year and caused turmoil. Maybe we need the oversight of someone who can flat out say "no" one way or the other. I've looked into it briefly but am not sure of all the ins and outs. Thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cptnono I would definitely like to see this go to mediation, and asked AGK for guidance. From the sound of it, he is looking into the article (bless his heart, he has courage!) and I hope he will help push mediation forward. I would hope that Nableezy would also have the opportunity to engage in the mediation, since his was about the strongest in his to get the phrase in in some fashion. There were others of course, Tiamut, and RomaC, and Seanhoyland. Seanhoyland I think might go for mediation.

AE should refuse to take anything like this (Nableezy or me, either) without insisting the parties go to mediation first . That is supposed to be wiki policy, but it is neither followed nor even really encouraged. And if they do insist on mediation, they should make sure there is a board available. Maybe like the US court system, start with a local court, with an equal number of judges chosen by each side, and where you can get at least one appeal to a higher court, like the Court of Appeals. These would be wiki admins who know policy thoroughly, (rather like the US Constitution) and I think in order to be completely even-handed, they must be strict constructionists. The edit warring is caused 99% of the time (when the editors are serious, not vandals) by a difference of opinion and POV that reflects itself in the context. So when they say "content dispute" it is never 'merely' a content dispute - it is a whole different way of looking at things.

Everybody knows that there are certain areas where battling does go on. Throwing out editors left and right, or knocking them off in small claims courts (ie 3RR, Wiki Etiquette alerts, etc) or AE is not "collaborative editing." There is not an editor in the area that will not make a lot of mistakes. But I would never have taken Nableezy to AE if it hadn't become clear that that was what was happening. Pressure was being applied to get people to conform to a certain viewpoint. This pressure was applied not just by Nableezy but by others as well.

These discretionary sanctions are the result of at least understanding that there is a problem. But no one quite seems to know what to do about it, or wants to. If Misplaced Pages is going to treat this section of WP differently from other sections of WP, they really should try to understand the situation, which they don't. They just know it's trouble, no one wants to get really involved. Administrators get a real load of crap if the come down on the "wrong" side. So many established editors in the area having topic bans should really tell them that something else needs to be done, a new way of thinking. Please be careful when asking me for my thoughts. You may release a torrent. Actually it was helpful in straightening out the mess in there a little :) Stellarkid (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

EU

Sorry for comparing you to the European Union but I couldn't think of anything else :)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

haven't been too impressed with the EU lately, but I appreciate the sentiment! :) Stellarkid (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel discretionary sanctions notice

In relation to this AE thread, you are served with the following formal notification. If any point of it is at all not clear, please do contact me.

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
  • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
  • Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. AGK 01:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

For What it's Worth

Stellar, for what it's worth, I think you're an excellent editor who's done an outstanding job on the project. You've done a lot to restore balance into an article that was heavily skewed and did so in a remarkably poised and professional manner. Don't take too long of a break. Misplaced Pages needs more like you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, it is worth a great deal to me. I very much appreciate your comment, and will simply note you are definitely in the minority on that, lol. That in itself is telling. I can't seem to stay away 100% anyway. But a little less time here would make my family happier. I once was at a meeting with a drug and alcohol counselor who said that the sign of an addiction is when you continue to do something, even when you know that doing it has negative consequences. Perhaps I have a small addiction. So I am still a little bit here, and will try to stay out of trouble. Thanks again for your kind words. And Misplaced Pages needs all of us who are willing to work to make balanced and fair edits, particularly in this trying area. And that means you, too. All the best, Stellarkid (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Tough break and a lousy decision. I guess the North Koreans won out. Don't be discouraged though, some of my best edits came off a block.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Done --Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
He was one strange dude as well as self destructive.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Topic-banned for 2 months

 Further to this AE complaint, and by the provisions of this remedy of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case, I am banning you for 2 months from editing all pages (including both article and article talk pages) within those topic areas which relate to the Palestine-Israel articles case. If you violate this topic ban, you will be blocked for disruption (for any duration less than the time remaining of the topic ban).

I am sorry that it came to this. If I can be of assistance, or you need guidance, please contact me. AGK 23:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War

Do you know anything about the Yom Kippur War or have an interest in it?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

--anything in particular you are interested in? I have a biggish library. Stellarkid (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Does ur topic ban preclude you from making edits to the Yom Kippur War?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point. My first inclination was to say, "of course" -- but on second thought -- that's an interesting question. The topic ban is I-P, it is not I-A. Were the P's involved? One can't really generalize form I-P to I-A or else one could generalize to anything. I'll have to think on it a bit. I noticed these two edits today , followed by this edit and this one giving credit where credit is due (though no record of sharing)- could speak to tag-teaming. Though those are in the topic area, and this one is not necessarily so. So I'm thinking. Stellarkid (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Stellarkid (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted., from WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict. That is the area of conflict of the topic ban and Yom Kippur War is without question within that topic area. nableezy - 05:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I did go back and review it. And I do so appreciate your keeping an eye on my talk page and my edits. Stellarkid (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
To my understanding, the topic ban precludes u from editing I-P issues but not I-A. Why don't you ask AKG for clarification.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Jiujitsuguy, Nableezy is right and the relevant passage is "The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted." It does seem broad, considering... But it is so written: WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict Stellarkid (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem, though it appears from the above that the courtesy is not one-sided. nableezy - 06:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Freedom

Hey dude! How does it feel to be a free man and off the Wiki drug for two months? I'm a bit envious :)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Once a dick an addict, always an addict. I am lurking. Thinking about the difference between history and historiography in relation to I-P conflict in WP, and interested in the current dynamics. I see we have got nowhere with the "m" word. The powers that be can penalize us, but can't or wont help us resolve these conflicts. AGK is running for arbitrator so he is busy and probably the last thing he wants is to get involved with anything at all to do with this conflict. Perhaps I will take a look at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation -- but everyone has to be willing and sign on. Maybe with Nableezy and me off it can be mediated better. Stellarkid (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Ha! I am watching, too. It looks like Nableezy already violated his sanction but it was so minor I don't think it matters. In regards to the massacre thing, I have been meaning to open up mediation (AGK said formal or informal would be OK for this case) but have been holding back in the hopes that it would get fixed over there on its own.Cptnono (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts

  • In 1975, well-known literary scholar and dedicated leftist Hans Mayer wrote, “Whoever attacks Zionism, but by no means wishes to say anything against the Jews, is fooling himself and others. The State of Israel is a Jewish state. Whoever wants to destroy it, openly or through policies that can effect nothing else but such destruction, is practicing the Jew hatred of yesterday and time immemorial.”
  • Jean Améry criticized the elitist anti-Zionism of the Left as being nothing more than run-of-the-mill anti-Semitism. In a speech in 1969, Améry stated, “Anti-Semitism was once the socialism of the stupid guys. Today it is about to become an integrating ingredient of socialism as such, and thereby every socialist turns himself, by his free will, into a stupid guy. Anti-Semitism has become respectable again, but there is no such thing as respectable anti-Semitism!”
  • International Law or International Discrimination? from a blog - Goldstone and Irwin Cotler tee off
  • Ilan Pappe : In other words, I want to make the case for the paradigm of ethnic cleansing and use it to replace the paradigm of war as the a basis for the scholarly research of, and the public debate about, 1948. ....To some, this approach -- adopting the paradigm of ethnic cleansing as the a priori basis for the narrative of 1948-- may from the outset look as an indictment. In many ways it is indeed my own J'Accuse..." --(The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, xvi.)
  • Definition of Propaganda according to WP:

Propaganda is a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.

Question: Is Ilan Pappe a self-described propagandist, and if so, can he be considered a RS for factual information? Stellarkid (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In the WP article Historical revisionism (negationism) there is a section entitled Techniques of politically motivated revisionists. This is basically a section on Holocaust denial, but "politically motivated revisionism" is not limited to Holocaust denial.

It is sometimes difficult for the non-historian to distinguish between a history book published by an academic historian doing peer-reviewed work, and a book by a best-selling "amateur writer of history"; thus, until David Irving lost his British libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt, and was found to be a "falsifier of history", the general public did not realise that his books were outside the canon of acceptable academic histories. The distinction between types of history books rests upon the research techniques used in writing such histories; accuracy and revision are central to historical scholarship. As in any scientific discipline, historians submit their papers for peer review, however, instead of submitting their work to the challenges of a peer review, revisionists rewrite history to support an agenda, often political, and using many techniques and logical fallacies to obtain the desired results.

When Pappe says that he wants to change the paradigm of discussion of the 1948 events in the middle east, and when he says "My bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the 'truth' when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous. This book is written by one who admits compassion for the colonized not the colonizer; who sympathizes with the occupied not the occupiers," " is this not "politically motivated revisionism"?

Pappe is a self-admitted revisionist. One need only go to his website or read his forwards to understand this. He is clearly politically motivated. Why wouldn't the work of Pappe be as suspect as the work of David Irving if in a different direction? Why would we use such an author who seeks to discredit one nation (the one Jewish nation) and delegitimize it as a state? His type of work is very popular now, this demon-ization of the Jewish state or Jewishness, or Holocaust remembrance, along the lines of Norman Finkelstein. This is the new historiography, but historiography is not the same as history, and we should not pretend it is. Why would we use such people as an appeal to authority?


In the article entitled Exceptionalism we read:

In ideologically-driven debates, a group may assert exceptionalism, with or without the term, in order to exaggerate the appearance of difference, perhaps to create an atmosphere permissive of a wider latitude of action, and to avoid recognition of similarities that would reduce perceived justifications. If unwarranted, this represents an example of special pleading, a form of spurious argumentation that ignores relevant bases for meaningful comparison. Groups likewise may be accused of exceptionalism, perhaps for avoiding normal terms of analysis. The term may be a marker for an implication that a point of view is widely misunderstood, such as the notion that Islamic jihad is misunderstood.

Another example might be that the notion that is pushed by Pappe and other "revisionists" that in 1948 Israel was not fighting a war for its existence against hostile neighbors and was not fearful of a local fifth column but rather that she was looking to "ethnically cleanse" the local population and enlarge her own territory.

Now I understand that this is a "narrative" that is favored by one side of this debate (which tends to be the larger side), but is this narrative factual and does it fully explain the issues involved? I see it as a "hateful" narrative that only serves to widen the gulf between two peoples and helps to create a situation that can never be resolved except by overwhelming force from some direction or another. It is a bad narrative that only serves to nurture hate. Stellarkid (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Appeal of my topic ban

I am happy for you to be permitted to again edit talk pages. As of this edit, I am ending the restriction on your ability to edit talk pages in the Palestine-Israel topic area. Please edit usefully. AGK 23:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

ae comment

I am not sure if you misunderstood, but the anonymous editor was the one who made the comment NONE of people believe in your Jewish BS about "holocaust denial" in this edit. I reverted the edit, I did not make that comment. Your comment at AE reads as though you think I made that comment. I did not. nableezy - 19:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have made a note of it on the page, will correct my post as best I can, and apologize to you for the misunderstanding. Stellarkid (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wassup

Haven't heard from you in some time. Is your exile over? In any event, happy holidays (whatever u celebrate). Warmest regards,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Great to hear from you. Let me know when your exile is over--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm currently extremely busy at work but put the Yom Kippur War on your watch list. The article in its current form is painfully inaccurate and heavily biased. I've made some edits but it seems that there's one particular editor who has appointed himself as the guardian at the gate, reverting any source or edit that is not consistent with his skewed and factually inaccurate version. It's almost as though its his full time job. Regardless, you seem to have a good grasp of the issues and your contributions are welcome. Have an excellent weekend,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
You still active or have you gone into retirement. In any event, just thought I'd drop by and say hello--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

test

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/135697

Israel National News isn't blacklisted. —Jeremy 06:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

Hi. I've started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to the first post I made today in that section if you want.) Can you offer your thoughts? I think it's very important. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Great Gulf Fixed

Hamas' line of defense -- this article makes the case for Hamas. There is zero "common ground" since Hamas considers ALL of historic Palestine theirs. Where is the room for compromise here? Stellarkid (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Debate over the uniqueness

Hi, I replied to your question there. John Hyams (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Chomsky

Out of curiosity, did you notice the following from Pexise: "I would absolutely contest the suggestion that Chomsky has anti-Israel views and would certainly request multiple sources to back up that claim (one I've never heard before even from more extreme right-wing editors)." ? --Sceptic from Ashdod 09:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I did notice that nonsense. He should read the article entitled Noam Chomsky's political views @ #Chomsky and the Middle East. There is plenty of documentation where that comes from. But we should not be padding this article with that kind of garbage. It is simply disruptive, to my way of thinking. BTW have you been following the issue re NIF & Goldstone featured here? Stellarkid (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Not closely, but I'm aware of it. I have some doubts about some of Im Tirzy's findings, so I don't feel it is a proper time to integrate it in the entry. On the same subject, I'm sure data from Monitor would be much more reliable. --Sceptic from Ashdod 07:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Since I was prompted to go to Monitor site, I thought it would be a good idea to archive several other bulletins they issued on a subject. Hope you wouldn't mind me doing it on your talk page, you know what reputation it has among our fellow editors. Who Wrote the Goldstone Report?, Number of NGO citations in the report: "The report includes than 500 such references: B’Tselem: 56 citations, Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR): 50, Al Haq: 40, Adalah: 38, Human Rights Watch (HRW): 36, Defence of Children International – Palestine Section (DCI-PS): 28, Breaking the Silence: 27, Amnesty International: 27". --Sceptic from Ashdod 07:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
From Monitor's researcher published in YNET: In parallel, HRW joined in the chorus defending the New Israel Fund (NIF), which has recently come under fire for funding Israeli NGOs that contributed to the Goldstone Report. --Sceptic from Ashdod 07:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't mind at all. Finding the articles quite interesting myself. Thanks. Stellarkid (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy Purim!


Mbz1 (talk) is wishing you a Happy Purim! This greeting promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy Purim, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.

Israel-Palestine and edit warring

You have been topic banned in the past, so you should know better. Currently, you are engaged in an edit war on an article which has current ArbCom general sanctions. Please review those and WP:3RR. Do not edit war any further, and consider self-reverting, and taking your issues to talk. If the disruption continues, you will be subject to blocks and/or topic bans. If you have any questions about what is and isn't appropriate editing behavior, ask now before you edit further. -Andrew c  16:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I replied to you on my talk page. -Andrew c  21:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And your good advice

Stellar, please remember my quotes of the day :) Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


Your highly offensive personal attacks

You can't ignore this Stellarkid -- I have just read your comments here which are directed at me. People like you who make such vile and offensive accusations to other editors are not fit to be allowed to edit Misplaced Pages. I have reported you!!!!! I am disgusted!! Vexorg (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I am equally offended by your comments, for example claiming (and editing to the effect) that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are not hoaxes but true; arguing that "Zionist Occupation Government" is not an antisemitic comment, by rewriting the Anti-Defamation League article to call it a "Zionist" organization. I was equally offended by your attack on Mbz1, referring to a "current obsessive campaign" "chasing after those who make edits that oppose his political opinion" and claiming that she is "trying to demonize" you, when in fact she is merely putting up evidence of your editing and asking the Wiki community to take a look and come to their own conclusions. We are all entitled to our own determination of what we consider "vile and offensive accusations", and I agree with some other editors that accusations that imply that the Protocols are true, or suggestions that there is nothing anti-Jewish in the concept of a Zionist Occupied government qualifies as offensive and arguably "racist" or "bigoted." I suggested that you educate yourself rather than pointing fingers at what you call others' "political agendas." You have been destabilizing articles to put forward your bias. You threw your cards on the table and I just called it as I saw it. Stellarkid (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
AFAIC Zionist Occupied Government is not racist. Why? becuase Zionism is a political movement not a race. Zionism does not speak for all Jews and if you say it does then YOU are offending many Jews. So no, there is nothing anti-Semitic about ZOG IMO. And I have nowhere implied or said the 'Protocols' are true, to claim otherwise is a lie. As to suggesting I educate myself, I suggest YOU educate yourself about 'Zionism' and how it does not always equal 'Jewish' and then you might not run the risk of offending Jews who are against Zionism. And regards Mbz1 who has exposed herself as nothing more than a childish obsessive I am entitled to defend myself against such a tirade which is fuelled by nothing more than a political agenda. I've looked into MBz1's history and there's issue after issue where she has childishly attacked people who edit in a manner which oppose her political agenda and her 'cause'. She picked on the wrong person this time. You also appear to be part of that cause. Now you are entitled to say you find my edits offensive, but making offensive personal attacks by calling my a racist and bigot is out of order and I have reported you.Vexorg (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
With respect to what you said above: "And I have nowhere implied or said the 'Protocols' are true, to claim otherwise is a lie. " When you strike out "antisemitic hoax" as you did in that diff, you are leaving the reader with the impression that the Protocols are not an antisemitic hoax, thus implying that they are possibly true. So who is telling stories now? Stellarkid (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

are the Protocols an antisemitic hoax according to RS?

The only thing I wish for

Is that the sin we discussed last night was one the reasons to indefinitely ban all its. How much better Misplaced Pages would have been then! Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not start your own wiki ? Then you can fill it full of all the propaganda you like and no one can stop you. Be much easier surely? Vexorg (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the expression Zionist Occupation Government considered antisemitic according to RS?

  • "The meaning of ZOG is Zionist Occupation Government. It is a concept whose source is in the American radical-right propaganda and it has become well-known in the international Neo-Nazi and radical right arena. The concept refers to Jewish control over all government institutions, the media and so forth in the U.S., through the Zionist/Jewish lobby. It is also possible to find the term today in anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic Islamic propaganda." From the Israeli government
  • Anti-Semitism in America, by Leonard Dinnerstein; A Scapegoat in the New Wilderness, by Frederic Cople Jaher & Reviewed by Jack Wertheimer "The Aryan Nation exploits the media to spread its paranoid message of armed resistance to the “Zionist Occupation Government” in Washington..... The ancient canard of Jewish complicity..."
  • The Stephen Roth Institute for the study of contemporary antisemitism and Racism at Tel Aviv University "Australian National Socialist Movement (ANSM) seeking recruits to combat "Jewish bankers" in the interests of "a future for white children." In areas where ANSM material was distributed, the signature C-18, identified with the UK fascist group Combat 18, appeared with graffiti, such as "Jews out," "Zionist Occupation Government" and the words "Levi" and "C-18," together with swastikas."
  • From David Chalmer's book How the Ku Klux Klan Helped the Civil Rights Movement "Many of the members of these groups are avid believers in the "Zionist Occupation Government." Zionist Occupation Government (abbreviated as ZOG) is an antisemitic conspiracy theory according to which Jews secretly control a country, while the formal government is a puppet regime. ..... found in neo-Nazi William Pierces's The Turner Diaries...

How is your English :)

Hi Stellar, I wrote an article here, but you know my English, is not so great. If you have a time please do improve it. You are also welcome to add new Info. Best.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

  1. Falsifier: