Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jaakobou (talk | contribs) at 14:21, 12 August 2007 (→incivility). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mediation Cabal

You've defined the conflict far too narrowly, and too one-sidedly. You've been reverted by Humus Sapiens as well, and Bless sins has been reverting on your side. In addition, the Mediation Committee is official, the Mediation Cabal is not. Jayjg 02:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've responded already, here. You need to involve all the participants, and you need to use the Mediation Committee, not the Mediation Cabal. Jayjg 00:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism removal

No worries, anyone would have done the same. I spotted it while checking his contributions list to remove the earlier vandalism. No doubt he'll be back in 72 hours and we can enjoy his company on Misplaced Pages once again. Euryalus 02:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Isarig has reported you for 3RR . I would advise you to speedily self revert, before they block you. Good luck ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, nice try anyway. I didn't realize that 3RR applied even when the other side makes no attempt to explain or discuss their edits, and just insults those he disagrees with. Eleland 20:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for violating the Three Reverts Rule on the article Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You may resume editing after the block expires, but continued edit warring may result in longer blocks without further warning. Edit summaries are for edit summaries, not for arguments; discussion should take place on the appropriate talk page, not as punctuation after each revert. You can avoid further problems in the future by discussing instead of reverting. Remember - there are no emergencies on Misplaced Pages. Kafziel 19:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I did discuss my edits, extensively, on the talk page. Sorry about the edit summaries; it was foolish to respond in kind to Isarig.

I realize that you're only implementing a long established policy, but I do not see how it's helpful to block somebody making well explained edits because he does it too many times, when a "tag-team" of opponents who blatantly violate AGF and make no attempt to justify their edits can go on its merry way.

Eleland 20:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your problem, which is why the block is only 24 hours. I'm watching the situation now and don't worry: I don't let tag-teams game the system. But more importantly, keep in mind that it should never have gotten that far to begin with: if you get reverted, let it go. Everything will work out eventually, and edit warring is only going to make the situation worse. Just be patient, leave the other guy's version in place, and keep discussing it as long as it takes. There are options for mediation if you need them, but revert warring will only make your side look bad. Kafziel 20:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the sensible advice. I have other things to do with my time, anyway. I mean, presumably... ;) Eleland 20:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Grasping for straws?

I reject your conceited "warnings": again, your problem is not with me, but with facts. You seem to be unable or unwilling to approach the subject from NPOV. Regarding a particular charge that this was a misleading edit summary: indeed, I "rewrote this section as a summary of material relevant to the subject". ←Humus sapiens 22:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

see text

The use fall under "fair use" Zeq 17:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to definition of "fair use"

Fair use is very specific and apply when the image was loaded. I did not loaded the image. Please discuss with who ever loaded it and together decide if the image can be used in wiki or not.

Best, Zeq 18:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

SRA

Hi Eleland,

You were right: I archived some threads in the SRA page prematurely.

I see in your user page that you play chess. I'm just curious: do you have FIDE rating? Mine is 2109.

Please continue doing the good work.

—Cesar Tort 17:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Six Day War/pre-emptive

Just wanted to acknowledge the fact that you were the only other editor - other of course than the person who originally started that section of the talk page - to back up my argument. At least I don't feel totally alone! However as I said, it's a pretty futile task dealing with a whole group of people who think Michael Oren is the sole and supreme authority on all matters Israeli-Palestinian (check out how often they say "it's interesting what Michael Oren has to say about this ..." or "Michael Oren has pretty much debunked this argument"). Those same editors have even removed at least one reference in the article to some of the available quotes I was talking about, and then group-congratulated themselves on having done so (a pretty clear comment by Menachem Begin that Israel had a choice, and made it in favour of launching a war). At the end of the day I don't want to be on the receiving end of some of the nonsense I've noticed that you've had to put up with from one particular editor on talk pages, who - to my astonishment - appears to be an administrator. I'm glad you have more dedication than I do. --Nickhh 09:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ty for the compliment, but, I really don't feel it's deserved. I've been involved in three consecutive "battles" over Israel-related Misplaced Pages articles, and in every case, the result was that the articles became more biased. Check the histories on Israel and weapons of mass destruction, Template:Israel-Palestinian Peace Process and Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and you'll see what I mean. Despite the noble idea of reaching consensus on talk page, invariably certain editors will refuse to engage except by repeating barely coherent arguments ad nauseum. The administrator you mention is the worst example I've ever run into, but there's another admin who doesn't quite go so far, but nonetheless is constantly rude, mocking, and dismissive of anything he doesn't agree with, no matter how well explained or sourced.

Ultimately, the 'pedia is edited by well-educated people with above-average income, especially those who feel passionately about a particular issue. The better educated you are, and the wealthier you are, the more conservative you tend to be. And that's laying aside the special factor of American Jews who identify strongly with the far-right of Israeli politics -- notice that in these edit wars, actual Israelis rarely show up, and when they do it's more often than not to express their disbelief at the positions being pushed by Americans on their behalf. Oh well, as usual, you just have to do what you can.

Eleland 18:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Caterpillar

Thanks for the edits & comments on the Caterpillar talk page, I was waiting for someone else to do the reverts. After arguing the issue there several times it would have looked capricious if I had done it.--Hooperbloob 18:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Talk:Caterpillar, Inc.

How many times are you going to post to my talk page? I have already expressed what I think of the inclusion which is not to include it. Unless it goes across the board for all companies (which it isn't because of the reasons already stated), it should not be included in the article. You should get a more broad POVs from people, I am not going to change how I view the information. Please, from now on, only give me one notice and don't post it again on my talk page.--Kranar drogin 20:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Its alright, just gets frustering to get the same messages. Anyways, I have tagged the discussion and think this should provide you with a wider POV from those who watch that template. I hope the issue can be resolved and will continue to monitor it.--Kranar drogin 20:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin

I've just re-written the "Kurdi Bear" entry and I put both links in before you suggested it. However, I'm not sure why, since there's no debate about the accuracy of the English version. There is a debate over whether non-Hebrew speakers are entitled to "Verifiability", however, some suggestion that "all readers" doesn't include monoglot English speakers. Oh, well. PalestineRemembered 20:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it's makes no practical difference, is an effective olive branch, and prevents tendentious editors from muddying the water with accusations of removal. Eleland 20:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a very good argument! Misplaced Pages has policies, they're generally not bad, and we should stick to them. Allowing other languages into references is bad news, it enables people to drive a cart-and-horses through , supposedly one of the key principals of WP. However, I've discovered over the ArbCom that people with better brains than mine seem to be curiously reluctant to apply them to the problem of integrity in articles. Oh, well. PalestineRemembered 21:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder

Thanks for kicking out my amendment to the 'troll' page. A welcome reminder not to contribute to Misplaced Pages!

My experience of Misplaced Pages, too often, was (a) that I would spend 20, 30, 40 minutes, an hour, maybe, amending something on a page; (b) that I would come back three or four hours later and the changes would have been removed. I do the detailed drafting work and spend the time; someone else comes along and presses a button (no effort involved there!) and, lo and behold, the stuff is in the bin. Par for the course. Then if I (a 21-years qualified lawyer, no less) look at who did the policing, as often as not it's some schoolkid who is still wet behind the ears who kicked my stuff out.

No business would manage its human resources as crappily as Misplaced Pages does. You have excellent people coming to Misplaced Pages and giving their free time but just being treated so casually and with contempt for it. There is no manager, no organisation of who amends what, no decision about who amends what, it is just a chaotic mess.

The truth is that Misplaced Pages has the luxury of being able to treat the contributing world like shit (if you will pardon my French) because it doesn't have to pay for people's time. If someone spends an hour or two contributing something, it's not Misplaced Pages's loss. God knows how many millions of hours of human time have been wasted unnecessarily already by the way Misplaced Pages is set up.

Unfortunately, in the medium and long-term, Misplaced Pages is throwing away huge amounts of human resource by organising itself so badly and treating people with contempt. In my case, I had already decided not to amend anything ever again, because it isn't worth bothering: your changes will just get kicked out, as likely as not, so why bother doing the detailed drafting? I amended something yesterday, in contravention of my Rule, and it wasn't a surprise to come back and find it in the bin. Such is Misplaced Pages. The effect is that you could have good contributions from a lot of people but those people no longer bother because the "system" (if one pretends there is a system!) says they are wasting their time by trying to contribute.

Too many cooks spoil the broth is the best maxim one could apply to the shabby editorial process of Misplaced Pages.

These comments aren't aimed at you, so don't take them personally. I just thought I would point out a few things to you.

Have a nice life. Me out.

89.243.238.176

Your unilateral decision to delete content and impose a new rule on the addition of content to the list of examples of conspiracy theory is not helpful. You have unilaterally removed content because you don't like it. Further, your reasons for doing so have been discussed, back and forth, on the discussion page. Your opinion of what is and is not a "conspiracy theory" does not have a neutral point of view. Your opinion of what a "theory" is, is flawed. It is the policy of wikipedia to discuss major changes or deletions of content before removing other people's contributions. You have unilaterally imposed a new rule for others to follow. Who the hell do you think you are?Michael J Swassing 16:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

incivility

please maintain WP:CIV in editing.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs).

i'd like to add that i've already reffered you to the civility page on 14:21, 29 July 2007 and on 19:53, 10 August 2007. there's a limit to the number of interactions i can take before placing a warning tag on your page. Jaakobou 13:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

i marked out the phrasings that you should avoid in the future:

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 your state takes internationally

— by User:Eleland, 11 August 2007

p.s. i'm not obligated to answer personal questions especially if they are baseless libel dabbled with incivility. Jaakobou 14:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

PR AN/I talk
i find your second paragraph to be treading in a similar suggestive fashion as PR, please avoid this type: "an IDF member... about his involvement... is now rewriting the history..." of baseless insinuations and accusative phrasing in the future. Jaakobou 14:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)