→Please explain: reply |
|||
Line 286: | Line 286: | ||
::::::p.s. qualms about editors allegedly fighting you on the basis of your "moral and political persuasion" seem like another step in the racism allegations path and I'd suggest that you avoid making them. |
::::::p.s. qualms about editors allegedly fighting you on the basis of your "moral and political persuasion" seem like another step in the racism allegations path and I'd suggest that you avoid making them. |
||
::::::Cordially, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">[[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]''</sup></font></b> 04:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC) |
::::::Cordially, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">[[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]''</sup></font></b> 04:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::::To suggest that sometimes Israeli human rights groups might agree with Palestinian or international sources on some things, is hardly "a snide response" or "taunting" other editors, let alone a breach of [[WP:CIV]]. Nor is debating the use of the word massacre, with a brief reference to other examples. These kind of accusations are ridiculous as well as unethical. I have seen plenty of real cases of disruptive talk page conduct as well as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive385#User:Jaakobou genuine] breaches of Wikipedia civility guidelines. --[[User:Nickhh|Nickhh]] ([[User talk:Nickhh|talk]]) 09:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:46, 25 July 2008
Welcome all kind people
Thank you to all who visit my talk page and find ways to express your thoughts and sentiments with a sense of common human respect and dignity. Sometimes it can get difficult to do so and I applaud your efforts!
A note to the uncivil: To those of the bullying disposition: I started out this process pretty patient, but now feel compelled to warn, while I can tolerate opposing interpretations of facts, I will not tolerate incivility - be aware that every such comment will be visited with a note on your talkpage. Let's avoid this.
Those with warm hearts, welcome, welcome....
Hello!
Just spotted your user page going up in the recent changes log. I'd just like to say, your perspective sounds pleasantly uplifting! - Vianello (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
May 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Arab citizens of Israel, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi RolandR, I guess I made a mistake, or two, I see. Sorry, refcahman. I will restore the comments.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, and thanks for your response. Just to correct a misassumption -- the spurious warning on my talk page from Amoruso, who has just been blocked for two months for "very abusive sockpuppetry", had nothing to do with my reversion of your edits. In general, unless they are extremely offensive or defamatory, you should not edit other editors talk page comments, even if they are incorrect or superseded by later developments.
- I like your pattern of editing, and look forward to cooperating with you in future. RolandR (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Bakri additions
No problem! I wanted to thank you earlier for expanding the article (more than doubling it in size), but I guess I got caught up in other things. Anyway, thank you very much for your work, I'm going to add a tiny segment (maybe two-three sentences) on his family life in the article now. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the recent edit you made to Jenin, Jenin has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. - Icewedge (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Please explain, I don't know what you mean - the neutrality box I added? What's unconstructive about that? Or do you mean the 'synopsis needed' box?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry about that. Please accept my heartfelt apologies, I am using an automated script to patrol the recent changes and I must have hit the revert key on accident. Sorry. - Icewedge (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- No worriesLamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Arab Citizens of Israel
Thanks for the reminder. Cgingold (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Where do I give my opinion? --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Beit Amrin
Of course it's "worthy of note", all Palestinian towns and villages are. As a matter of fact, and please believe me, I was searching google for any info on the "Beit" towns of the Nablus Governorate, including Beit Imrin or Beit Amrin. If you have any info on the town feel free to create the article, I'll gladly make additions to it - Palestinian localities are my mainspace here on Wikipedia. --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Canvassing
Hello LamaLoLeshLa! FYI, messaging users to ask them to vote in certain straw polls, also called canvassing, is considered very bad conduct on Wikipedia and violates the etiquette of Wikipedia. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 20:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not know, will not do so in the future. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
To clarify a bit further: the only person who had not already written something here was Al Ameer son. I had been in new contact with him about a different recent entry and thought he'd be interested in this discussion so I brought this talk page to his attention. I did not request he or anyone else vote a certain way. I also wrote to two others who came here of their own accord before I had even visited the page, and left a note saying: 'Are you going to visit the page again to leave your vote?' I did not say anything else, i.e. encouraging them to vote any particular way. However if that is considered canvassing and thus bad practice, I will certainly not do it again. Best -LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Reply
Replies given here: User_talk:Jaakobou#Offense. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Replied to both issues. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia
I would just like to inform you policies on using two accounts, it is not allowed. I'm not accusing you of it, I'm just letting you know. Good day. Epson291 (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Re:Haifa
Yes, but there still needs to be more info on the Arab presence in Haifa, both historically and currently as well as in terms of culture. I know the Kul al-Arab and Arabesque Press operate from Haifa. I brought these points up in the GA review among others, but nothing was added. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Operation Defensive Shield damage
PR, I was the one who wrote that sentence: ""the Palestinian Authority did not manage to fully address damaged infrastructure for approximately two years after the invasions." Note that I did not say 'failed,' but rather, 'did not manage.' My intent there was not to imply that the PA did not try to fix the damage (sometimes it tried and sometimes it did not, depending on the town, the state of finances, the interests of the PA members, etc.)but rather that the damage was so extensive that, in light of the lack of a tax base, the PA couldn't fully address the damage for two years. As there is no citable evidence saying that the PA was incapable of repairing the extent of the damage, I tried to write it in such a way that it could be interpreted however one likes. Regardless of one's political orientation and interpretations, the fact remains that the damage took years to address. Is it possible you are jumping to conclusions, assuming bad faith, too quickly? Or do you think it's unclearly written/recommend I go in an edit is so the message is more overt? I would be happy to. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I feel that this treatment of the situation is misleading. The PA was virtually wiped out as a functioning administration, throughout the West Bank, with all records destroyed and everything smashed. Rebuilding of the refugee camps was hampered by several further incursions and a large number of killings of UN workers, including the British head of UNWRA reconstruction, shot dead inside a UN compound in Jenin. An allegation included with the UN report alleged that this camp was mined by the departing Israelis, and the EU reported that bomb-disposal teams were refused entry, during which time at least two more people were killed. UN investigators were never able to visit.
- I can't be sure whether the time-scale of this article on the Operation needs or should extend to the aftermath of re-building, but I am concerned at an impression left that Israeli interference ceased and that the PA was somehow left in control. PRtalk 21:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think you raise a good set of points, and if you can cite the above assertions, should definitely include them. I think that what you argue here makes it even clearer to me that, yes, the rebuilding should be mentioned. If there is a paragraph on the violence leading up to the operation (all of it currently about attacks on Israelis) then certainly one would think that a short section on the aftermath would be relevant. After all, the physical damage was considerable; it is thus a major aspect of the operation.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Women's rights
Hi, LamaLoLeshLa. I came across your concern for the Western bias in Women's rights. There are crazier battles being waged to rescue even basic information on Wikipedia, but global perspective is important, especially for English speakers to see. The template below might help. It can be placed anywhere it's seriously needed:
{{globalize}}
Found here: Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Miscellaneous and saved here: Template:Globalize
Use it judiciously; I'd recommend picking out specific sections rather than entire articles whenever you can, it may help editors focus. Happy editing, Yamara ✉ 16:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
{{unref}}
Regarding this edit. Please reserve {{unref}} for articles that do not cantain a single reference. There are other tags more appropriate for requesting more or better sources.--BirgitteSB 13:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-upLamaLoLeshLa (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
shulapa
Hello LamaLoLeshLa,
I've read your contributions to the aritcle about the Palestinian people and found it as one of the most informative in what can be a tricky subject to handle (especially in this political situation).
I am doing a work for uni about the the origins of the palestinian nationalty as they are presented by the palestinian themself and wanted to see if I could recieve some help from you on this subject which you seem to have similar interest:
1. In the article you write "Some modern Palestinians claim ancestral and cultural connections to the ancient populations that dwelled in Palestine, particularly the Canaanites, an issue of contention within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." - can you direct me into such claims made or citation from politicale/intelctual leader?.
2. In footnote 39 you give a citation reference to "Khalidi, W., 1984, p. 32" - I couldn't find from where was this taken can you help?
3. Can you think about more directions where to find information about where do the palestinians find there national origins which part from the panarbic history - including if do they make the connection to the 1830 revolts against muhamad ali's conscirpts or other revolts against the empire.
I would appriciate all the you could provide - Eyal
shulapa2002@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.55.123 (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Eyal, I hope you make it back to my page, because I'm not in the habit of emailing people personally. I would suggest creating your own user page and this way you can communicate with people here easily. The edits I made were actually more to the flow of the article - i.e. someone else wrote them and I was moving them from elsewhere or changing their structure. I would suggest asking Nishidani or Al Ameer son. They seem to be very informed on these matters. Best of luck to you!LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Formatting articles
Hi LamaLoLeshLa! I have noticed that practically all articles you have written have serious formatting issues. I'm not trying to criticize you, just raise your attention to this issue, because most users will not be willing to spend precious time formatting articles. Please review WP:MOS and all its sub-sections for more information. Also, it appears from the articles that you might be using MSOffice (or similar) to write them - please don't do this and use a text editor, or an automated Wiki editor, if possible. Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 18:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, I'm not using MSOffice but I am not able to use the Wiki editor. You're right; and usually I am the one who goes in later and makes the citation changes once I am on a computer where I can do so more easily. I'm assuming that's mostly what you're referring to, right - citations?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, I'm talking in general. Here are a few issues I have noticed in your article 'unrecognized villages', and I haven't even read half:
- 1. Using MSOffice 'smart quotes' (“”), instead of regular quotes (""), same for single quotes. MOS says:
- The exclusive use of straight quotes and apostrophes is recommended. They are easier to type in reliably, and to edit. Mixed use interferes with searching (a search for Korsakoff's syndrome could fail to find Korsakoff’s syndrome and vice versa).
- 2. Using quotes where they are not needed, like with links, for example 'Green Patrol', as well as using them in a differently style, like, They founded the 'Green Patrol.' - both not recommended in the MOS.
- 3. The title of the page should always be in bold (e.g. unrecognized villages), and not in quotes.
- 4. Avoiding disambiguation - [[Arad, Israel|Arad]], not [[Arad]].
- 5. Quotes should generally be in templates, like the quote by Moshe Dayan (there are a few, like {{Quote}}, {{Cquote}}, etc.)
- 6. Usage of triple-periods as single characters is not recommended in the MOS:
- Pre-composed ellipsis character (…); generated with the … character entity, or by insertion from the set below the edit window. This is harder to input and edit, and too small in some fonts. Not recommended.
- 7. As you said yourself, most sources are improperly formatted, but I'm sure you know about that.
- 1. Using MSOffice 'smart quotes' (“”), instead of regular quotes (""), same for single quotes. MOS says:
- Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 18:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, I'm talking in general. Here are a few issues I have noticed in your article 'unrecognized villages', and I haven't even read half:
I should clarify that the unrecognized villages entry is a cut-paste from an entry written by someone else, which was deleted from the entry, Bedouin. I made a range of edits, but am still working on it. Some of your comments are new to me, but others are specifically only true with the entry you mentioned, which as I said, I did not originally write.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your formatting of Wadi Salib. One question - why are bolded headings always worse than subheadings? I have chosen to insert bolded headings consciously, when it seemed to me that they did not need to stand on their own necessarily. In this case, it doesn't make a huge difference either way, but I wanted to ask your opinion on this at any rate. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- About bolded headings - they are simply not useful because they are not scalable and do not contribute to the structure of the page. Although it is, again, not recommended, some Wikiepdians (I think yourself included) have used lower-tier headings (five = signs, for instance) to create the illusion of bolded headings, but still make them part of the article's structure. However, it's just non-standard on Wikipedia and probably should not be done without very good reason. If you have a problem with some headings appearing on the table of contents which you don't want, you can always use {{TOClimit}}. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 02:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
That helps. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Silwan
Great job with Silwan! Sorry, I couldn't provide much :( I'm not a great researcher and have been a little busy helping Hulrda with Bayt Jibrin lately. At least there's more background there. Again, nice job and I just got you're user name (very clever). --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Negev Bedouins
Hi LamaLoLeshLa! I would really like to collaborate with you on this topic, but my knowledge is based only on personal experience (which, by the way, dates back to my life in Arad, much earlier than the army), and I don't really have reliable sources for any of that. If I have time, I'll do some research, although as you said yourself, the crime element is taboo (as in, it's never talked about), so I doubt that there are many books (if at all) detailing the subject. I'll try to look up some statistics and Israel Police statements, although statistics alone cannot make a good article.
You are incorrect in that Israel Beitenu is anti-Bedouin. It is mostly anti-people-who-don't-serve-in-the-army-or-do-national-service, which happens to be most Bedouins, unfortunately. My experience with Negev Bedouins who do serve in the army has mostly been negative as well (Negev Bedouins are much more aggressive and undisciplined than their Galilee counterparts), although considering I ran a detention center, I guess it's non-representative. In any case, I am not racist and have an open mind about this issue, although admittedly my sympathy for the Negev Bedouins' plight went from high (before the army) to extremely low today. That, however, is for a discussion forum. I'll see what I can do with the article in due time.
Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 16:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Recognition
The Original Barnstar | ||
For your painstaking hard work on Arab citizens of Israel and related subjects, and your constructive attitude on talk pages, I am glad to award you this star. RolandR (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
Wow! a barnstar! That means I really and truly have been avoiding my other work far too much, far too obsessively, far too passionately. Thanks much, RolandR, you put a proud little, embarassed little smile on my face:)LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Reverting vandalism
Get Twinkle. Or you can go to the last good version, and click on "Restore this version". RolandR (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Beit Guvrin
I haven't really researched Beit Guvrin, all I could obtain from that article was that it was 20,000 dunams and a part of the Yoav Regional Council. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Tourist place for the caverns and archaeological digs.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Template display
Eek, you display a template so that other people can see a template by adding nowiki tags, or using the {{tl}} template. Otherwise you are actually putting the template on the talk page. Good luck! -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Blueprint Negev
The article is great and very informative (I learned something new ;-). The only thing I see that you could cut-down right now is background on the JNF. The first paragraph and the first half of the second paragraph specifically. The wikilink to the JNF takes care of all the explanation. I haven't read the entire article yet, just a basic scan. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- There is no excuse at all. I am terribly sorry :( Listen, if you need any help in another article in the Palestine topic, please ask. I'll try to what I can. By the way someone started the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Award
You and I don't agree on much, but you have handled all our disagreements in a civil , open minded way - and have created great articles in the process. Here's to you!
The Original Barnstar | ||
For being a great new editor Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC) |
Wikiproject Palestine
--SJP (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Jerusalem FAR
Jerusalem has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. <eleland/talkedits> 21:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
PGFTU
Actually, I wasn't familiar with the history of this organization until I started doing research for the article. I have access to some online newspaper archives, and I combed them for sources ... I also found some relevant works on JSTOR, as well as a few online articles. I'm worried that what I've written may not give a completely comprehensive picture of the group's early history, though I'm confident that what I've written is both accurate and encyclopedic. (Frankly, it's not easy to find reliable information about this union in English ... I'm glad that someone who can read Arabic has gotten involved with the article.)
And it's actually quite pleasant to be involved with an Israel/Palestine-themed article that hasn't degenerated into the usual partisan bickering. CJCurrie (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Jerusalem and building permits
I have some sympathy for what you are working on in the post-1967 section, but I fear that a separate section on building permits will be seen as unduly weighty. I think an argument along those lines (i.e., to remove such a section) would probably win in the end. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Lede. Last line. Finest regards Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Ring
- Good Day, Thanks for your words of support. Fortunately, I don't think it is as simple as right-wing and left-wing agendas or viewpoints. To me, the viewpoint of the international community is absolutely essential for a foundation of facts and as a central sort of Dominant/prevailing POV, and any attempts to censor it are very serious IMO. I am very well aware of Gilabrand, and though I have been rather noticably absent as of late, if you feel yourself too angry/close to a topic to look at it, please feel free to let me take a look at it, and in return, i will do the same. I sure know there are times my blood gets boiling, and I am probably better off waiting, and cooling off a bit. Cheers. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
thank you for your advice, I do appreciate that. --Aaronshavit (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Recently at Jerusalem
- When you decide you're going to pretend you don't know how this indentation thing works (i.e. you put a response without indenting), you should expect that responses to other people are sometimes going to appear like responses to you. I indented immediately in from Esmehwa's comment. My comment about your tone was merely an aside; it was obvious, really, from the rest of my post that I was addressing him, unless otherwise stated. Now, for the piece about being 'egged in the face' already and overkill -- which doesn't make sense, because I was only the second to respond to you -- I have some advice (which I'm sure you've heard before): if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. -- tariqabjotu 22:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Whew, nasty nasty. Almost sounds like what you are trying to do is drive people with opposing points of view out of the kitchen. Sorry Tariqabjotu, the heat of the kitchen is where I live, and no amount of attempts can drive me out. This should not be an atmosphere in which people try to inflame one another - we should be trying to cool things down - it's damn hot enough in Israel as it is. I was trying to make my comments more readable - I assumed it was obvious that anyone would know all the comments were from one source. Maybe this was not within suggested editing mode. But if you cannot assume good faith anymore after all this time at wikipedia, then maybe it is you who should consider getting out of the kitchen - failure to assume good faith poisons the food. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Palestinian Nazis
you might be interested to have a look at this. --Soman (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Jerus as capital
No problem, I just removed it.Joeycfc (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Unrecognized villages
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Unrecognized villages, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Guy0307 (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The brief talk around POV, and my responses to Guy are posted here.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
re: Jerusalem
I've responded on my talk page, so let's continue the discussion there. -- Nudve (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Baseless warnings.
Please do not disrupt serious editors with baseless warnings in an attempt to threaten or coerce them. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, it continues. You are a serious editor, while what I have to say is baseless. I did not threaten or coerce you. I asked you to be civil. This was what you called rambling:
- Concur with what? Please expound on this sentence since it does not make any sense. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Concur with the findings of international NGOs, the UN, etc. or the testimonies of Palestinians.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Which findings are you rambling about? ....... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Which subsequently were disproven. Given conspiracy theories equal weight is against Wikipedia policy. Please review WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Please, let's stick to the text and try to understand each other and get away from these jabs.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
POV edits
>Hi there, I like your wording re: POV tag cleanup - do you mind if I quote it, crediting you?
Hi, Lama. 1st - no I don't mind if you use my wording, but I would rather you didn't credit me, nor is it necessary. 2nd - I don't mind if you use the passage, as I said, but I'd suggest you tread carefully and perhaps read through some of the postings and go to the links on the topics of POV off of my talk page. I was chastised for being heavy handed, which I accept, though I still don't agree with some of the policies displayed. In any case, you are welcome to the text, I just don't want to be thought of as promoting the behaviour I refer to above. Good Luck....Thanks, Jjdon (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I used it once only and deleted mention of your name. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you in the midst of editing?
I see you deleted the "1967 War" heading, and now all info is consolidated under "Division." was that intentional? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I was in the midst of editing... -- tariqabjotu 21:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Battle of Jenin
Thought I'd drop you a quick note about this as you've been involved there recently as well. It was one of the first I-P pages I stumbled across about a year ago and after making a few changes and engaging in talk page debate, I ended up on the end of a barrage of accusations, eg of being a terrorist sympathiser etc. Nothing has really changed in terms of the atmosphere since then. For some reason it seems to be a hyper-sensitive subject for certain Israeli editors (and others), more so than other pages that you might think would be more controversial. The same issues as well seem to just go round and round in circles there - I'm surprised I even bother popping in again occasionally after all this time. Having said that, I think parts of the main article are better than they were twelve months ago and do at least show a bit more balance and nuance. --Nickhh (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Please explain
Hey there. I don't know what you mean by "baseless attacks on their opponents." Can you please explain, and offer specifics only, please. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Specifically, I'm talking about when you refer to editors as pro-Zionists. Less directly, you say, "No surprise, but four editors have aggressively been changing the 1948 War heading to 'War of Independence' and the 1967 War heading to 'Unification.'" (something that wasn't happening) and that "the Palestinian view is being 'disappeared' from the article.". -- tariqabjotu 23:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- On that same note, general assertions of racism[1] are uncool and you've already been noted to maintain civility so I would request that you do maintain it. JaakobouChalk Talk 02:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- In recent days I have had a barrage of insults directed at me personally, rather than at the content, and am doing my best to keep a cool head. My main charge against various editors has been regarding their incivility, attacking my motivations, my knowledge, etc. beginning with " the only one with egg on the face is you" and moving on to charges of spouting "conspiracy theories," "rambling" (concerning a one-sentence answer to a question posed), "agenda-pushing", having friends (Palestinians) who might bulldoze a certain editor (as happened recently to 30 people in Jerusalem), having problems "in the head", being a "rigid ideologue", "hijacking language", being "holier-than-thou", being a nuisance to "serious" editors, and furthermore being "brainless and brainwashed". 3/4 of these comments have come from one editor who has succeeded in unsettling me, drawing me in to battle, when I really should just ignore her; I personally believe she should be blocked. On my own end, I have been working not to direct any charges of racism against anyone specifically. I have seen what I view as very racist comments on some talk pages, however I did not mention any names. As far as the charge of pro-Zionism, I myself was raised Zionist beyond your wildest dreams -- I know what a Zionist is and I know what an Israeli is and I know that the two are not necessarily synonymous, so rather than referring to all Israelis, sometimes I specify, pro-Zionist. As far as my view that Palestinian perspectives are being disappeared, I will stand by that assertion; not that all Palestinian views are being deleted, but several significant Palestinian perspectives have repeatedly disappeared from various articles,usually due to what I view as an assault by just one or two persistent editors who are constantly on wikipedia, and this should not happen. I would like the atmosphere to cool down and if the two of you will work towards that with me, that would be great. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Your "pro-Zionist" comment was specifically leveled at "two or three" certain editors, so the options as to whom you were referring are quite limited. You are heavily implying that "2 or 3" of the editors who are reverting to the header you don't like are doing so at least in part because they are "pro-Zionist". You have no basis for that, because the rationale behind the headers was explained in non-partisan terms. There's a difference between something "disappearing" and someone "disappearing" something. I highly doubt that you are unaware of the brutal connotations of the latter, considering you have nearly exclusively used it in that sense, and even put the word in quotes). Disappearing something implies extreme malice ("to cause (someone) to disappear, especially by kidnapping or murder"). -- tariqabjotu 20:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- I guess that, to me, the word "disappearing" does not have to connote malice. It connotes a wish to see someone just "disappear", just go away, somehow cease to be an 'obstacle.' Disappearing, is a word between annihilating and omitting. It is stronger and more active than omission, and it is less conscious and intentional than annihilation. I see it as an unconscious process. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Dear LamaLoLeshLa,
- You've been pushing a few buttons lately causing multiple people around you to boil over on several talk pages. Making snide responses such as "Well, sometimes Israeli sources (human rights groups) concur.", or suggesting the Battle of Jenin should be called Jenin Massacre because more people died there than in the Passover massacre, might seem like taunting and as such are just as much a violation of WP:CIV, if not more, as the responses that call these and other comments -- which are not supported by reliable sources -- "ramblings".
- To clarify, taunting your fellow editors is the incorrect way to respond when people challenge the material you are presenting.
- Cordially, JaakobouChalk Talk 21:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC) clarify, 21:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Is this a way to cool things down? I repeat, I repeat, I repeat, the person who thought I was saying "Well, sometimes Israeli sources (human rights groups) concur" with claims about a Jenin massacre, misunderstood me. That was not what I was saying, and I told him so 4 times of his talkpage. Now stop bullying me and leave me alone about that -- to assume good faith means to believe me when I say for the 5th time that that is not what I meant, period. As far as the Passover massacre reference, I made no comparisons such as "more people died here than there", in fact I did the opposite, and you know that; my only point was that in order for something to be a massacre, it does not have to involve hundreds of dead. I have tried to clear up misunderstandings but the main feeling I get is that the people slinging personal insults at me mainly cannot stomach my basic political perspective - no one has pointed out any serious problems with my editing or instances of incivility directed at anyone in particular. I have been open to people paring down my additions until they are sliced to 1/100th of what they once were, so long as the essential point remains. On talkpages I have not been intentionally uncivil to anyone and have apologized immediately when it seemed I had been interpreted as such. The feeling I am getting is of individuals who simply don;t wnat people of my moral and political persuasion around, trying to create a case against me to harass me out of wikipedia, as they did with Nishidani. This is so unethical I cannot begin to get into it.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- The "Israeli sources concur" was just one example with just one editor (out of many) and I was trying to explain something to you, not bully you for heavens' sake. I still suggest you pay more attention to your phrasings because it seems an awful lot of people are misreading you.(another sample)
- p.s. qualms about editors allegedly fighting you on the basis of your "moral and political persuasion" seem like another step in the racism allegations path and I'd suggest that you avoid making them.
- Cordially, JaakobouChalk Talk 04:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- To suggest that sometimes Israeli human rights groups might agree with Palestinian or international sources on some things, is hardly "a snide response" or "taunting" other editors, let alone a breach of WP:CIV. Nor is debating the use of the word massacre, with a brief reference to other examples. These kind of accusations are ridiculous as well as unethical. I have seen plenty of real cases of disruptive talk page conduct as well as genuine breaches of Wikipedia civility guidelines. --Nickhh (talk) 09:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)