User talk:Jaakobou/Archive 1

Saeb Erekat
rmd 11:54, 29 January 2007.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  13:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Rama has started a dialogue in the Saeb Erekat article as requested. Please respond to his/her arguments and please always assume WP:GF in this discussion.

Good luck and best regards.

Khukri ( talk  .  contribs ) 10:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Richard Landes
rmd 11:45, 29 March 2007.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  14:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that because Richard Landes is a respected figure in the field of medieval history, we can state as fact anything he writes on his website, even on topics totally unrelated to that field. By that argument, since Noam Chomsky is a respected figure in the field of linguistics, I can insert anything on Noam Chomsky's website as fact in any Wikipedia article whatsoever. By the way, Daniel Leconte has stated unequivocally that he does not believe the al-Dura shooting was staged: see Talk:Al-Aqsa_Intifada. Sanguinalis 02:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * good points Sanguinalis, but you slightly interpreted the inteview with Daniel Laconte - he does not state anything about the al-Dura shooting [staged/non-staged] but only states that 90 percept of the footage on the full tape is obviously faked and the executives replied to him in the type of "but they are all fake" - there was no mention about his views to the al dura case itself... that's why i think you could say that france2 admitted that most footage from the palestinian freelances is staged. would appreciate your reply, and i do still think that admittance should be inserted somehow.
 * Jaakobou 14:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But he does talk about the al-Dura case, in the very same radio interview that Landes refers to on his website. It's in the pararaph that starts "Alors voilà, il y a des mises en scène, sauf une."  Specifically referring to the theories of Mena ("dire que tout est une mise en scène dans la mort de l’enfant, dans les blessures du père etc" - "to say that everything is staged in the death of the child, in the wounds of the father, etc.") Laconte says "Nous, ce qu’on a vu ne nous amène pas du tout à dire ça, et plutôt même à dire le contraire" - "Nothing we have seen leads us to say that, rather to say just the reverse"  Later in the interview Laconte draws a comparison between the evidence provided by Mena to support their staging thesis and that used to support 9/11 conspiracy theories.  It's certainly not the case that Laconte makes no mention of his views of the al-Dura shooting.  The fact that Landes doesn't mention these parts of the interview in his account is a perfect illustration of why he shouldn't be trusted as a source (in my opinion).
 * That being said, I agree with you that Laconte's testimony about what was said to him during his meeting with France 2 does merit inclusion in the article. I wouldn't object to it being mentioned in the "Controversy" section of the article.  I disagree with it being in the lead.  After all, we don't have Talal Abu Rahma's there either. Sanguinalis 01:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese prisoners
rmd 09:03, 30 January 2007.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  13:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the material copy and pasted from the Khiam Center needs to be cleaned up (just haven't gotten around to it), but I wouldn't remove it entirely. It is useful information. I think the user who posted it was acting in good faith and not trying to disrupt Wikipedia. The best way to balance the article would be a press release or statement from the IDF or the Israeli government which states clearly how many Lebanese prisoners there are in Israel. I believe they only acknowledge Samir Kuntar, but I haven't been able to find an official statement.

As to Lebanese prisoners in Syria (and missing Lebanese believed to be in Syria), in my opinion the way to handle that would be to have a separate article, with links between the Prisoners in Israel/Prisoners in Syria articles. Sanguinalis 01:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah
rmd 16:27, 19 March 2007.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  14:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your edit to Muhammad al-Durrah. Keep up the good work, your presence on Wikipedia is valued. KazakhPol 18:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you've done some great work in dealing with bias on Wikipedia. If you ever run into the position in which you want a page reverted, but cant because of WP:3RR, feel free to contact me. I am more than happy to assist. KazakhPol 00:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The usual crowd is trying to undo your edits to Muhammad al-Durrah. Your assistance on the talkpage and through reversion is desired. KazakhPol 01:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon edits
rmd 09:06, 30 January 2007.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  13:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Could you please address your concerns at the article's talk page, so we can reach consensus, rather than just editing/reverting? &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  15:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I replied to all concerns. Jaakobou 17:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As a follow up, replying does not equate to reaching consensus. It is inappropriate to continue inserting/reverting the same information while it is being discussed and is still short of consensus (such as your recent edits to Lebanon regarding the dual government. Thanks. — George Saliba[ talk ] 08:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's inapropriate to remove and make false statements to support your case for Vandalism! Jaakobou 09:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no clue what you're talking about. I've tried to discuss these issues with you in a civilized manner, but you seem interested in only pushing your POV and not maintaining neutrality in the least. I'll see what I can do about requesting arbitration in this matter.


 * As per your personal question regarding my stance toward Syria (which verges on a veiled personal attack or defamation in my opinion), no, I am not pro-Syria. I am not, in fact, pro- or anti- anyone. — George Saliba[ talk ] 09:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I'd suggest taking a look at the Wikipedia three-revert rule (3RR) at WP:AN/3RR. — George Saliba[ talk ] 09:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Ariel Sharon by Latuff.jpg
rmd 02:33, 30 March 2007.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  14:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ariel Sharon by Latuff.jpg.... copyright status is unclear.


 * here's the source:, i'm not informed on how to tag images properly, i keep getting notices even when releaing photographer and news agency information. *shrug* Jaakobou 11:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as


 * i should copy paste that one into the image?? Jaakobou 11:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * i tried and failed miserably... could you help me out? Jaakobou 11:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

... or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

... You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link].

... If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 09:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * thank you! Jaakobou 11:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I added the source information for you. It still needs a copyright tag (see Image copyright tags/Fair use for some possibilities; I would suggest using Art, but look through the list, there may be another that's more appropriate) and a fair-use rationale (see Image description page for discussion and Fair use rationale guideline for some suggestions). To add the copyright tag, just edit the page Image:Ariel Sharon by Latuff.jpg and replace the current tag indicating the lack of a license with the license you want to use. —Angr 20:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful: 3RR
rmd 16:22, 19 March 2007.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  13:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You have already reverted 3 times at the Lebanon article today. I think you should be aware than exceeding this limit will get you blocked. Be careful. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  13:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * thank you for the warning, i havn't done it yet and don't plan to do it despite people who support obvious doublespeech as proof to positions *shurg* - drop by the Lebanon talk page, i've made a summary of topic 1 and would like that topic to be reverted/written down properly on the main article. Jaakobou 08:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Lebanon POV debate
rmd 21:29, 25 January 2007.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  13:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please remain active in the discussion. We cannot have the article protected for much longer. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  12:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I will try, however, we're at a point where a reply takes serious content and my exams start next week. Jaakobou 15:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, if you (and George) agree not to make any edits to the article regarding the disputed issue, I will have the article unprotected. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  14:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * i agree, to remind you i suggested we have it unprotected in the first place. Jaakobou 16:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you did suggest that. But at that time, I was under the impression that we would be reaching consensus quickly. Now that you say you won't be participating, it's quite pointless to keep the article protected. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  16:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Beirutwoman1.jpg
rmd 06:20, 11 April 2007.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  14:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading Image:Beirutwoman1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Butseriouslyfolks 03:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your note, i'm not yet learned on how to tag images correctly. the image you've noted has been removed from wiki's info since the article it was related to was merged into a different article which does not contain the image.. so as far as i'm concerned, the image could be deleted without anyone noticing... however, i would really appreciate some help with the head image on the Pallywood document so that it will not get deleted just because i don't understand how to tag images correctly. Jaakobou 15:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand. You almost have to be a copyright lawyer to figure out some of them! The proper tag is only part of the problem, as you have to have the right to use the image in the first place. Unfortunately, you might not be able to use the head image on Pallywood.  I do not know AP's policy on usage of their images.  You might be able to find more at the AP website.  Perhaps an inquiry at the media copyright questions page would give you the answer.  Good luck!  -- Butseriouslyfolks 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin
rmd 13:36, 14 August 2007.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  19:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say that at the time the rumors were not baseless. If you added a sentence (and cited your source) saying These rumours were later found to be baseless by [Whoever found them to be baseless], I would not object. Park3r 18:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * are you kidding me?? a couple of confused arabs (in Jenin) say that maybe israel moved bodies by trucks and everybody follows up on it.. and you consider that factual?! .. sure.. maybe the Ouze Merham interview was not baseless either?? .. i bet that was extremely basefull *shrug* ... there's no way to avoid being called a liar if you keep getting caught lying. Jaakobou 21:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV reporting
rmd 09:01, 8 August 2007.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  19:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

''Copied from AIV: I'm not sure about WP ettiquette and this is more of an iquery rather than a final report. a user has used his personal page to make a bias statement linking an ideaology with an alleged criminal - when pointed out on this and given a warning, his response was to link me with that ideaology and point my username out on his page - i cave him a Please stop. If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia, you will be blocked. notice on this obvious offense.. what is the eqttiquette on continued handling of this issue? Jaakobou 11:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)''
 * Firstly, issue the user with a final warning - you can do this by adding the following template to his userpage ~ (note, change 'page name being vandalised' to the actual page name. If he continues to act in the manor you have described, report him on AIV (instructions can be found there but you should generally add: * reason for requesting block ~     - hope this helps you!  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please also note, that all comments (uncluding warnings) should be added to peoples talk pages, not there userpages. Regards Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jaakobou, You added the following warning to my talk page.

'' This is your last warning. The next time you vandalise Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''

i'm afraid you did not only refuse to remove your obvious connction of an alleged sexual offender from the "Zionism" title, but you made sure that my username stay after it was removed by an admin - your activity has shown that you have the intention of using this platform in a destructive manner even after being given fair warning - this is your third warning. Jaakobou 21:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for putting the warnings on my talk page rather than on my user page this time. Nevertheless I must say your warnings are totally inapropriate. My alledged offence in your eyes is to have a link to the president of the state of Israel on my user page. Adding content that you do not approve of to your own user page is not vandalism. I am not sure if you think you deserve editorial control of my user page. Regarding Moshe Katzav, If you do not like the fact that Katzav is prezident of the State of Israel, then please direct your complaints to those that elected him, not to me. Please calm down Abu ali 06:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Abu ali, I'm emplore of you to cease of your counter-productive use of wikipedia, it is beneath us to waste time over petty defamation and i am not overly interested... mind you, i will consider next action if you will not cease. Jaakobou 07:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Jenin
rmd 08:59, 8 August 2007.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  19:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You can consider it whatever you like, but here on Wikipedia we have rules. They include no original research, use of reliable sources, and most importantly, neutral point of view. I suggest you adhere to them and not make false accusations on other's web pages. Ramallite (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * your reply is nothing but a smoke screen to your activity on that page. Jaakobou 16:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Abu ali 11:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Abu ali, i assumed you're working with good faith until i entered your user page and saw that you link to Meshe Katzav, [currently being accused by a few women for sexual harrasment], as your example of zionism. considering that you added the link only recently, i presume that you know exactly what you're doing and that you present no good faith in any israeli-related topic that you come near to. Jaakobou 09:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Shalom Jaakobou, Moshe Katzav is currently president of the state of Israel. (He has suspended himself, but has still not resigned). The prezident has little actual power in Israel, but acts as a figurehead and symbol of the state. In this respect, I would say he is doing a good job. He was not elected by me, but by the Knesset.
 * I would appreciate it if you did not edit my user page, as this is considered unacceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. If you wish to send me any further warnings, threats or insults, then please feel free to use my talk page instead. Abu ali 10:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou please stop your inappropriate accusations on my talk page. If you have a problem, you are welcome to report me to the appropriate administrative pages or request comment/mediation. Okay? Then I can report how you are calling me a "vandal" and warning me to "butt out" and all this incivility and POV-pushing that you are attempting. Ramallite (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps my initial response was a tad uncivil, however, your off-topic irregular responses and continuous deletion of material got the deserving and proper civilized response, i do apologize for the uncivility in my first reaction, i do not appreciate my hard work erased entirely without proper cause and your "cause" did not touch the issue at all and left me feeling that vandalism was applied. Jaakobou 09:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

First, try to work with me instead of blindly reverting. OPERATION DEFENSIVE SHIELD was in response to Netanya and all of that. The JENIN thing was a PART of the operation, and not caused entirely by the operation. Second, there are other concerns in that section other than the Netanya mention, including gross original research. You haven't addressed that properly. Third, you wouldn't happen to be User MouseWarrior, would you? Ramallite (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * i thought you were the one reverting rather than working with others *scratches head*, the operation in jenin was part of the ODS and the precursors to that operation are integral to the intro.. apparently, i'm not the only one to think so (btw, no need to be paranoid). as for the "original research" claim, i think i've given enough sourcing for all of the information (which btw, is factual). lastly, if you have good sources which explain what you describe to be the palestinian view on this operation (i.e. unprovoked assault by israel), than you are free to add them to the article. however, deletion of integral material is a funny way to display your point of view (i.e. perhaps you wish to portray israel as going for needless attacks). are you by any chance from ramallah? i hear that ramallah is considered the equivalent of tel aviv in the PA controlled areas. Jaakobou 22:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I responded on the Talk:Battle of Jenin page. You have addressed none of my concerns (except with your typical "What Jaakobou says goes" attitude), and you keep reintroducing blatant original research and incorrect interpretation of sources. You also didn't answer my question: Are you User:MouseWarrior? Am I from Ramallah? No I'm from Bnei Brak. My father was a Yeke cymbal player who accidentally rode a ship to Haifa instead of Rio de Janeiro, and my mother was a non-Jewish opera tenor (yes, tenor) from Nigeria. Ramallite (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually thought i answered all of your concerns, but i guess my message wasn't clear enough: with respect, Jaakobou 07:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * there's no original research in the material i've added - it's all common knowledge and backed up by articles by serious sources (which i took the time to find and add as sourcing).
 * The "inconsistent" comment was original research. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 04:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * there's simply no reasoning behind removing a precursor to the ODS - and you havn't given a fair reason for doing so. what you have given was persumptions and personal opinions without any serious sourcing.
 * It's been restored with an attempt to portray it as coming from the Israeli side and not matter-of-factly. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 04:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * i've made the fair play comment that you're entitled to add palestinian point of view, however, you cannot remove the israeli point of view and the fact that bombing attacks have occured... sorry, but israel does not operate in a vacuum... you're old enough to know.
 * Israel does not operate in a vacuum. Israel also does not operate under the reasons it tells the world it is operating. For example, if the gader was for security reasons, it would not follow the route it does now. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 04:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * i am not mousewarrior, i thought my previous reply was clear enough, but here it is stated bluntly for the record... btw.. i request you remove the accusation from abu ali's page since that is defamation. (i'm also not humus sapians and whatever the other name was of a different person who reverted.. i only have one wikipedia editor account)
 * I assume good faith and believe you. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 04:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * i'm curious to how you could be from bnei brak but your personal page states you "hail from" rammalah.
 * Bnei Brak is the name of my neighbourhood in rammalah. It lies between the neighbourhoods of Allah Akbar and Yiftach Teezo. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 04:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * i'm not a hateful person that you might presume me to be, however, factual truth is important to me both in cases of attacks on palestinains and in cases of attacks on israelis - both sides continue a cycle which started back in 1920 by the pan-islamist movement, and it takes some serious research and a heart ready for many blows to find the sad truths behind the conflict... truthfully, and this is not a personal attack, i don't think you have the readyness to look at both sides while negating "figurative speech" from the dialogue.
 * Everybody can manufacture their own "truth", it doesn't make it factual. Islamist forces in the 1920s were not very strong like now. If you read enemy history books as well as your own, you will have a much more complete picture. Also, you have to be accurate. For example, some right wing Israelis point to a video of Egyptian radicalism to prove that Palestinians teach their kids to hate. Egyptians are not Palestinians. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 04:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * to make my point clear - i suggest you seek out articles on statements by jenin fighters and their intentions upon the idf's counter terrorist activity (a.k.a "counter resistance" in the palestinian territories).
 * The Israelis call their actions "counter terrorist". The Palestinians call their actions "counter terrorist". Israelis call suicide bombings as terrorist attacks (rightly so), and Palestinians call Israeli tank/fighter jet/armor attacks deliberately on civilian areas as "terrorist attacks", and the kibush itself is considered "terrorism", also rightfully so. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 04:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * btw, in regards to your personal story of decendancy... Ibrahim (avraham) the great was a cnaanite and father of both the hebrew people and the ishmaelites... not a palestinian (interesting use of "figurative speech").
 * You are confused, I am not referring to Avraham father of Isaac and Ishmael, but Ibrahim father of Ronit, Mustafa, and Yasser Al-Cohen. Different person. Also, who are the Ishmaelites? Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 04:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention
rmd 07:41, 22 May 2007.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  12:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

For factual accuracy: I did not march beside Sheik Abu Tir, on that day Uri Avnery marched beside him while I informed the press about it. I did visit Abu Tir at his home two weeks later, and I did march at another demonstration beside Sheik Hassan Yusuf, also of Hamas. It makes no political difference, but better to be accurate. And thanks for putting in the Arafat picture, it is one of my favorites. Adam Keller 18:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * glad you're happy with the way it turned out. Jaakobou 20:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Your friends
rmd 07:44, 22 May 2007.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  12:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, welcome to the project. A couple of things:
 * FYI, blanking a page is not a good idea, even for a redir. I have put for deletion Stolen land, Jew york and Duoying Li. Follow the links there and see WP:DEL for more.
 * Here I tried to fix the refs, please double check. See WP:CITE. The tags are your friends. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * thank you for the note. Jaakobou 20:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Stolen Land" redirects to "Israel
rmd 21:34, 26 February 2007.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  13:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I've seen your page on YouTube. I'm assuming you know more about Wiki than I do, so I just thought maybe you could do something about the fact that when you do a search for 'stolen land', it redirects to the 'Israel' article. Thanks 68.229.201.181 03:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * thank you for the notice, warning given and the subject under review. Jaakobou 09:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Shalom, my Israeli friend. Thank you for above.  I know this isn't about Israel, but Jew York City redirects to New York City.  I don't know how I get so lucky finding all these vandalized pages, but instead of bugging you again, I tried to handle it.  I just wondered if you could take a look and see if I did it correctly.   Thanks in advance, 68.229.201.181 15:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, according to some of my Muslim friends, Israel is stolen land (and stolen land is Israel). Jew York City is a simple misspelling for New York City in case you're wondering. Some people easily slip the "n" key for the "j" key. Please, I would not be offended if someone put a redirect on an Asian country and these are not racist things.Liist 18:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Peace be with you, Jaakobou
rmd 11:43, 29 March 2007.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You said "someone has removed your warning from his talk page." Yep--I've advised the admins about it, and will let them handle it. Removing a warning is no big deal as long as he refrains from vandalizing in the future.

You also said "(P.S. your warning was malfunctioning)". Unfortunately it's true--I'm still not used to the new warning templates and sometimes mess them up. :D

Thanks for keeping me up to date. Justin Eiler 21:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Liftarn
rmd 06:24, 11 April 2007.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday, I took a look at more of the links you mentioned and I found a link to an interview on a blog to which Liftarn commented out the reference. Blogs are indeed unreliable sources - but that's just to some extend. If that blog belongs to a notable personality, it is quite reliable. So could you tell me who Benjamin Heine is? - Mgm|(talk) 08:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * best i'm aware, he's a belgian artist/hate-artist who's trying to catch some fame trail dust by following in the footseps of carlos latuff... therefore he made a few drawings of carlos and published an interview - this interview is reffered to be latuff himself (on his journal on deviantart) and thus is proper material for qoutation... in any event, the dispute goes as far as the usage of the word nazi in a description to some of latuff cartoons (which is obvious matter when reffrenced to the images)... apparently user liftarn doesn't believe those images use nazi symbolism.. or maybe he thinks that it's ok and therefore it's not a nazi symbol (i can't quite follow on his logic). Jaakobou 09:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

AMA Request
rmd 10:50, 30 June 2007.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  12:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Good afternoon (GMT time); I'd be glad to assist you with regards to a request for advocacy, as posted at my talk page. Email me with the details of the dispute, who is involved and what you would like to see changed.

anthony cfc [ talk] 14:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Re. Acre, Israel
rmd 19:50, 17 August 2007.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  19:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. In order to move this, you must propose your move on WP:RM. Please read and follow all the instructions there. You will have to list your proposal so that other users may know about it, and create a discussion area on the talk page of the article. After 5 days, an administrator will close the discussion and either move the article if there's consensus for that, or leave it as it is if there's no such consensus. Feel free to contact me again if you have further questions on this procedure. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  02:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * thank you for the help, submission made, feel free to read my reasoning and to state an opinon (if you feel like it) - Talk - acre,israel Jaakobou 18:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Re. Adam Keller
rmd 18:33, 20 September 2007.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for contacting me. I usually don't involve myself in the disputes that caused articles to be protected, so it's good to see that you've requested mediation. This article is going to be protected for a while, so I suggest that you also place a request for comment in order to attract more users familiar with the subject to the dispute. Discussing disputed changes on the talk page is always the best solution, especially if you believe that it's just a single user disrupting this article. But I prefer not to be directly involved in this one, I just protected the article to stop an edit war. If the war cools off or a consensus is reached, I'll gladly unprotect it. Best regards, Hús  ö  nd  18:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Informal mediation
I have opened the information mediation case for the article Adam Keller. Please indicate on the case page if you will accept my assistance as an informal mediator. Thank you! Vassyana 13:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The other party has rejected mediation. You may wish to try other avenues in dispute resolution, such as seeking a third opinion. Be well. Vassyana 14:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Goliath
rmd 01:10, 24 March 2007.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the missing Ruth Rabbah reference, I have now put it in. Adam Keller 23:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:misconduct and page warring
rmd 07:48, 22 May 2007.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  12:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, first off, Nishkid's reply at the noticeboard sums up pretty well what I would say. I can, however, appreciate that ChrisO is doing a lot of reverts and quite possibly going a too far with it. But if there's no 3RR vio, WP:AN3RR isn't the right place for it. If you're truly convinced he's going too far, you could leave a note somewhere central, such as WP:ANI, though realize you'll need some convincing reasons to get anyone to take action. I hope you understand. Heimstern Läufer 16:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

i unserstand that wikipedia has no real intention on creating a productive environment for it's editors, thank you for your note this is probably the 5th article i'm dealing vandals on without proper intervention from administrators. (Battle of jenin, Carlos latuf, Adam keller, Matzpen) best of my knowledge, it was the 3RR notice page that's supposed to deal with repeated reverters/article hijackers. *shrug* Jaakobou 16:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't know what you want me to do here. I've demonstrated that there is no 3RR violation and been backed up on this by another admin. I've mentioned things you might do instead of making a 3RR report. I don't think there's anything more I can do now. Heimstern Läufer 16:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked (for 40 minutes)
rmd 13:04, 29 October 2007.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing because of your disruptive edits. You are invited to contribute in a constructive manner as soon as the block expires. I left a note on the talk page saying that any user who removes the tag before the discussion on the talk page is complete would be blocked for edit warring. you ignored that Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Bot, i consider this block a direct breach of protocol and if the block is not removed i will be forced to report this. you are actually aiding and abetting a repeated revert offender. Jaakobou 16:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already reported Betacommand to the admin noticeboard, after warning him that the threat was ill-advised and inappropriate. --Leifern 16:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As indicated, this matter is under active discussion on the noticeboard. FYI to Jaakobou and to avoid any confusion, the blocking admin's name is Betacommand; he operates a bot called "Betacommandbot" that is mentioned in his signature, but that the bot has nothing to do with this block. Newyorkbrad 17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Block removed after 40 minutes, page hijacking issue still unresolved. Jaakobou 17:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Yehoshua Hankin (1864-1945).jpg
rmd 13:19, 29 October 2007.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Yehoshua Hankin (1864-1945).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * fixed, thank you for the notice. Jaakobou 11:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Aliza_Olmert.jpg
rmd 06:22, 11 April 2007.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yonatan talk 08:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that but I'm gonna upload a free photo of her soon anyway... ;) Yonatan talk 08:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I made an update on the licensing, i'm afraid i'm not sure if it works this way or not, fill me in. Jaakobou 09:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sikkuy
rmd 07:42, 22 May 2007.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  12:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Where can I help you/what do you need advice on? KazakhPol 22:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you know Hebrew? if you do, feel free to catch this thread Sikkuy]. Jaakobou 22:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
rmd 06:19, 11 April 2007.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Terribly sorry. I thought I was changing one word and have absolutely no idea how that happened! --Mantanmoreland 12:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * no preoblem, it looked like an honest mistake so i didn't even issue a warnning. Jaakobou 12:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder if it might have been some kind of Wiki glitch. I literally just changed one word (or thought I did). Could have been my fault though, as it was early in the morning.--Mantanmoreland 12:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

..just for the record..
rmd 06:16, 11 April 2007.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that you refer to me as a "he",. Just for the record: I am a "she". And I have reported you here,, Regards, Huldra 18:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I will try to remember next time you repeatedly remove warnings both from your page and a second one and then report me for WP:3RR on those returning these warnings *shrug*. Jaakobou 21:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not blocking you for now, but I strongly suggest you stop placing warnings on people's talk pages. It will not help you win an argument, and removing them without replying to you is allowed. In the end, you are the one violating policy by edit warring in someone else's user space and being uncivil. If you have something to say, type it yourself and don't try to act like the other person is a vandal for disagreeing. Kafziel Talk 21:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

what on earth are you talking about?! obviously you havn't payed attention to how things unfolded. I find your comment troublesome considering the events that occurred (i.e. extremely disruptive behaviour from "tag team" editors). I am planning on pursuing action on this ridiculously prolonging matter. Jaakobou 05:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

sorry, i didn't understand the user talkpage policy...
apparently it's ok to remove warnings from the pages of other users to help them avoid the WP:3RR, sorry, i didn't understand the user talkpage policy... Jaakobou 06:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Libel
This is your only warning. The next time you add defamatory content, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. RolandR 23:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Linking to a website that may or may not contain libelous information (I have no idea as I didn't bother checking the link) does not warrant the sort of "last warning" that was just added to this page. Yes, you guys disagree on many issues and the posting of the link on the talk page was probably out of line but it does not warrant this; RolandR, I suggest you remove it for everybody's sake as there's no need for this situation to escalate further than it already has and the link is already gone. Yonatan talk 23:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No way. 160 sockpuppets have already been indefinitely blocked for posting this abuse and linking to this libel, as Jaakobou must know from his own stalking of me. He clearly DID follow the link (even though it was deleted), and consciously decided to post it. I hope that he too is blocked indefinitely for this flagrant abuse of Wikipedia. RolandR 23:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Be that as it may, jumping from warning level 0 -> 4 seems to be a bit quick even though the link is inappropriate. Yonatan talk 00:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents RolandR 10:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this 4th level complaint is down right out of line considering the link was not proveded in a libeleous manner at allarticle history <- will remove this once the complaint is removed, but to present to you that you should stop accusing me of POV and climing you are a neutral editor while you blatently tag-revert revert.. at best, you could have placed a 2nd level warning although you should have assumed good faith and issued a 1st level warning if you're acutually offended by a [2] style link. I tend to think you're glad that you "found a chance" to give me a warning and went a little overboard with the find.. i've given my reply on the AV/I page, and honestly, i think it reflects badly on you more than it does on me. Jaakobou 12:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warning
This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. My user page is my space, not yours. You have absolutely no right to remove other people's messages to me; particularly before I even have a chance to read them. RolandR 21:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * another overstated warning and this time without even a just cause for a level 1 warning. i removed a personal attack against me. you can easily read it in the history. as a matter of fact, you reinstating it is a violation of WP:NPA policies. Jaakobou 21:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 2nd level notice issued here: (allready reverted by RonaldR) Jaakobou 21:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)