User talk:Jaakobou/Archive 10

Merging Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks (mediocre article) into Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks
I think it's a good choice, merging Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks (mediocre article) into Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks while changing the title to Reactions and consequences of the September 11, 2001 attacks. -- SNIyer12 (talk), 15:38 UTC, 2 July 2008.
 * Agreed. The reactions article started off as a POV-fork of the Celebrations article regardless. It would be good to start a merger discussion on the Aftermath page with the merge to and from tags placed properly. Maybe it would be good to inform those who have made significant contributions as well. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that Nickhh simply removed the merge tags with no discussion at all. A classic case of POV warrior IDONTHEARTTHAT tactics. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that I notified the nominator first that he had not given any reason for adding the tag, and they had not done anything about that - it's nothing to do with POV it's to do with process. I very clearly said I would be willing to debate the issue if a debate were started in the proper way. Don't you ever get bored of making stuff up about me and slagging me off on everyone's talk page? --Nickhh (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Celebrations article
Probably would be in your best interest to start moving the material you feel is being lost from the celebrations article into the reactions article, although IMHO, the opposite should be done since the reactions article is a typical example of a pov content fork. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still considering how to handle this dispute in a manner that would last long term.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  07:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No! Don't think long term! Can't have none of that! :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

 * I appreciate that Jaakobou. Agreements are to be honoured, and that was the point of my defending the edit. On second thought, instead of waiting for you to turn up, I should have contacted you to join me on the defending the consensus. If I can be of use in any copyediting on historical articles you're working on, don't hesitate to ask me. I won't meddle, but just stick to stylistic problems. (p.s. the Ba'al Shem Tov 1777 pilgrimage certainly deserves a page, if it doesn't already exist)Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a note. Like you I am reluctant to get sucked into an edit war on the King David Hotel, and have failed to have our consensual text restored. I just did adjust the text as it now stands, to read 'it has been argued' because the source asserts the connection but does not, to my knowledge, prove it. I am giving, like you, the page a rest. I hope you find my adjustment one that at least establishes the fact that Sandler and Enders view it this way, and other scholars may differ.Nishidani (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Relating to the admin notice board
I'd like to quickly clarfy for you some misconceptions. To quote you: "'saying he's surprised that I'm not crying antisemitism. i.e. suggesting Jews always follow some mold of pointing a finger and whining 'antisemitism' every time they face adversary. Comment: I initially summerized this issue as 'calling me a crying Jew'." I take specfic issue with the text that I have italized; my remark, which was directed soley at you, as a general comment on tone & not as a WP:PA, had no meaning beyond relating to you. It did not refer in any way to jews, juadaism or Israel. It refered to you at that point of the discussion. I'm going to do something which you deined me and assume good faith; you may have simply misinterpreted what I said. I am still oblivious to whether you are a jew or not, and quite frankly I'd like to keep it that way, as it really makes no difference to me. In closing I would urge you to please take individual responsibilty for your own actions & not tend towards making asumptions based on religion/ethnictity/whatever that simply don't exist. Thanks. ʄ! •¿talk?  12:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!
Thanks a lot for your help!--Nirajrm Δ | [sign plz] 23:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian Right of Return chat
Jaakobou, please feel free to take a position on this part: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palestinian_right_of_return#UNGAR_181.2C_Part_I.2C_s.C.2C_Ch.3.281.29

See if you can get a legal viewpoint of the argument raised, I am more than happy to debate it from that perspective.

--Etzel48 (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification
Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Got started
I'm using my current talk page as the workspace for checking your AfD participation. I'll chip away at your list of diffs, which I've copied on there, each day. There's a few comments of feedback for you on there now.

 Th e Tr ans hu man ist   00:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Floating header

 * First comment copied from Sceptre's talkpage.

Could you please guide me in the secret art of the floating smiley? (lower right corner) Cheers,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  23:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC) clarify 23:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just add User:Cream/scrolling to your talk page, or-if you have one-header subpage. Sceptre (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Took me a little while to sort it out, but I think I got the hang of it. Thank you for the link.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  23:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:City_of_Jenin_and_refugee_camp.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:City_of_Jenin_and_refugee_camp.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Elonka
Hi Jaakobou, I wasn't sure if you were aware of the RfC on Elonka WP:Requests_for_comment/Elonka but knowing your involvement in the al-Durrah article I was sure you would want to know. I hope this is not seen as canvassing, but I do think that those who may have a special interest in it should somehow be notified of it and I have taken it upon myself to notify a few people who are involved. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit conflicted. I think ChrisO should have toned things down and can see where the sanctions have come from. On the other hand, I understand his concerns and even suggested shortening his previous ban. Right now I'm considering placing a support in the "civility" note by one of the participants but have yet to decide on committing to that action or any other action. I'm trying to avoid conflicts as much as possible (while still dealing with some content concerns) and lately it feels as though two-three editors are actively seeking to pull me in that ugly direction. To take the initiative myself and join a conflict -- which I'm not a very active part of -- might be a bad idea in my part.
 * Thank you for the notice, it's not really canvassing since I have tried to calm things down on the page and even made a few opinions here and there, esp. in regards to the handling of the dispute and the civility issues. If anyone accuses you of canvassing for this message, let me know and I'll explain my involvement and how this note is a fair notice.
 * Cheers,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  16:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your position. Thanks for sharing it.Tundrabuggy (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; here is the clarification you requested. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Just want to say that I liked your recent thoughtful response about her role at Shahaf. Cheers. HG | Talk 21:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:LCWCollectionLogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:LCWCollectionLogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Another restoration?
Hi Jaakobou, I've found a couple of high resolution images of construction work in Tel Aviv, both taken during the 1920s. Seems like it would make a wonderful FP drive to restore photography of a UNESCO World Heritage site being built. Please contact me via Skype and I'll transfer the original .tif files. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 20:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get to them sometime in the not too distant future.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  19:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hematospermia
Venderdicken? Deliberate misspelling of my name, inserting 'dick' into the last part? I fail to see how most people would construe that as anything but insulting. Or childish, for that matter. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. I realise why you'd attack a mispelling of your username but sadly, that's how I read it the first time around. If this error insults you so badly, you should consider renaming your username because Vanderdicken is very close to Vanderdecken. Try a look at WP:AGF while you're looking into WP:CIV.
 * Thanks.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  18:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC) add link 18:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but why include it if you know it's offensive, other than to offend? I'm well aware of many policies and guidelines, including AGF and CIV, and I find myself straining at the bounds of AGF quite regularly. I do not claim to be a wikisaint, so would rather knock the odd wikitwat-end (not implicating you by the way, this is a minor disagreement compared to some of the scum that find their way to this site) down an entire ladder than be constantly meek. Sometimes it takes inhuman amounts of willpower to assume someone's being dense rather than annoying, however, "Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." And I will not rename myself, as you will find that Vanderdecken is a perfectly legitimate Dutch name that I happen to like. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 23:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you feel Hanlon's razor helps you keep calm and avoid calling people plagiarists, then by all means consider it. However, charging forward with claims of malice and/or stupidity still seem like something non of us, you included, would appreciate. Keep in mind that someone on the other side of the keyboard is contributing his time to improve the project so it's best to ask before you shoot.
 * With respect,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  23:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Semen
I urge you to work towards convincing people of the value of your pserspective, respecting other peoples opinions and generating consensus over edit warring. You quoted WP:BURO, I give you "Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." You choose not to participate in the survey to seek consensus. I offer you WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND "Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals." and "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement."

You quoted WP:BOLD, from that I offer you "...but be careful. Though the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's most precious assets, it is important that contributors take care of the common good, or at least that they not edit recklessly. However, any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted, often quite painlessly. It is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further." and also "On controversial articles, the safest course is to find consensus before making changes".

You quoted WP:COMMON, and from that I offer you "Invoking the principle of ignore all rules on its own will not convince anyone that you were right" and "However, ignoring a rule or editing in such a manner as will cost another their time is generally, incivil and unprofessional"'

Building consensus means workign with other editors. Expressing your opinions cogently to convince them of the value of your position. Forcing your way and disregarding other peoples opinions with reasoning such as WP:BOLD and WP:BURO would be directly contrary to that. Atom (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please tell me you see the macabre humor in using "please stop edit warring" in an edit summary of a revert? Color balance is tweaked in images all the time, judging from everyday discussion at Featured pictures. – Luna Santin  (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing controversial about improving the white balance of an image.. because you complain that the colors are off. To be frank, you're ignoring community input and acting like you own the article. Not EVERYTHING demands discussions and polls before you make the edit and there's a point where common sense kicks in.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  13:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC) clarify. 13:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Graphics lab
Illustration of hematospermia


 * Gave a reply.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  20:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Israel and Apartheid
I ended up reverting this, since you cut the article off in mid-link - I'm guessing that wasn't your intent. But, please tell me to go to hell if I screwed up. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 00:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and you got it. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 00:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Jaakobou, greetings. As you may know, Ryan has removed the POV tag that you placed on the article (putting on instead a tag on the 1st section). I've objected firmly and he has defended the removal. Whether I'm right or wrong, since you placed the tag and presumably have your own opinion about POV tagging, you may want to weigh in here. Feel free to support section-level tag(s) if that is your best judgment. Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 20:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Feedback
Yep, I read them (yesterday). It's much faster to leave me messages on my talk page. It seems like analyzing those AfDs is more time consuming than the participation in the first place. :)


 * I've looked at more of your AfDs, and have left comments on my talk page.

By the way, are you looking for something interesting to do?

It's sort of like travelling all around the world, and involves various wikitools and wikimethods.

If you'd like to join our team and help, let me know.

 Th e Tr ans hu man ist   22:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not enough hours in the day to allow me joining on that project. :)  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  23:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Minutes add up. Besides, it's easy, and fun.  Right now, we're doing a lot of "blue-linking" - creating redirects so that redlinks turn blue.  Could sure use your help.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    01:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Bakri
Once a court case is settled, I don't think there's any need to go into the details of what the opposing parties said before/during the case. He was sued, and he was acquitted - that's all there is to it, and we don't need to restate the defense's case. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's basic information about the film. There's room to rephrase it possibly, but a compete removal does not contribute to the project. I do agree that the section about the film is ridiculously long and should be trimmed to possibly two paragraphs.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  23:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The film has its own article, and this information might be relevant there. It is an unneeded level of detail in biography of the person. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You should probably move it to the talk page then for future reference. I for one believe that the note about Feldman being his counselor is also pertinent to Bakri's article and not only the film article.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  23:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the link
Yosef.garibaldi.gmail (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC) yesher caph vav khet :) and shalom eleichem.

thanks for your help
Thank you very much for your editing help. Problem(s) solved! :) Cristixav (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

La Princesse
Ooh thank you!! Roisterdoister (talk) 08:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are clever. I have put it in the article - much better!! Roisterdoister (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Closed Gilad Shalit Case
I've closed the case as there was no will to continue. Thank you for your participation. Sunray (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Further to your e-mail message earlier today, my comments were added when the case was closed. They are recorded here. Sunray (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian prisoners
Hi Jaakobou. I see you've called into question the NPOV and accuracy of this article. I've responded on the talkpage that I think there's no way the article will ever meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia...the subject is as unnotable as Texas prisoners or Mexican prisoners or American prisoners or oh, I dunno, Israeli prisoners. The article itself however, is an example of crappy English mixed with POV-pushing and an inability to figure out what constitutes a reliable source, along with an unhealthy dose of synthesis. The article should just go. Unfortunately, I don't have time to nominate it for the garbage heap. Tomer<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk 14:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Feh. Tiamut has moved the article.  I'm sure he's well-meaning, but the exercise has made the article even more ridiculous... :-\ Tomer<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  18:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that it really matters, but Tiamut is a self professed Israeli-Arab female. I'm not entirely sure if the article should just go due to it's status or that the issues could be worked out. Random reverts with uncivil commentary, though, make me concerned that you might be correct. I'm keeping hopeful that "stiffened necks" might loosen a bit and that the article could become encyclopedic rather than a mouthpiece.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  07:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Jaakobou, I am a self-professed Palestinian citizen of Israel. It's nice that you got my gender right, but when prefacing statements with "self-professed", a little sensitivity toward how I represent my identity might be in order. I'm quite sure you are aware of how the most Palestinians in Israel find the term "Israeli-Arab" to be somewhat insulting. Cordially,  T i a m u t talk 17:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize for offending you Tiamut. I would appreciate a link to your claim that your terminology is indeed majority preferred by Palestinian citizens of Israel.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  18:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not claiming that most Palestinians in Israel prefer my terminology, Jaakobou. I relayed to you how I construct my identity (something I thought we had discussed before) and asked you to respect that. The only claim I made was that most Palestinians in Israel find the term you used (i.e. "Israeli Arab") to be insulting. I'm surprised you're not aware of that. It is covered somewhat inferentially in the article on Arab citizens of Israel, but to respond to your request for a "citation", this one by Jonathan Cook says: "Although most continue to identify themselves as Palestinian, preferring to be called Palestinian citizens of Israel, the state identifies them as ‘Israeli Arabs’ – a term some of them find as offensive as black Americans might today at being called ‘negroes’." I hope that satisfactorily addresses your concerns.  T i a m u t talk 18:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was somewhat confused that you used "most Palestinians in Israel" in your statement. I have no qualms about apologizing for as well as correcting my error in regards to your personal self-descriptive. I'm still left confused by your somewhat surprising "most" claim when the provided source is a Nazareth based writer of both Electronic Intifada and The Guardian which uses the term "some". I'm fairly certain that had the term truly been offensive to the majority of Palestinian-Arab civilians of Israel as you ascertained, then it would not have been used by the BBC. Heck, even Azmi Bishara uses the term and no one suspects him of being an Israel-o-phile.
 * Btw, I find Jonathan Cook's mention that some Arabs are as offended by 'Israeli Arabs' as (most) Black Americans are offended by 'Negroes' - to be a completely improper (read: grotesque sensationalism, borderline anti-Semitic blood libel) statement that leads the reader by the nose to mistakenly assume that Israel may have treated Arab citizens of the state as the Whites did to the Blacks not too long ago (see also: Slavery in the United States). This "writer" truly earned any superlatives I may endow upon him in the future.
 * Cordially,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  19:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC) clarify. 19:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC) add. 19:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

General discussion with Nishidani
People who are self-assured of their identity, and their cultural world, shouldn't really be asked to 'prove' it, Jaakobou, particularly when they belong to minorities. So it was somewhat indelicate, as a Jewish Israeli, to push for evidence. I'm glad to note you have apologized. If you have an identity, you don't cast about to shore it up with data, unless you are lacking self-assurance and not known for reliability, as a wikipedian, unlike our Tiamut. In any case, I do have the data you requested, that confirm her remark, and am happy to share it. After the al-Aqsa Intifada, the early poll results which showed roughly 40% of Arabs in Israel described their identity as hyphenated by using 'Israeli', changed rapidly. From that time, things changed (I can't find the data I have from the Haifa region, I'll put it in when these wretchedly messy files of mine are collated). David Rudge's "Poll - Israeli Arabs' Palestinian identity Growing', published in the Jerusalem Post, on March 31, 2000 revealed that there had been a 25% collapse in the earlier (1996) figure: only 15% of Arab citizens of Israel identified themselves with an hyphenated Israeli-. Instead 80% described themselves variously as Palestinians or Arab-Palestinians in Israel (However, Donna Rosenthal, in her The Israelis: Ordinary People in an Extraordinary Land, Simon & Schuster, New York 2005 p. 256, gives the 2000 figure as 70%. It depends how you break down the data).

Of course, polls fluctuate over time, and fresher evidence might alter the picture. But Donna Rosenthal's recent book, and also Steven V.Mazie's 2006 book, Israel’s Higher Law:Religion and Liberal Democracy in the Jewish State, Lexington Books p.79 showcase this data, and confirm the truth of Tiamut's remarks.Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Nishidani,
 * I think you kind of owe me an apology here for claiming I asked Tiamut to prove her ethnicity. I did no such thing and accepted it at face value on her own assertions that she is a Palestinian citizen of Israel.
 * The debate was on her surprising claim that the term 'Israeli-Arab' is offensive to the majority of the Arabs in my country. Your polls btw, do not assert this claim - see Misuse of statistics (let me know if this requires further explanation).
 * With respect,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Very apt choice of words Jaakobou (re: "the majority of the Arabs in my country"). I think that's a home run hit for you - congratulations! There is little point in carrying on this discussion. Cordially,  T i a m u t talk 22:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please explain exactly what is offensive about being referred to as an Israeli Arab, if that is in fact what one is? I in turn find it somewhat offensive that the national identity of the State of Israel is deemed as something which is found offensive to be grouped under. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * True, and I appreciate your reply. however, Israeli is a factual political term based on national citizenship, not an ethnic term. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Did I miss something?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. my reply was to the comment by PalestineRemembered which has been removed. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Jaakabou. Quite cute, those little bogey-characters you've attached ingeniously to your page. Are they clickable, or will succumbing to my temptation to open them send me spiralling into a dark hole like I was a Higgs particle in the Hadron thingamejig?:)Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nishidani,
 * I'm honestly not amused by your condescending conduct and bad faith allegations. English sub-context can mean a number of things even to native speakers of it and I don't much care for the way you falsely ascribe hyperbole to context and attack me on a personal level. To put it succinctly, only two people have made intentionally offensive comments on this discussion, the other's comments were removed.
 * Cheers,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  23:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC) update. 23:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC) strike 16:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Jaak, forgive me for interrupting, to be brutally honest, I don't think Nishdani's comments were in bad faith, and are more properly characterized as "pedantic" than "condescending". Nishdani (such as myself, I must admit) does tend less to compendiousness than most, and will often explain things at great length. However, I do not think he meant to attack you, but to explain why Tiamut would have responded as she did. Whether you agree with Tiamut's or Nishdani's facts and their interpretation is one thing. But as someone who lurks and monitors these various conversations, I think in this case, you may be responding with (understandable) defensiveness where it is not needed. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussion continued here.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  16:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Iman Darweesh al-Hams
Jaakobou. Could you take a look at the lead of Iman Darweesh Al Hams? It looks like there's some technical confusion in the mark-up of line 1, since her birth-date is separated from the date of her death by some Arabic script. I played with seeing how it might be fixed, but only worsened it. You're very good on these technical things, so I thought you might just fix it. Hope it's no bother. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Don't know what below refers to, but will look around.Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Would be better if you put some time into mentoring PalestineRemembered to stop playing games and promoting the massacre narrative about the Battle of Jenin.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't edit any more, only check in for damage control on a few articles I have edited, and don't intervene unless someone asks me for assistance or advice on my talk page. Nishidani (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You know, for a person so sensitive to nationality issues, Tiamut sure doesn't have any qualms about trashing on Israel. Just now she insists on adding the suggestion that Israel "enjoyed" the 9.11 attacks, lending a hand to the usual antisemitic libels running around in the Arab world. Heck, not just insisting on it, but tag-team edit warring to keep it in an article despite external opinions of two uninvolved editors.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you just unintentionally called Tiamut a scoundrel so it's best to refactor your comment.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You kind of misunderstood parts of what I was saying, but it's nice that we can disengage in civility non the less. Cheers,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  19:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Danny Magen image
Hi Jaakobou! Thanks for helping me improve the low-quality image of Danny Magen. You can see the result at Military Police Corps (Israel). Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 01:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply
See my comment. I did not cite that for the content, nor to reflect on you, but to highlight a disparity in treatment. Please note that I recognize Eleland must suffer a ban. That is the way the rules work, and he himself knows this. Our disgruntlement is purely over the fact that two idiots who maliciously engaged in smearing us and Palestinians, are being ignored, as is the fool who told me to 'get fucked' on my talk page. I don't make complaints, and I dislike people who do. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the linked diff does not mention "Zionists", how is it racist? Eleland is using "Nazi" to describe someone's editing habits, not their race. This is disruptive. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 21:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Mind the question, but have you read the thread in question where Eleland claims his right to call others Nazis came from? What I personally find disruptive is Nishidani's WP:OWN attitude towards the thread and the suggestion that your edit was not disruptive while mine was. Please do not remove the word "racism" from a thread which discusses racist comments and suggestions among other issues.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The header is misleading because it insinuates that any racism is being perpetrated purely by Eleland, when (a) any racism by him is debatable, and (b) there are racist overtones on the edits of both sides. At the very least, the header should be altered to reflect that. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 21:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Black Kite,
 * Racism and two sides to every story: The racism by him is indeed debatable (as are most issues), and there are indeed racist overtones on the edits of both sides (though debatable). I fully agree with you on both points.
 * Original complaint and racist commentary: Changing a complaint made because a defender of Eleland disagrees with it is disruptive to admins who should be reading the complaint as it was originally posted. Both you and/or Nishidani have no prerogative to alter the title. It matters not if a couple editors think Eleland should be given leeway to call Zionists "Nasiz" if these Jews happen to annoy him with a mildly uncivil/insensitive comment about Palestinians.
 * Personal perspective: I found most of Eleland's comments -- as well as his usual style -- to be offensive and bigoted; and therefore, the original title should stay.
 * With respect,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  22:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I could provide a reading list for the fact that calling Israelis within Israel 'Nazis' is commonplace among settlers. Eleland did not call anyone a Nazi, he called a self-affirmed true believer in 'ethnic supremicism' someone who, by definition, believes in a master race, and the point was ironical, to shame him into realizing that such boasting is unacceptable, particularly to anyone who takes the Holocaust's many messages seriously. I own nothing here. And my insistance on defending Eleland from a smear is a matter of principle. I didn't say your edit was 'disruptive'. Since these arbitration issues imply a requirement to be precise in one's charges, I simply called for the elimination of a word in the header which the plaintiff refuses, even now, to document by diffs, or justify, despite being shown that his deduction is based on a very serious misreading of Eleland's remarks. I say this as someone who can be relied on to call for a perma-ban on anyone who even makes the slightest anti-Semitic remark in Wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If people disrespect the memory of the Holocaust, it does not mean that you, Eleland, or anyone else should do it as well. I have not seen proof that anyone (espcially Jewish) here on Wikipedia earned the title "goose-stepper" btw. You're going to have to learn to recognize antisemitic commentary before you can make your empty promises.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  08:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC) clarify 08:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC) clarify more 08:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you fail to see that the Holocaust is not a Jewish property. Its overwhelming import constitutes a universal admonition about ethnic triumphalism. I see Gypsies treated as scum every other day where I live. They had half of their people exterminated in those same death-factories.Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The title "goose-stepper" is offensive to most people everyone I know and I saw nothing that justifies the title being given where you and Eleland decided it should be. Zionists, Settlers, Irgun members even are not Nazis - period. And using terminology that works for all Jews (horn-blowers, Torah nationalists) makes the comments aired outrageously offensive. Now you edit-war over the claim that it wasn't., It's clearly not your place to say when a comment is offensive to Jewish people since you repeatedly make such comments. Allow the uninvolved to decide on the merits of the claim themselves please rather than violate WP:OWN and WP:3RR.
 * p.s. If you can prove to me that the person truly thinks he's the supreme race and all should bow to him, I might agree with a small portion of your perspective, but he has not -- and the reaction by you and Eleland was indeed bigoted and offensive even if he has since you used general Jewish symbolism.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Header

 * It was quite clear that the person is a Jew who already felt bullied by a couple of editors and responded inappropriately -- by suggesting that those who promote the Pan-Arab/Islamic "Palestinian ideology" (I'm phrasing it like that as a mirror to the offensive way you're treating the Jewish "Zionist ideology" on my page and elsewhere) of replacing Israel will not succeed. Eleland turned this comment into a "Ceaser salad" calling the man out for "racial supremacism" and exauberent "Nazi goose-stepping" and demanded the right to call him "cunt" all over wikipedia -- when it's clear that the person is Jewish and never claimed supremacism over anyone let alone created hell on earth. I believe it was clear to you as well that he is Jewish as you yourself made a couple of offensive comments - i.e. "horn-blower" and "Torah based nationalism". I trust the first was an honest mistake (though I have not seen an apology), but I don't know what to make of the second comment as I'm certain you will call it another "speed reading" misunderstanding and claim rightgeousness as usual. You see, just recently you argued on my page that I'm not sensitive enough to offensive language and it seems you should take a note from your own critique as you not only repeatedly make offensive comments (and stand behind them regardless of the offense they make) but seem to have a penchant for defending others who suffer the same problem. That's decent and humanist and moral... and is a good catalyst for the people who accuse you of antisemitism. Please take a moment to reflect on the off chance that you are repeatedly disrespecting the people you claim to be defending.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  08:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd gladly reply with a simple quote, rather lengthy if you can assure me it won't be pocketed. I like your pocketing, it's a neat device aesthetically, but on this, the quote requires to be read in full, plain text.Nishidani (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Can't you make your point succinctly without needing 10,000 chars minimum to make it? I can't promise not to pocket entirely unnecessary text; this is still my user-interaction space and I need the ability to follow what's going on it without scrolling my life away.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, forget it, then.Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Jaakobou,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:17th century Central Tibeten thanka of Guhyasamaja Akshobhyavajra, Rubin Museum of Art.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 1, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-10-01.  howcheng  {chat} 16:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Shana Tova
Yes, Shana Tova! -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a PC
I think we might find it more beneficial to actually discuss your edits in the discussion page. The sheer volume of them doesn't allow for easy discussion of any one of them, buried in the middle of a dozen edits. Let's give it a try. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've likely undone some of your ref work, and for that I am sorry. I have no issues with the referencing work, but rather the large amount of copyediting occurring amidst it. If you wish to replace the refs, I would not oppse it. Teh other stuff, however, we should discuss. The time for bold editing has somewhat passed, and some discussion would really be helpful. It is a little after 11 am where I am at, and will be out of the office until 2 pm. If you wish to discuss the matter at that time, i will be available to do so in a timely manner. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure we can compromise, but a full on revert is improper considering the volume of work. I've taken the time to tag each and every edit with a proper edit summary and I'm sure they can be reviewed and discussed. Let's pursue this on the article's talk page.
 * With respect,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  16:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was not a "full-on" revert. While some of your ref work was undone, that was unintentional, but could not be avoided, as the refs moved supported statements that should have been discussed. Many parts of your edits remain. Those parts where you purged or reqwrote matters require some discussion. You were reverted; the next step is not to revert back o your preferred version but instead to use the discussion page to achive a compromise and/or consensus. I am willing to work with you, but I tend to respond negatively to an unwillingness to use BRD in the spirit it was intended. I am removing - yet again - the info until we finish discussing thedifferences of interperetation. Please respect that dissent exists and use the discussion page to resolve it, and not by reverting.
 * After reading your post in the article discussion, it would appear that we need to discuss those edits which you find objectionable or undue weight. I am open to such discussion.- Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comment on DYK was exceptionally poor form, and had no bearing on the value of the DYK. I see it as an attack, and would like you to strike it, please. There are acceptable ways to interact, and that was not it. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You kinda left me no choice. The DYK will occur in two days and you insist we discuss and achieve consensus to each and every change I've made even though you now state cleanly that most of them are fine with you. I'd be happier off course to allow the DYK pass (I think I might get credit for that one as well) and this is not intended as a personal dig but rather a concern that Microsoft is getting a raw deal from Wikipedia. Things would go easier probably, if you would have broken down your edit with edit summaries for each edit rather than make a big one which is hard to follow. Perhaps you could, please, take the time to compare the versions and possibly go my way on a few issues. I'm sure we can resolve this before the two days are up - you don't have to take each of my comments as personal digs, I have no such intentions.
 * With respect,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * p.s. I did see that you went my way already on several issues, so don't take this comment as disrespecting your efforts. I'll return to review what we can do further in a few hours. Feel free to edit the article a little to possibly resolve some of the issues you think might be open.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Bluntly, there is always a choice, Jaak. There was nothing that threatened the validity of the DYK in any way, and yet your comment seemed designed to slow its approval down. I take exception to that, as it seems an action in very bad faith, of reprisal for the reverting of your mass edits. Your comment in DYK casts a shadow as to the verifiability, reliability or neutrality of the DYK - to whit, that the commercials were not made on Macs. They were, and its cited, and you apparently haven't any disagreement with that. It is quite reasonable to assume that the comment was made with less than neutral considerations.
 * Additionally, I do not disagree with your ref clean-up (which I guess renders as correct your statement that "most of [your edits] are okay with me"), but I do disagree substantially with many of your other edits. That I reverted the massive changes alongside a request to discuss the matter (whilst simultaneously keeping some of the changes and apologizing for undoing the ref work) was the 'R' part of the BRD model. I was pointedly asking you to discuss before re-adding the information and, for whatever reason, you chose to initially ignore that request. When you were reverted again, you then posted to discussion once before re-adding the info. That isn't how discussion works. I wasn't unclear as to why you made the edits, I disagreed with them - an important distinction when asked to discuss an edit.
 * And MS isn't getting a "raw deal" from Wikipedia. They ass-clowned themselves into a pickle, and it is encyclopedic to point out the error. No one is saying that Bill should be strung up from a light post in Redmond. They made a whopper of a mistake by trying to conceal their error, and its cited by several neutral sources. Ergo, no issue.
 * If you truly feel that we can resolve this, I would suggest that a retraction of your DYK comment would constitute an excellent step in that direction. Can you do that?- Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Imagine you were writing an article about your own company and tell me if language like "ass-clowned themselves into a pickle" sounds fair. Anyways, I'm in the process of answering your points from the article talk page and believe we'll solve this nicely.
 * p.s. I don't believe that requests for retractions work well on Wikpedia. It certainly didn't work when Prince of Canada asked you to revert your edit on the page - or did you miss that one?
 * With respect,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  16:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if I had said that in article-space, I would have deserved getting my ass handed to me as a blue plate special. As it was used in a user-talk page (and something similar was said in article discussion), its a moot point. I don't hate MS; I hate stupidity in the workplace, especially when it wastes time and/or money. I especially despise anyone who seeks to obscure their own stupidity and spin it. As the mistake forced MS to spend more money and waste more time responding to it, they qualify. As they then tried to conceal it, they doubly qualify.
 * And when i mean retract, I think it can be reasonably inferred that I meant 'strike through'. Are you suggesting that the DYK was inaccurate, and that it wasn't a reprisal? I await your reasoning on this, as I am genuineloy curious as to how you defend it. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's not bicker over what qualifies as a "reprisal" and try and work this out together. See my recent response on the article's talk page.
 * Cheers,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  17:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, are you purposely avoiding my request to address the DYK comment with semantics? Comparing my correct characterization of your behavior with armed conflict? Would retaliation work better for you? Respectfully, it should be rather clear to you that I consider this issue rather important, and while I can match semantic s with you, it isn't going to fix the underlying problem. It is going to affect how we interact, and I resent your avoiding the topic. I have asked you nicely to remove, redact, strike through the bad faith post. If you are not going to do so, say so, so I know what level you are placing our dispute on and can act accordingly, be it ANI or wikiquette. Your action was unacceptable, and you should glean from my repeated requests to address it how seriously I take it. Please be polite and professional, and address it. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see this is important to you so I suggest we move my note from the DYK page to WP:3O possibly? You have my permission to move it there, just link the diff here.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It would not b e good form for me to do so, as refactoring the comments of others is seen as uncivil. If you are honestly of the opinion that your action was worthy of 3O consideration, by all means, move it there, and we can discuss it there. However, you are the one that needs to remove it. In short, you made the mistake, you should be the one to address it. And yes, it is important. I am rather disappointed that I have had to address this more than once, and that you did it in the first place. If you could remove it, i would appreciate it. It would go a long way to improving our interaction. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It was not a mistake as my concern remains the promotion of an unfair article to WIkipedia's mainpage. I am willing to have you shift my concern to a separate venue, but these concerns are very much there still and you don't seem to budge or suggest any type of compromise on any of them on the discussion page. Can we just continue this there and stop the accusations?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I am not going to undue your attack; you have to do that. If you chose not to, I cannot force you to do so, but there will be repercussions.
 * Let me put it simply: Was there any part of the DYK that was inaccurate? It promotes the a hook into the article so that it can attract attention to and be worked on by editors - the stated purpose of DYK; perhaps you could review the policies and guidelines of that; at the very least, you should discuss with an admin before you do some of these things, to get an idea as to how they are going to be perceived. We disagree as to the fairness of the article, not the factual n ature of the DYK, or the NPOV of the comment, which your comment implied.
 * Put yourself in my shoes, and ask around: would you honestly try to work with someone who pulled such a stunt, or would you feel that they gamed the system in retaliation for being reverted?
 * Please do not think I am going to be forced to discussions about compromise before you initiate the process by doing so yourself and removing the retaliatory comment - that will not happen, and will foster an extremely poor editing environment. In short, by your comment, you made it harder to work together. I have given you several opportunities to address your mistake, please - take advantage of them. Otherwise, I have to take this to another venue that will be pleasant for neither of us. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to be offensive, but you're really treating this like I'm doing something wrong while you are doing something right. Your approach is a bit uncivil since you insist on irrelevant issues rather than resolve the content issue. In regards to your suggestion, I did, in fact, consult with a couple of admins before deciding on the DYK notice. If you don't want to resolve the issue and only wish to make demands and claim ownership over how the article should be written, then I believe we're both in trouble and not just me. Anyways, I gave you the option to move the comment to WP:3O - and that option is still open. I'd be happy to discuss things with you on the article and resolve the content issue. Cheers,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Never let it be said that I did not give you the opportunity to avoid what comes next. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My choice was essentially forced by your refusal to redact your comment; either report you to AN/I (where you might very well have been blocked yet again), or to WQA, where some other admins might help you understand that your behavior was offensive. It was offensive, and if you cannot see that, then this isn't going to be the end of your problems with other editors. The copy of the WQA complaint can be found here. Depending on how that progresses, I will follow the steps of DR until a satisfactory solution emerges. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)