User talk:Jaakobou/Archive 13

PA revolving door
Hey, what do you think about the article name? I came to the realization recently that this name is a silly name for the article. Would you care to chime in at the article's talkpage and tell us what name you think is ideal? Thanks, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 13:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, can you take another look at the second sentence of the Background section of the article, which you recently edited? Something there looks off. Thanks, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 13:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Helpme
I retouched File:Choco chip cookie.jpg and uploaded it as a PNG (also removed the white background) and I could use a bot help to replace all the old images superseded by the new one. Warm regards,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  01:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC) p.s. seems that someone uploaded a bad version with the same name to wikipedia so the file currently showing on wiki is far worse in quality than I uploaded (also has white background). Would appreciate someone fixing this issue as well.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  01:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BOTR, which is probably the best venue for your question. Killiondude (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Gideon Levy
Thanks. For a change, I agree with you. Have you ever heard of the other Gideon Levy?RolandR (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The other Gideon Levy is a Dutch film director for the public service broadcaster VPRO whose output includes a documentary 'Lockerbie revisited' which was broadcast in Holland on the eve of the start of Mr Megrahi's second appeal in April 2009 (see http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/41867169/). On the VPRO website there are links to June 2005 interviews by Gideon Levy (film director) featuring Dr Jim Swire and Robert Black (professor) (see http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/22635723/items/22716459/). Perhaps you would like to create an article on Gideon Levy (film director) and reinstate the Gideon Levy disambig page that was deleted earlier today.---PJHaseldine (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Heyo PJHaseldine,
 * I don't know who's more famous, but if there are only two of them, then I'd have the head title go to the more famous one and I'd add a hat-note that links to the other article. A disambig page is really not needed unless you have more than just two options for the same name (or that its impossible to determine who's more searched for).
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  05:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Pappé/Katz
I don't want to get into a dispute with you about this, and it is a very complicated issue. But the sources I have read confirm that something happened in Tantura. Whether you call it a massacre is a semantic and political issue, rather than factual. In any case, as you agree, to state in the lead that this was a false allegation was certainly inappropriate. All we should say, lower down, is that the allegation is contested or challenged. RolandR (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sticking to the facts is easier than linguistic contortionism. Content inside the body of the article should be that a review body overturned him and deemed the "event" to be based on bogus information after the supreme court looked at the evidence and decided that the soldiers were right in posting a libel suit (Kats was forced to apologize as well if I understood the sources correctly). On a more personal note (regarding Pappe), you have to admit that there's an issue where he calls the fighting in Jenin "a massacre" and insists that the testimonies from there are all factual and that Israel and the U.S.A. conspired to hide the carnage. Heck, there's an article lying around about a journalist who examined a claim by a local grocer (in Jenin) that a truck was used to hide bodies and the truck ended up having food for the soldiers... no bodies. Everyone knows that Jenin was an impressive propaganda act so his support in that one just makes him into a conspiracy theorist and an extreme anti-Zionist. Not exactly the sources I'd use for historical accounts on Israeli matters. Regardless, the lead needs to be written conservatively and the article needs to be written in an encyclopedic tone and I was happy to back you up on reverting that one.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  20:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Notification
So that you may respond, this is to let you know that I have initiated a request for ArbCom enforcement regarding your editing. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 22:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Independent281006.gif)
Thanks for uploading File:Independent281006.gif. 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) 05:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Poor choice of expression
Whatever may have been the intention — and I truly can imagine that no mischief were intended — telling Nickhh “I'm sorry that you've been sanctioned” looks like sarcastic gloating. It's hard to believe that you'd be genuinely sorry that he were restricted, as the manner in which he has comported himself is so thoroughly unpleasant. If you could proceed with a more careful choice of expression, to reduce opportunities for (mis)interpretations of teasing or of harassment, that might help attenuate the eruptions. And, if it did not, it would at least throw his behavior into sharper contrast. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Heyo SlamDiego,
 * I wasn't sure on how to note Nickhh for basically blaming me for relishing his ban (per "Smacks somewhat of gaming the system to me"). Maybe I misunderstood his comment but that's how it felt and I wanted to point it out to him that I honestly don't. I don't make the habit of gloating over the misfortunes of others and I'd apologize to him (as I was doing) for even the appearance of doing so. As a side mention, I believe Nickhh should avoid inflammatory remarks that allege fellow editors have an interest in his sanctioning. Such comments can only lead escalating bad faith allegations that are by no means helpful to the project. Hope this clarifies the issue and I'll certainly pay attention to avoidance from making commentaries that could be seen in a bad light.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  17:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sure that the rhetoric of Nickhh has been by far the greater problem here. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 01:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Economics journals and magazines
I have nominated economics journals and magazines for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you.  DJR  ( T ) 01:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I'm not entirely sure on what to make of it.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  11:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

accusations
I would appreciate you not making accusations that are easily refuted such as me following you to pages that I have been quite active on. Thank you, Nableezy (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a point about your previous activity on the page, though, I have a point as well as you've chosen to expand one argument and reverting to yet another article and other issues which makes for a "following" on my contributions. You've also jumped recently on The Independent article, following my edits, and as such, I felt it was an appropriate time to give you a note to stop doing that.
 * With respect,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  16:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Independent was brought up in the Arbcom noticeboard, any user who has that page watchlisted would have seen that. And no, it does not make for 'following' your contributions so no you do not have a point. Kindly refrain from making accusations that are plainly false. Nableezy (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No offense intended, but you remind me of Nickhh. I won't raise the issue as long as I don't have reason to.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  18:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How could I possibly take offense to that? Nickhh is on my list of best editors ever. Thanks for the compliment, Nableezy (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought Nick was banned at Israel and the apartheid analogy, right? Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

POV tag at Deir Yassin massacre
You, user:dgies and User:Gatoclass had a POV concern at Deir Yassin massacre in April of 2007. The tag had been in the article for over 2 years (since April) and then admin User:SlimVirgin removed it yesterday. I said he should go to the principal editors of the article or refer to the original discussion about the POV tag but instead he is demanding I enumerate problems with the article which I have no interest in doing. He then implied I was drive-by-tagging and POV-pushing blah blah so I'm really not in the mood to piss of an admin and get a block.

I don't want to give the appearance of canvassing so I won't post at anyone else' userspace for now. I just figured you were a crucial editor considering you inserted the tag. Feel free to comment, or not. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There was an issue of lack of representation for the Etzel perspective but I don't really have the time to get into this one at the moment. Thanks for the notice though.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  13:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Query
These are two totally different systems, Arab Republic is a secular type of government, while an Islamic Republic is a religious type of government, and there are other major differences in terms of elected institutions etc. "Arab republic", the term that Egypt and Syria use for their type of government, is suppose to be a republic, based on Pan-Arabist values, and Nasser is the one who coined the term. It's usually a one-party system. Islamic Republic on the other hand, is a republic based on Islamic "values" (Pakistan) or "ideology" (Iran) with a complex political system. --Kurdo777 (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied on user's talk.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  08:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No matter how similar the two two types of government may look, they're not the same type of government. I have no objection to expanding Arab Republic, but it can not be merged into Islamic Republic, which is a different concept. There is not a single reliable source that equates these two types of government, and it's not our job as Wikipedia editors to equate them, doing so would be a violation of WP:OR. FYI, there was a discussion on this issue here, feel free to add your own input there. --Kurdo777 (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't try to conflate two different things: not all Arabs are Muslims, not all Muslims are Arabs. -- The Anome (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that and I wasn't. Thanks for giving your two Shekels though.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  16:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

concerns
first, dont call others edits vandalism when they are not as you did in your edit summary. second, it is customary to give notice of an ani report, which you failed to do. please be more courteous in the future, Nableezy (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On the courtesy note, apologies for not giving you the link immediately after posting. I had a phone call and then had to leave the house. Perhaps there is room for the both of us to improve here. I can't keep trying to get you to stop when you ignore my concerns about your recent collaboration efforts and the blatant and repeated errors just boiled this one over the top. There's a limit to how many errors in a row I can accept as attempts to improve the encyclopedic content before I move things for community review.
 * With respect,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  15:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your life, but there are no blatant or repeated errors. Nableezy (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure there are. Anyone can see them on the ANI post.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  15:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

stay off my talk page and do not accuse me of editing in anti-Jewish manner. I take accusations of racism seriously and if you make another one I will be raising my concerns at WP:AE.  nableezy  - 01:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I reiterate the above, and when you post the same message to me on my talk page as you do on the article talk page that comes off as incredibly annoying, purposefully so. Please respect my wishes and not post to my talk page.  nableezy  - 03:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Continued on Nableezy's page (for now).  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  03:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * you want it one spot keep it here, there is no escalating pattern now leave me alone. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Heyo right back at you
I replied on the article talk page before I got your message. Therefore, concerning Land Day, I think we should just discuss matters related to it at the talk page. About Nableezy, I think you two have just got off at the wrong foot. Both of you need to calm your language. Other than that, I see no problem with you two discussing with each other. If this concern of yours (him following you) persists, then I'll talk with him, although I'm not really sure if he was "following" you. As for the quote at the top of my talk page, I'm pretty damn sure he's just referring to Gaza's history (several times by several peoples, including the Arabs, the city was besieged/inhabitants massacred, but the city always lived and eventually prospered, albeit for short periods. I'm not going to get into the leadership issue. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Response
Regarding this, what on earth are you talking about? CJCurrie (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Update your short list
Please update you short list of problems with the Land Day article to reflect that some of your concerns have been dealt with. Striking those dealt with to your satisfaction will help clarify what issues remain unresolved. It would also show that you are collaborating in good faith, rather than simply trying to stall the removal of the NPOV tag which has been up there for a year now, solely because of your problems with the article. I have expended huge amounts of time and energy to address your concerns. The least you can do is acknowledge that by striking what has been dealt with.  T i a m u t talk 15:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, a question: do you use or have you used another account here at Wikipedia?  T i a m u t talk 17:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. I'll strike through issues that are fixed. As for your question, no I have not used any other account and don't plan to. Is there any user you had in mind that you think is a sock of mine? I have to admit that I once figured Nableezy to possibly be a sock of one of the old gang that is now blocked but that's no longer the case.
 * p.s. I do have to request that you stop with the IDONTLIKEIT and other bad faith accusations. The article is finally making a shift towards a semblance of neutrality but this is not a quick fix process if even admins are being reverted and poor grammar is inserted instead of proper one.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for answering the question.
 * About IDONTLIKEIT, I have no idea what you are talking about. And there are no bad faith accusations, just honest descriptions of what I view as problematic editing approaches on your part. :::About admins being reverted (I suppose you are referring to my revert of Ynhockey's edit) that may not have happened if he bothered to participate in the discussions like everyone else. He doesn't have any special status that exempts him from talk page discussion. And if you reviewed the discussion closely, you would notice that he inserted a sentence fragment in his edit that was completely nonsensical. After I restored the text to its original, I went about correcting the awkward sentence structures that were pointed out to me.
 * Please do strike what has been addressed and we will continue from there.  T i a m u t talk 11:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, part of the problem is that every edit someone else makes, you revert and re-do it in your own style. This ends up not fixing the issues that concern your fellow editors. I would appreciate if, for a change, you would discuss the things that you felt were disrupted by the edits rather than you reverting back the issues in concern.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If anyone is WP:OWNing this article Jaakobou, it's you. You have singlehandedly kept a NPOV tag up there for a year now. I have made every effort to respond to your every concern, no matter how off-base. Instead of recognizing that, you accuse me of OWN. Get over yourself.  T i a m u t talk 11:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your starting point is that my concerns are off base even when respectable admins, not mistaken with overly pro-Israeli biases, such as Al Ameer son approve of some of them. The problem is either that I'm crazy to suggest that "tanks and artillery" is too much fluff for the lead, or that you have ownership issues for insisting that they do and reverting this issue for a month now before "appeasing Jaackobou" once an admin gave it a look and agreed with me.
 * I have no intention of mucking up an article with an NPOV tag, but the article has not seen improvement during that time when I was giving you a chance to improve it without my direct meddling.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the problem is that I have difficulty taking your requests seriously due to the soapboxing and provocation that invariably accompanies them and the ever-shifting goalposts that have been set. It is not crazy to suggest that "tanks and artillery" are too much detail for the lead. It's a matter of opinion and one you were alone in versus three editors supporting its inclusion until Ynhockey edited out the material, indicating he too, did not think it should go in the lead. I bent out of respect for the lack of consensus (something you might consider doing from time to time when you find that you are the only editor advocating for something in the face of mutliple dissensions). And please do not pretend that's the only issue you have had for the last month or that its the only one I've addressed. Every time one is addressed, you find another, and another. Your interventions may have indirectly caused the article to improve but at what cost Jaakobou? Don't you think this process could have been much more efficient, had you respected requests to outline your issue in a comprehensive list from the outset and stuck to discussing article content rather than say your opinions on the anti-Semitic tendencies of Arab media which have nothing to do with the article at all?  T i a m u t talk 11:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So much soapboxing in my edit here that you reverted it and ignored both my concenrs. Always nice to not be taken seriously and be accused of soapboxing due to WP:OWNership issues. I don't know how you construct your "consensus" since it doesn't seem to include anyone who might be mistaken with pro-Israeli perspectives.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I responded in this edit which you deleted from the talk page here. Please restore my edit now. You have no right to delete other people's talk page comments.  T i a m u t talk 11:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your comment completely disrupted mine a second time. There's no reasoning in placing it there of all places. Also, I neglected to add that you accused me of minimizing the Israeli army role??? Was there any source that said the army shot people intentionally? (There wasn't), Were there sources that rioters were attacking police and that the police couldn't contain the rioters? (there were). I prefer a version that minimizes both to the word "clashes" since this is a more encyclopdic way of dealing with a WP:LEAD.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Restore my comment now Jaakobou. Per WP:TALK, you have no right to delete the comments of your fellow editors.  T i a m u t talk 11:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * System lags made me accidentally delete one instead of moving it (fixed). Anyways, it was poorly positioned and posed an interruption to my own comment (see also 'interruptions' under the talk policy).
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Next time, ask me to move it and I will. Do not do it yourself. I almost filed an AE report about it and everything else Jaakobou. I'm on the verge right now. I expect that you will cease commenting about editors, cease soapboxing, and focus on article content and be serious about working to remove the NPOV tag. One more comment or action that is out of line and I will report you. Clear?  T i a m u t talk 14:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: not that I have a strong inclination to turn away from content to drama, but personal commentary (and drama) seems to be an issue on said discussion and I'm not the only one to complain.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  17:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Because you have no valid or coherent argument or additions to make the article to yourself, you had to resort to [this? How sad. [[User:Tiamut| T i a m u t ]]talk 10:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification
Yaakobou, there is a lovely discussion on Haarets page about you. That's right believe it or not.

The argument is that you were uninformed about the discussion we were holding. The reason nablezy and Malik Shabbaz rejects your opinion is because supposedly you called Haaretz is a magazine not newspaper. Another problem is that you say a "note" instead a "quote". This is the reason they refuse to include a section about David Landau the editor in chief of Haaretz. Please clarify your position because this is their excuse to eliminate this important information.

To cap. David L:andau was invited along with 20 top opinion makers in Israel( Heads of think tanks, editors in chief and such) to private residence of Americam embassador in Israel to dinner with Secretary of State Condi Rice. Landou was seated to her right. In his speach Landou said Israel wants "to be raped" by US. He confirmed this in RS. Nablezy and Malik Shabbaz don't want it claiming it was a private session not official one. My claim was that in the type of setting discribed above it is definately official setting- no private. He wasn't invited to attend Bar Mitzva or a wedding. This was an official dinner in the ambassador's house and Secretary of State wanted to hear what Israeli opinion makers had to say.

They think this is not important to mention in the Haaretz article in a appropriate section. Whats your take on that?

Thanks  --Rm125 (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

please respond
to problems with your latest revert at the talk page for Gilad Shalit. untwirl (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please review Haaretz Landau puzzle
I did as you suggested but they don't want it there. Period.How can it be rewritten in order to settle it? Please advice.I already removed "Haaretz editor" I am puzzled. I personally think there is no way they can logically argue that his opinions are irrelevant there.Thanks --Rm125 (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 09:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you
Thank you very much for the recognition. This is much appreciated. Jimmy1988 (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Gaza beach explosion (2006)
do you have time to add a short paragraph on the controversy over the Human rights Report to the Marc Garlasco page? It would be useful.Historicist (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not today but I'll see if I can muster up some time to review the content. I do have some other things I was working on that might take presidency. Is there a discussion going on?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  18:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Operation Defensive Shield
I have done more analysis on the edits on Operation Defensive Shield. I have explained things on my talkpage, and to User:Tiamut. Although my concerns on your side are smaller than on other sides. One specific concern: You reverted the IP's unexplained edit, and the IP re-reverted. When you then re-reverted, you started a 'discussion' on the talkpage (diff). Could you try and be more specific in the concerns you have with an edit, inform the editor you reverted on their talkpage where you stated your concerns and opened discussion (I know, you never know with IPs if the same editor will read them, but at least you tried), and maybe even do it after the first revert (though the second revert is not too bad). Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take these notes to heart.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  18:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Landau and Haaretz
Thanks for looking it up. Frankly, after so much controvercy I need a couple of days to cool off. I will return to this point in couple of days. Thanks for your attempt to clear things out.--Rm125 (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Stalemate on MaD
Done! I've eliminated some comments & questions that aren't especially important, and merged the rest. I was curious, on a personal level, if you've watched the 18 minutes of video released by France 2? ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 09:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw something on youtube but I can't be certain that this is the original material one for one as there's no reliable source stating this. Will check the talkpage in a sec...  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  09:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Revert
Man, you need a new keyboard with a working spacebar! So regarding your points: Cheers. ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 10:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Where in the second BBC source does it state that France 2 had a 45 minute of film? I read the source; as far as I can tell it says no such thing.
 * Hmm, what second name of the documentary?
 * Do you object to moving the (earlier) BBC report to before Rahma's sworn statement? It made sense to me, as that's the order they took place in chronologically.
 * What do you object to about my rewrite of the sentence about his sworn statement?
 * What do you object to about my rewrite of his statement in the German documentary?


 * Btw, I saw in your edit summary that "the '6minute' bit was noted on the second documentary". I haven't seen it, but the video of Schapira's interview with Rahma is in the first documentary. The original instance of the interview and statement should be used. ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 10:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Done, and done. Btw, I don't check my Wikipedia email often, so if it's anything urgent feel free to message me on Wikipedia to check my email. Cheers. ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 11:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Haven't gotten it yet. Btw, you haven't enabled to be contacted through it.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, odd, dunno why it didn't go through yet. I've enabled email now anyways, so feel free to message me via that. ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 11:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I got it. Check for my reply.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, just saw your message. Who is Landes? Regardless, I looked at the link you sent. I essentially agree that the five possibilities listed are the five that I would list. However, this is Wikipedia, so not all viewpoints or theories get equal weight just because they exist. As that page itself suggests, we must weigh the different theories - not in terms of plausibility, but in terms of coverage by reliable sources. The five scenarios that page lists were not covered as equal theories. ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 06:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Levy
that is your 3rd revert, 2 of which are reinserting what a good faith editor (me) has argued is a BLP violation without consensus that it is not. Consensus does not mean you and one other person. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hey mate i thought i recognized your username from somewhere, I remember you from deviantart you were one mouthy opinionated deviant :P (I left there since admins were allowing scum) Glad to see you here you have quite a portfolio too, see you around Eli +  20:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What source-based research looks like
In response to your unnecessarily aggressive message on my talk page, I suggest you take a look at this. If you rely on conspiracy theorist websites and videos then I'm afraid it's no wonder you appear to be misinformed about the facts of the case. Conspiracy theorists routinely lie, mislead and misrepresent; they use facts selectively and misleadingly to meet support their preconceived ideas about "the truth". Where facts don't exist, they invent them or rely on innuendo; where facts are unclear or ambiguous, they present them as being cast-iron truths with only one possible interpretation. They rely on misdirection, getting you to focus on small details while ignoring the big picture of how improbable their claims are. I suggest you have a look at this article from the Austin Chronicle, which you might find informative. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I still insist that you desist from using the intensified terminology you've recently adopted. Focus on content and not on name calling.
 * With respect.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  02:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to your request, I've posted an olive branch - see . I hope you will respond positively, so that we can all get back to doing more productive things. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a little offended with the way your friends responded and need a couple hours to digest this proposal. I will probably agree to withdraw the case, just that I'm not in the right frame of mind and wouldn't want to close things while upset. One of the best advice I got in the day was a link to WP:NAM.
 * With respect,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a little offended with the way you responded, not least some of the claims you've made against me. But I suggest that we each put aside our mutual offendedness and move to a solution. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a chance to both get some perspective on the case as well as get away from my obligations for a little bit. I will try to be more attentive to your concerns on the page and I'm certain that you will try to uphold your words in regards to the language used.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had enough, Jaakobou - I will not be responding to your comments on the article talk page in future. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)