User talk:Jaakobou/Archive 4

POV wording
Jaakobou, please try to keep your POV out of articles. The wording of your latest edit to Pallywood was frankly ridiculous - I mean, "dramatic pseudo-events"? That kind of wording simply isn't compatible with our neutral point of view policy. -- ChrisO 01:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey! I think he invented a very cool new word. I think I'll use that in my company documents. "Today's morning conference call was a pseudo-event, half the staff was actually awake.". :P Kyaa the Catlord 01:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
for all the many comments you make on my talk page regarding tone, phraseology, and so on. I wonder though perhaps if you aren't obsessing a little about this. Discussion on I-P pages is frequently rough-and-tumble. I think if you focus on bringing your namespace edits into compliance with policy, especially WP:NPOV, the talk-page turbulence troubling you will tend to subside.--G-Dett 01:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You must not have a cat
I do, plus six three and a half week old kittens. A cat will toy with a mouse for a long time before going in for the kill, and in a few weeks momma cat will begin bringing mice or birds (a pigeon once a few litters back; you ever wake up to an apartment covered with feathers??) home for the kittens to learn to hunt with. It's something else to see these innocent little creatures gobble up some hapless mouse a third their size. But I digress. I know G-Dett well, and I know G-Dett shoots from the hip on talk pages and I admire that. Sometimes, for the sake of brevity, it's better to be quicker on the draw than to have the most perfect aim. Not everyone appreciates the difference between being curt and being rude, and that's all I meant by the mouse allusion. I really don't want a long stageplay about hurt feelings, anymore than I want to wake up to my cat flinging a half dead mouse in my face at 3 AM. I just want to have a rough idea of the history and the players, without having to dig through it all myself. -- 146.115.58.152 01:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Attempts to manage discussion at Talk:Battle of Jenin
Jaakobou, this edit is the latest in a long list of attempts you have made to restructure the discussion at Talk:Battle of Jenin. I already objected on that page to your use of "For, Against, Offtopic" headers and your fairly aggressive moving of comments to conform to this scheme. (  among many others) I also objected to your presentation of misleading headers such as ===Validation notes - result:source validated=== which seemed calculated to give an appearance of an official credibility which wasn't there. You also closed a discussion which was by no means over (last post made 4 hours before you closed it!), in what seemed suspiciously like an attempt to manipulate discussion.

It is clear that many of your refactoring and reorganizing efforts are not intended to influence discussion through underhanded means, however, I do not believe that it is appropriate for an editor involved in a heated dispute to refactor others' comments. WP:REFACTOR states clearly: "Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted."


 * User:Eleland, here is the list of links you provided as example and my reply:
 * (1) - this talk has nothing to do with you, it is a talk related comment for User talk:PalestineRemembered and i don't see the reason for you to re-factor it here.
 * (2) - is a link to a related previous conversation, User:G-Dett raised concerns regarding it and i've decided, after some thought, to remove it due to the emotions is seemed to evoke - once again, this has very little to do with you.
 * (3) - i was moving your disruptive talk from the |include/exclude pallywood talk, instead of allowing for the talk to advance, you've chosen to attack me with polemics on a subsection dedicated for stating a general position. i believe that the i clearly noted that "for generic commentary/questions leave your comment on the proper subsection" with a link included.
 * (4) - User:PalestineRemembered chose to discuss a different subsection on an unrelated talk, and he did this with soapbox chasing me around on numerous sections "demanding" i explain after i've already did and "noting me" of how he perceives policy and my alleged breaches of it, according to him.
 * (5) i find this implication the umpteenth time you've breached WP:AGF after i've already replied you that i validated the information by "phone call."19:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * - i'm afraid i havn't a clue to what you're talking, since all i can see is talk "from [the] first quarter of 2007".
 * regarding your note that "if you refactor any more discussions I will escalate the issue." [sic], i'd be very much grateful if you take the time to involve sysops or establiched admins to review everyone's behavior on this article.
 * i hope that covers this, if you don't mind my saying, erroneous warning and that you avoid further disruption on said article to my sincere attempts at leading the discussion away from polemics and personal insults.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  22:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The last diff was supposed to be this one, that was a copy-paste error on my part. I will not address your justifications; rather I will re-iterate that WP:REFACTOR applies here, and note also that WP:Etiquette says "editing the signed words of another editor on a talk page or other discussion page is generally not acceptable, as it can alter the intent or message of the original comment and misrepresent the original editor's thoughts. Try to avoid editing another editor's comments unless absolutely necessary." Eleland 00:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * it's funny you, of all people, should mention this issue considering you deleted a verification notice i've made to a source you claimed was impossible to verify.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  00:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Eleland - you need to know that Jaakobou has a long history of disruptive behaviour on TalkPages. Here are two admins claiming he's harrassed them at this AN/I and been blocked for it. See also  and, from the same day. These further two exchanges are action against editors who (I'm pretty sure) are careful and productive - yet it includes posting their personal details into public view. PalestineRemembered 08:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Enough time wasted, put your evidence to the mediation
as the person who raised concerns regarding "systematically mis-stated" death tolls and stated the issue of:


 * UN report is quoted as saying "52 dead in total" when it actually says "at least 52"

you're expected to leave a serious comment on this subsection or delete the issue from your list of concern.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  17:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not wasting still more time on that TalkPage when several matters have been decided there and the changes to comply with decisions have not been made, in fact they've continued to be edit-warred out of the article (eg the atrocious use of CAMERA references, the decision on the lead).
 * Furthermore there is a mediation on that Battle of Jenin article (and it was not me that asked for this mediator, despite the nasty personal allegations made, it was Steve, Sm8900). It's time you and others presented your evidence  on the page set up for that purpose, and removed the material placed there to deface it. There has been serious anti-policy game playing going on at this article for months now - and further wriggling is only making it more and more obvious.
 * PS - I don't know what it is that Eleland says you've re-factored yet again, but I can tell you that I'm sick of that kind of disruptive behaviour and have recentlyi reported another user in ArbCom evidence for it. PalestineRemembered 18:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: notice
I'm sorry, I don't see where exacly User:Burgas00's edits and mine overlap. -- 67.98.206.2 21:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep that guy aint me... I don't quite understand what you are (not) accusing me of--Burgas00 23:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * i think you understand the situation perfectly well.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  23:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested comment on Talk:Battle of Jenin
Hi Jaakobou, thanks for your note. As I'm sure you realize, I'm trying to play somewhat of a facilitating role on Jenin. Since we haven't conversed before, I rather appreciate your asking me to comment ("state your observation") on that death toll discussion. Still, maybe you could clarify what you would like from me by way of commentary. Are you asking for my evaluation of the sources or data? Do you want my impression of the ensuing argumentation (and/or argumentativeness)? I guess I'm not quite sure why I should focus on this item -- while I'm inclined to trust your judgment that this is a key issue, it doesn't look like a current thread and I haven't yet heard folks eager to sustain a discussion on this in particular. Look, I don't really know you and I fear I may sound like I'm dismissing your request -- I'm not, I'm just asking you to think about the context of my participation and how you might yourself continue to constructively guide the Talk toward identifying and resolving disputed issues. Ok? Thanks again for be open to my observations. HG | Talk 16:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * my personal perspective is that the complaint of "systematic misrepresentation of the death toll" is frivolous. i wish to get this minor complaint issue fairly well addressed to before i archive it as history and we can move to the second issue raised by PR. considering my aim here, i would like you to either agree that it is a mistaken complaint (as i and kyaa noted here) or state concerns regarding this raised issue.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  16:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Inborderline
I must have typed the word "in" not realizing that my cursor was somewhere else. "Inborderline" is not a word in any language that I'm familiar with and I certainly didn't intend to edit your comments. Eleland 16:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * based on AGP, i accept your explanation. however, i don't believe the cynical phrasing was related to the location of your cursor.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  04:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jaakobou
I think discussion of the inclusion of Pallywood has tapered off while the AfD is in progress. If the article itself is deleted, the appropriateness of linking to it from Jenin is a moot point. If the article is not deleted, then I think we can expect the debate to resume; it certainly will as we move to a holistic solution to this article's POV problems.--G-Dett 17:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * i was aware that we might want it back on discussion and noted it on my archiving. i just didn't expect we want it back so soon.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  04:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion (archival) of live thread
You archived the thread "Mediation" at Talk:Battle of Jenin for reasons which are unclear to me. You also archived the "Pallywood" section although you seem to have given up on that. I have previously issued strong warnings about this kind of behavior. The thread is only a few days old, yet you have removed it without removing much older threads. Please restore the section, or I will take it to WP:ANI. Eleland 17:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * i don't mind returning it, but if you don't mind my asking, i'm interested in knowing your reasoning for this request. best i was aware, that thread was (a) filled with going nowhere arguments and stricken insults, and (b) there was a high volume of comments in the span of 3 days (5-8 of the month) but nothing afterwards (and it didn't look like there was going to be more either).
 * - link to pre-archived version  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  04:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't feel the need to explain myself further. The thread was only a few days old, yet you removed it without removing much older threads. Please restore it. Eleland 12:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * i'm afraid this really doesn't persuade me that the thread is nothing more than an intrusion to the talk page, have you looked at it lately? it matters not that there are older threads and unless you have something more substantial to add, other than "I don't feel the need to explain myself further", then i only see reasons not to return it such is it being a possible WP:POINT, and it being totally unproductive for the article. if it matters so much to you, you can start a new subsection with the same introduction, hopefully this time it won't turn into an "insult n' strike fest".  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  12:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I#PalestineRemembered_IV
Per WP:AN/I are you prepared to accept me as PalestineRemembered's mentor?Geni 01:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * i have one question.
 * what do you intend to do if you see that PR is unresponsive ?


 * --  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  01:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Bring the failure of the mentorship approach to arbcom's attention.Genisock2 01:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

P Remembered
Hi.

Just back from a few days off and saw your message. I'm afraid that when you play with fire, you end up getting smokey. Even if PR were as bad a user as you believe, your repeated postings to the noticeboards is beginning to give your own name a stain.

Don't let yourself be drawn into any taint of wikistalking. I suggest you give this user a wide berth and if you run into specific problems (ie reversions of your edits, incivility on talk pages towards you, inappropriate edit summaries aimed at you), notify their mentor (now that they have one), or an active admin skilled in mediation, rather than posting to any of the noticeboards.

I strongly recommend that you turn a blind eye to any general infelicities committed (in your eyes) by PR, unless they are utterly egregious, in which case I'd suggest (again) you consider dropping a note to PR's mentor, to me, or indeed any admin, rather than noticeboards. You'll be able to tell what I mean by "utterly egregious" - it'll be something that requires no background information, and just one diff (the one with the bad behaviour).

With best intentions... your's, --Dweller 10:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * thank you for the note, the mentor issue was the issue i had to get fixed, and it did get fixed only after the AN/I was opened. your comment is actually a tad late on the issue, but a well intended one and i couldn't agree more, i can't open any more tabs about him (not that i intend to) unless it's something truly "utterly egregious" (your explanation was good).  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  10:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent. And sorry, I have no access to chat. --Dweller 11:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Pallywood
Now I'm using the term :) I've answered your question on my talk page I expect given the shear volume of discussion that others will also comment. Gnangarra 15:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * replied to email -- IRC? Gnangarra 15:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Archive thread
I'm glad that you accept that a three-month-old thread which nobody but you commented in should be archived. The reason for archiving "out of order" was to preserve a roughly chronological archive structure. I might be mistaken, but a glance through the archives seemed to show that they were archived in a very haphazard order, and I did not want to contribute to this. Eleland 20:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * i understood your motives, i only notify you to please keep the archiving, in the future, in the order in which we archive unless there's a special reason (this case fits the special reasons).  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  20:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for Special Barnstar
Thank you for the Special Barnstar. I will cherish it forever. :) But please praytell what was special about the link I followed? Has there really been nobody else that clicked that particular link? Sbowers3 03:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * i had insider information about this story and was waiting in anticipation for someone to write about it... you made my day.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  03:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So it wasn't something special inside Wikipedia, it was that I noticed the JPost story and brought it to the Muhammad al-Durrah‎ article. Well I'm glad I could make your day. I wish I could do that more often. ;) Sbowers3 03:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Any feedback if appropriate
Hi Jaakobou. Feel free to give me feedback or offer advice on my editing the AFA article whenever/if you feel it is appropriate. Use my talkpage, the AFA talkpage, or my email, whichever method you prefer. I'm still fairly new here and climbing the learning curve. I'm open to learn from any admin input. Regards Hal Cross 07:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * i mailed you.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  07:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA
Hi Jaakbou. Thanks for your message of congratulations, and I hope we can have a more productive relationship in the future. See you around, Number   5  7  16:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Incident of Jenin
In line with say Indian Rebellion of 1857 alturnative names should be mentioned in the opening.Geni 21:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Cartoon
Please don't make specious arguments. Kaufmann's article is presented as an example of a more general position; you know as well as I do that he's not alone in his views. CJCurrie 02:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pallywood cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Pallywood cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Picaroon (t) 01:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni
Jaakobou, you may have an obvious point that escapes me, but nothing in the Abdullah I article supports your text, which is not in very good English. I think that the problem may be that English may not be your first language. I think you are misreading what is there, and writing something that you don't mean to say. Saying that Abdullah had ambitions in Transjordan doesn't make sense. He already ruled it, what further ambitions could he have there? He had ambitions in Palestine, and he was successful in carrying them out, conquering and annexing the West Bank. The point about Palestinian - well, what you write is just bad English, and what I wrote has no different connotation or implication, it is just better English. You used "Palestinian Arab" just as I did, because without it one is forced into clumsy circumlocutions for no real reason. We are talking about the Arabs of Palestine, the only people Husayni ever led - and what other phrase was ever used for them? (Excepting the similar "Palestinian people" or "Palestinians" which I think you would like less.) (Also your phrasing could imply that Husayni led the whole Arab side, which is just not true.)  Cheers,John Z 01:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * i sent you a note, hope to hear from you soon and fix the conflict.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  01:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really have much to add to what I said above, (slightly amended). I don't use anything but Wiki email and discussion pages, sorry. I am going to revert because I think it is very clear - and not only to me - that you simply misunderstand the sentence.  Everybody agrees about the facts. Abdullah was the King of Transjordan and wanted to rule some of Palestine and conquered the West Bank.  I am sure we agree on that.  That is NOT the impression given by what you wrote, which sounds more like  King Abdullah of somewhere (Palestine?) wanted to conquer Transjordan!  So what you are saying in the article is the opposite of what you mean, and what I think you think Ian and I incorrectly believe.  No one is trying to be argumentative, but please listen to native English speakers about English usage.


 * (I am sorry if I gave that impression, but I am not ignorant of the history of the area, nor is Ian - you might look at my talk page or ask other people.)


 * Cordially, John Z 04:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * i sent you an email, we'll perhaps discuss it more when i find a little time. for now i'll allow the wiki-error to stay (and it is an error).  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  18:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciat eyoru support at CSN. Regarding your recently created Template:Talk page, the proper procedure is to AfD such non-templates. Isarig 02:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

See ya
I'm tired of fighting the deletionists and crusaders. I'm leaving. Have a good one. Kyaa the Catlord 07:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Re sources
Re your request for sources, I have now added two new ones to the article. Regards, Gatoclass 19:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No problemo. I think the section is probably reasonably balanced now, although I might take another look at it in a day or two, I can't be bothered doing any more on it today. Regards, Gatoclass 19:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to protect Battle of Jenin
in your recent edit you've mass reverted all the issues that don't relate either to the POV tag or to the "also known as Jenin Massacre" issue.

(i.e. (1) "three", (2) "prompted"+"IDF" and (3) "at least")

considering our prolonging history and my belief that you are more than aware to what's going on with the page - i request you fix this issue promptly.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  12:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted your changes because they're nonsense.
 * "Three" is consensus (three editors in favour of editing to policy, yourself against).
 * "Prompted by" is opposed by native English speakers, as has been made clear to you.
 * "at least" has got to be in there, otherwise we're publishing a flat-out lie - as you well know. The perpetrators are the *only* people who claim the death toll was 52 in total (other than a few reports apparently deliberately misled by the IDF PR dept falsely telling them what the UN report was going to say). PRtalk 13:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * wikipedia is not a democracy or a soapbox, it matters not that three editors are in favor of the number three when the information on talk indicates it should not be used. (and these editors are clearly avoiding proper discussion)
 * your claim in regards to the prompted by is supposedly "roundly rejected on talk", according to eleland, however, no such indication has been supplied and you've seemed to have ignored the IDF issue... "i wonder why".
 * you can discuss the at least issue on talk rather than make a fairly blatant mass revert.
 * please correct the issue promptly and participate properly on the discussion.
 * --  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I note your understanding of consensus, it might be interesting to compare your understanding with WP:POLICY.
 * I note your reluctance to edit to what the source actually says.
 * Everyone notes your difficulties with wording and language.
 * The "52 deaths" has been extensively discussed - that figure comes from the perpetrators (who lied to the world media that it was going to be the one in the UN report, when it was not). How many times do I have to quote you what is actually in the UN report, is in the Amnesty report, is in the HRW report, is in the Jenin Inquiry report and is in the RS's?
 * I do participate in discussion - though it's questionable why I should, when you're systematically tampering with it over our protests. PRtalk 14:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * i'm aware that you're (1) avoiding the issues, and (2) ranting on my page, linking to a failed ANI attempt against me.
 * please, if you have further issues, i suggest you follow them up properly rather than harass me aimlessly with them.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You went to my TalkPage with your nonsense, you mess with my Talk contributions to Battle of Jenin, but it's me harrassing you ..... hmmmm ..... weren't you blocked for harrassment of people on their TalkPages not long ago? PRtalk 14:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) i belive i've noted to you around 10 times already that this statement of yours is innacurate and false. (2) this does not in any way justify your mass revert.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  16:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Which part is false? That you harrassed two admins, were taken to AN/I and blocked for it? Two more admins took up the case, letting you off with these warnings "If Jaakobou is promising to mend his ways and only crap in the litter box in future (metaphorically speaking...) I think he should be given the chance to prove his sincerity." and "The important thing is to see a change in behaviour and it is clear now that Jaakoubou is apologizing, explaining and promising not to do so in the future".
 * Question for you - have you or have you not carried out extensive harrassment of people on their TalkPages since you were handed those warnings in April?
 * And that particular case of harrassment on TalkPages only exploded because you were simultaneously harrassing two other editors, including publishing the personal details of one of them, see here and here. PRtalk 17:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * i told you already that you are misreading into a complex issue that you were not involved in. try to assume good faith and please stop mentioning this fairly old clash that indicates nothing regarding this content dispute (and your improper mass revert).  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  17:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to PR and Jaakobou
You two really can't help yourselves, can you? Suggestion to you both. PR has agreed to being mentored and, to the best of my knowledge, has a mentor. Why not use that mentor? Jaakobou - if you have a problem with PR's edits, please in the first place discuss them with PR's mentor. If you're unsatisfied, go to a forum for mediation or to request a formal ticking off. All you'll find here is an argument. PR - if you're going to make contentious edits, especially direct reverts etc of Jaakobou's edits, please use your mentoring workshop page first.

You should both remember that none of your edits, no matter how radically they alter an article will bring back to life one victim of violence. Wikipedia's not a battleground... there's enough real life conflict out there in the bad real world. Yours hopefully... --Dweller 15:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

1929 Hebron massacre
General practice on wikipedia that the burden to find a reliable source for something falls on the person wanting to include it.Geni 00:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * you are 100% correct, i added a clear cut ref and hope the issue is now fixed and over with.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  01:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your reference appears to come from the people whom an Israeli "senior military man" accused of carrying out "a pogrom against the Arabs of Hebron, with no provocations on the Palestinian side." It beggars belief that you could remove (from the reference listing at the bottom of the page) an excellent eye-witness account of very good Jewish-Arab relations in 1929 Hebron and then, in the very next edit, put a hate-site reference into the lead. (And of course, your reference is non-English and incompatible with verifiability, a core principle of the encyclopedia). PRtalk 13:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PS - you appear to claim that Rabbi Baruch Kaplan's words "no one in the yeshiva ever told me it was dangerous to go by myself among the Arabs. We just lived with them, and got along very well." come from a hate-site. Or at least, that's what appears in the summary? Are we speaking the same language, does the word hate-site mean the same to me as it means to you? PRtalk 22:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

1929 Hebron massacre
I was under the impression that the Hebron massacre was triggered by reports that gangs of "demonstrators", many of them carrying batons had seized the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. This had been threatened for many years, a Palestinian delegation had travelled to Mecca in 1922 warning of the danger, and in 1928 the British had been asked to defend the Muslim ownership of the wall and the passageway. In the event, the British Commissioner and many of his forces left Palestine in August 1929, allowing the takeover to take place.

Do you have information that contradicts this account? PRtalk 19:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * i'm well aware of the arab narrative and rumors. do you have any proper citations that validate this account? (p.s. please do this on the article's talk page) Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  19:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm posting here rather than at the Talk because it's bulky, and in the poisoned atmosphere I'd only be accused of copyvio and another attempt made to block me. Please delete the following as soon as you've seen it. I know you hate long postings so I've tried to keep it short for you. Morris, Righteous Victims, p.112.
 * ... The contention that the Jews were bent on taking over ... had long been a theme in Arab propaganda. For example, the Palestinian delegation to Mecca during the hajj, or pilgrimage, of 1922 had declared: "the Holy Places are in great danger on account of the horrible Zionist aggressions"
 * On September 23-24, 1928 ... the SMC complained that Jews had set up a screen to separate men and women at the Wailing Wall (or Western Wall) in Jerusalem's Old City.
 * The screen violated the status quo principle ... Failing to persuade the Jews to take it down, the police forcibly removed it.
 * In 1928 the Muslims sought British confirmation of their traditional rights at the Wall, after all, they owned the Wall and the adjacent passage where the Jews worshipped.226 ... Right-wing Zionists began to demand Jewish control of the Wall
 * On August 14, 1929, some 6,000 Jews marched in Tel Aviv, chanting, "The Wall is ours"; that evening, three thousand gathered at the Wall for prayer. The following day, hundreds of Jews-some of them extremist members of Betar, carrying batons-demonstrated on the site.
 * If the aim of the rioters' leaders had been to shake Britain's commitment to the Balfour Declaration, they succeeded, at least in the short term. Sir John Chancellor on September I ... The Balfour Declaration, he wrote, had been "a colossal blunder."253
 * Shaw Commission ... recommended that "excessive" Jewish immigration be halted; that eviction of Arab peasants be stopped; and that the government look into the issues of land sales to Jews immigration, and the Western Wall. The panel said the evictions were giving rise to "a landless and discontented class" of evictees.257
 * Whitehall sent Sir John Hope-Simpson, a retired colonial official, to look into immigration, Jewish settlement, and land sales. "... The helplessness of the fellah appeals to the British official. The offensive assertion of the Jewish immigrant is, on the other hand, repellent:"260
 * On October 21, 1930, the British government issued the Passfield White Paper, seriously reducing its commitment to the Balfour Declaration. ... By early 1931 well-applied Zionist pressure in the press and lobbying by Weizmann in London bore fruit.
 * I'd fill in the rest of it for you - except I'd be accused of soap-boxing and more efforts made to have me blocked. For 47 years the immigrants had been robbing the natives, and getting away with it. 1929 was the first time the natives make enough of a fuss to recover one part of it. (Well, best as I know - where else had Palestinians ever had their property back between 1882 and 1929?). PRtalk 16:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * thank you for the text, it would have been better placed on the article talk in a new subsection. but i don't mind so much on this occasion. (p.s. i think you misunderstood the issue of copyvio violations)
 * to the point, your position has a little bit of merit regarding this issue considering the timetable. however, it is still missing a note about the information in the mufti's letter or more notes regarding the messages that the arabs sent in order to incite violence necessarily the next friday. still, i note you that these rumors were still false being that the jews did not actually take full control over the western wall. to be frank, i read somewhere that the incitement messages did not include any special mention of the western wall, but rather stated that the jews were planning a surprise attack on al-aqsa... which is indeed a false (pending on a revelation of information i'm not aware of). please, if you wish to continue this, do it in a new subsection on the proper talk page.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  17:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be slammed for soapboxing if I spell out to you any more specifically the violent ways of the immigrants, their arrogant determination to seize (not buy) whatever they wanted, and the difficulty Muslims had even opposing this particular gross violation. (We know property was being seized with violence since at least 1891 - they'd been threatening the Western Wall since at least 1922).
 * The Muslims, failing to get justice from the British, responded in the only fashion they knew how, with a call from their imams to strike back against the robbers (defined in an entirely racist fashion - but then Sharon was doing the exact same thing 73 years later, a month before the Jenin Massacre). PRtalk 11:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * yes, you will be slammed for soapboxing because you refuse to keep to the available references and the actual issue and expand (almost) every conversation into something derogatory about current day israel.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin sandbox page
Jaakobu, would you mind removing the categories from your Battle of Jenin sandbox page please? If you don't remove the categories, the sandbox page ends up being listed in the mainspace under all the categories listed. Thanks, Gatoclass 11:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * i'm a tad conflicted about this one. i can see your point, but i'm wondering on the damage it will create with my future edits (and it's obviously listed under my name, not on it's own).. is there some type of policy on this issue?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  16:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to but in, but you can fix this by adding a leading colon, i.e. changing to Category:XYZ (the same trick works for [[Image:XYZ]] too if you want to link to an image without diplaying it). That makes this easy to change back later too. -- 67.98.206.2 19:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, there is nothing about it in policy pages, but I think it should be obvious that it is an undesirable practice. I might canvas the subject at wp:categories, but in the meantime I trust you will see the logic of deactivating them on your own sandbox pages. In future though, I am just going to deactivate any categories on sandbox pages I come across. Users can restore the cats if they so choose, but I am going to assume most won't object. Regards, Gatoclass 23:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * i'll make the change sometime soon, thank you for the civility.. it's become a rare thing in the territories i tread in.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  00:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks J, appreciate it :) Gatoclass 00:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, turns out the guidelines do cover this after all. Gatoclass 08:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * good link, thank you for sharing the find.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Burgas
Hi Jaakobou, we discussed at length the issue of "martyrs capital" and I felt that you finally conceded that it should not be in the lead. I personally do have a slight sympathy for the Palestinians generally but I will try to be as neutral as possible, as I hope you will. Nevertheless, I am sure that that one sentence though, was wrong regardless of ones political persuasions.

--Burgas00 11:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) we can maybe leave it out of the intro (pending consensus) if the context of militancy is properly mentioned.
 * (2) i really don't know why this is on my talk page and on an irrelevant subsection.
 * --  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  12:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I will try and act as a mediator from now on in the Israeli-palestinian conflict-related articles from now on rather than take one side. Good luck. Please try and reach consensus with G-dett and PR. They may be biased from your perspective but they seem to discuss issues in a constructive manner with you and other pro-israeli wikipedians. --Burgas00 00:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * i'd be happy to see you embrace a less one-sided approach to the material.
 * p.s. i'd rather you avoid advocacy on my page. Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  01:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The image you re-added to Kingdom of Israel is mislabeled -- I made notes about the image being mislabeled on the image's talk page and with all edit summaries. Please don't launch accusations without doing your homework first. As for the image itself -- it is based entirely on the bible, which is fine, but it needs to be labeled as such. The issue is that the label of the image states the sources as 'historical' -- which implies the rigor of a historian. Since it's impossible to change the caption of the image used, it should not be used until it can be fixed. I would suggest the image author simply remove the caption from the image so that it can be properly labeled in each language required. -Quasipalm 14:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

AN/I comments
Jaakobou, you just don't get it, do you? You decided to break up one of my comments with snippy remarks like "you weren't involved in this dispute" [so you can't comment, go away], making it completely unreadable. And now you're whining to me about "changing the context" of your comments? And in the very same edit which you claim restored your precious context, you wholesale deleted a comment of mine!

PR is, yet again, facing a lynch mob based on totally spurious allegations. I demolished those allegations thoroughly; none of your comments had anything to refute what I've said, they just focussed on irrelevant crap like whether you thought your side in the content dispute was right. I don't care about the content dispute. I care about proving that PR should not be banned, and you're interfering by breaking up my rebuttal post, making it impossible to read. Will you please abide by talk page policy, which you haven't done for at least six months. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 00:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * i'm sorry, were you involved on 1929 Hebron massacre?
 * anyways, i don't think you should change the comments i replied to, it creates a false image.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  00:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To quote Sam Jackson; ENGLISH ... DO YOU SPEAK IT?
 * It does not matter whether I was involved on 1929 Hebron massacre. As I correctly noted in the comment which you deleted, the entire point of having a noticeboard is to bring in un-involved editors. As for the rest of your comment, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Maybe you should write it in Hebrew, and then refuse to translate it but insist that it proves your point. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 01:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * yes, i speak english. no, you are not an uninvolved editor.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  01:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)