User talk:Jiujitsuguy/Archive 1

Note
Hi there Jiujitsuguy. I've reverted your additions for the second time after leaving a very clear reason the first time. Please read NPOV before reinserting any of those edits again. Thanks for your understanding. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  04:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you make your edits smaller. Do them one bit at a time, then you can argue the specifics on the talk page. When you add 6 paragraphs, people will just revert the whole thing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning your sources or the contents of your edits. I'm giving you some friendly advice on how things work around here. When you make a small edit, it can be thoroughly discussed on the talk page if someone has a problem with it. You edit, someone reverts, you take it to the talk page and find something everyone can live with. Then repeat with your next small edit. When you make a big edit over several sections, you'll get the response you just did. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, the fact FayssalF is an admin doesn't make any difference when editing articles. His opinion is exactly the same as anyone elses. Second, like I said above. Do a small edit. If it's reverted, go discuss it on the talk page. See what kind of consensus you can achieve. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: A little balance please
I'm not sure which of your quotes you're referring to. I found several of your edits to be poorly phrased, biased by a non-neutral point of view, or misrepresentations of the sources cited. As such, I tried to clean them up. If there is some edit in particular you think I changed inappropriately, I'm always open to discussing the matter further. ← George [ talk  ] 23:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The article that you consider "recruitment propaganda for Hezbollah" is currently rated a Wikipedia good article, one of the higher ratings on Wikipedia's quality scale, and a rating held by less than one in four hundred articles. Good articles are considered to be "well written, factually accurate and verifiable, broad in coverage, neutral in point of view, stable, and illustrated, where possible". This isn't the rating I gave the article, this is the rating it was given by others during the last review. Further edits made to the article should improve it, not attempt to inject bias. I have little interest in what you "will not tolerate", as you do not own these articles. Other will revert (and, in fact, have reverted) your edits if they view them as being overly biased, while I will try to remove the bias when the material seems salvageable. I also will not vet my edits with you prior to making them, as I have no reason to. Wikipedia has a dispute resolution process for resolving any disputes that should arise, and helping to achieve consensus. I can understand that you're quite new to Wikipedia, so I'd highly suggest you review Wikipedia's policies, starting with WP:NPOV. ← George [ talk  ] 06:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I think George's edits of the paragraphs you added were pretty reasonable for the most part. This is not to say that they can't be tweaked further, but at least he's trying to work with you to fix what he sees as WP:POV rather than blanket reverting the whole thing like many editors around here do. I suggest you continue tweaking until you are satisfied all the verifiable information is in the article, and he's satisfied that it's presented in a neutral way. If you feel you've reached a dead end, you can try WP:DR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome
Glad to see you're settling in. I think you make good edits and didn't want to see you getting frustrated and leaving. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss
Hey Jiujitsuguy.

Rather than re-insert information, please discuss the matter in the Yom Kippur War article's talk page. You wrote several comments, and I have replied to them. Thanks. --Sherif9282 (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just noticed your reply. --Sherif9282 (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply to you in the Belligerents section. Thanks. --Sherif9282 (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As you wish. But note that here, I'm a Wikipedian, not an Egyptian, so national affiliations are uninvolved in discussions. We'll continue tomorrow. Cheers. :) --Sherif9282 (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. Let's hope our debates are fruitful ultimately.
 * May I ask, what is your time zone? I have to stay up until dawn to engage in these discussions with you. I can continue no longer today. If you can, reply to my latest comment, and I'll read it later. Cheers. --Sherif9282 (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm flattered!
 * I'm usually busy the rest of the day, so nighttime is best for me. Besides, its helps if you're also active during that time, as you can reply and discussions are quickly resolved.
 * By the way, it was easy to find out about Schiff's book, just had to do google him up.
 * To keep you informed, the book I'm going to use to support/replace Shazly in the article is authored by Gamal Hammad, an Egyptian. To find out more about him, just head to the last few paragraphs in Talk:Battle of Suez, where I write a description of Hammad in reply to a user. Unfortunately his book is only available in Arabic. If you have any more questions, fire away. --Sherif9282 (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

World Net Daily
World Net Daily is not a reliable source for any purposes in Wikipedia. If you have cited them in any of your edits, please remove them and find another source. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

para millitary police
Many of the organizations reporting on the casualties rejected that label for the police killed in the conflict, in fact it was widely reported that most of the police that were killed in the first days strikes were traffic police. When somebody reverts an addition you make you should not just revert it back without saying a word on the talk page.  nableezy  - 00:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to include it as Israel's position it should be phrased as something like "including police, which Israel considered para-military forces". But the way it was phrased is that the police that were included are para-military forces as a fact.  nableezy  - 02:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I would take as much out of that link as you would this one (an attack on the police academy in Gaza City on December 27 killed at least 40, including dozens of cadets at their graduation ceremony as well as the chief of police, making it the single deadliest air attack of the campaign to date. Another attack, on a traffic police station in the central Gaza town of Deir al-Balah, killed a by-stander, 12-year-old Camilia Ra`fat al-Burdini.) That is not the point though, what each "side" says needs to be presented as what that "side" said, not what is known fact. On both "sides".  nableezy  - 04:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My logic doesn't imply that we put competing claims everywhere, you are right that the disputed casulties section is the place for that. What my logic says is to make clear wherever we are presenting one sides view make that clear, we dont have to say "included police, which Israel regarded as para-military forces and human rights groups regarded as civilians" but rather in that spot just say "includes police, which Israel regards as para-military forces". Would that wording, without any counter, in that section be a problem?  nableezy  - 04:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

thats fine, thanks.  nableezy  - 06:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll look at that. Cordesman should definitely be in the article, and I think he still is, though I am of mixed feelings on including the other and I really dont think the Garlasco stuff should be in the article. Will look at this tomorrow.  nableezy  - 05:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on Talk:Gaza War
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. P retzels Talk! 02:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A reminder of the Three-revert rule on Gaza War article
just in case WP:3RR. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Gaza war
Welcome to Wiki, Jiujitsuguy. I'd like to request you please remain mindful of policies when engaging controversial content. Your recent comments on Talk:Gaza_War talk constitute a personal attack on another editor, please refrain from that Wiki is not a dojo hehehe. Policy will eventually prevail. I also want to suggest you that on Gaza War you try to make edits that source and reflect perspective from both sides of the conflict, even though not all editors follow this guideline. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (copy from my talk) I didn't attack anyone. I told somebody to take an English course and some spelling lessons. You consider that a personal attack? And I never called anyone a "butcher." I said the article was being "butchered."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Jiujitsuguy, I disagree. I think your Talk page comment to MrUA "I must say that you've taken what was shaping up to be a pretty decent article, somewhat balanced, fact-intensive and gramatically correct and turned it into garbage. Just another example of how a perfectly good Wikipedia article can be single handedly butchered by a lone, rouge "editor"" communicates exactly who you think the "butcher" is. And "Your English is barely understandable so it's difficult for me to respond to your incoherent, illogical arguments. Again, I suggest you take a two-year English course and come back when you can articulate a coherent thought" could easily be taken as a personal attack. Finally, posting "Call it a recruiting poster for Hamas and don't forget to throw in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" while you're at it" implies that you think the editor you are disagreeing with is an antisemite. I hope you can take a breath and reflect on your behavior. I'll leave it at that for now. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Think s/he succeded in pissing me off with that last comment. I will keep my editing on talkpages to a minimum when it come to explaining or motivating edits or reverts of text s/he is involved in then. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your frankness. Please do contribute to Talk, before making contentious edits. Even if you know that adding/removing something is the right thing to do, other editors may see things differently. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Call it a recruiting poster for Hamas and don't forget to throw in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" while you're at it."
If you are a Israeli or American jew I like to discuss some tings with you. Because there is some things i dont understand and you could help me with it. But first I think you should stop edit articles about the conflict between Israel and Palestinians. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, hope the weather is good in Brooklyn. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

For your info: I brought it up on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts [] Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr Unsigned Anon
I don't know what to make of it or do with it but I analyzed Mr Unsigned Anon's contributions. I can't believe this can be seen as productive, collaborative editing! He has been here for just over a month and worked almost entirely on the issue of the Gaza War. There are few (if any) positive edits, all seem to be editing from a strong anti-Israel bias (POV) and consist mainly of removing material that has been added, with quite a lot of discussion on the talk page, but little or any of it actually calling on Wikipedia policy.

90 total edits since Sept 24, 2009 - 27 of these on just two articles (Gaza War & International Law and the Gaza War) and virtually all of the rest on their talk pages : of the 27 actual article edits, some 15 -over half of all edits were '' removals of (mostly substantiated) material or reverts.


 * 1)   -rvt


 * 1)  -- moved material to lede
 * 2)  rvt
 * 3)  rvt
 * 4)  rvt sourced material
 * 5)  rvt sourced material
 * 6)  rvt
 * 7)  rvt
 * 8)  rvt
 * 9)  rvt
 * 10)  removed material
 * 11)  removed material
 * 12)  totally reworked article called it "restructured section"
 * 13)  removed sourced material "removed israeli[sic] side exlanation [sic] that it is undue weight in lead"
 * 14)  removed sourced material "remove superfluous opinions fron not involved parts" [sic]
 * 15)  removed sourced material

I didn't even know there was such a thing as Wiki etiquette alerts, but anyway, that is the only other place besides your talk page and Roma's that he has "contributed" besides the Gaza War. Somehow I find something not terribly polite can be seen in the results of the above analysis. Again not so sure what can be done about it, but maybe something.? Stellarkid (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions
As a result of the Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to Israel, Palestine, and related conflicts. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here. These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. Looie496 (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Heavens to Betsy, Oh my! Did I post something that offended somebody? Dear me what a shock. I feel just awful :( And I'm such an easy going guy. I thought everybody liked me. Well I guess you can't please them all. BTW I'll keep posting well sourced, unbiased factual edits that only add and do not detract from any Wiki article. If this dis-pleases you, censor me, ban me, do as you wish. But I challange you to find one edit that wasn't sourced. Bear in mind The Mid-East is a touchy subject that is bound to offend--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool down
Let's not turn the heated debate on the Gaza War turn into a Wikipedia editor war. Why not edit other articles for a change. -- Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 14:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Gaza War. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 15:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Which edit are you referring to? can you be more specific? Just as an aside, all my edits are well sourced (and sometimes double sourced), fact-intensive and cross-referenced. As you might already know, the Middle East is a touchy subject and many are overly sensitive to the issues, prompting them to make unfounded complaints. Thanks for your time--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just the assertion that the rocket fire was indsiscriminate. Others might not see it that way. As you said, it's a touchy subject. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Understood. However, there are two points I'd like to make here. First, the lead makes clear that Israel targeted "mosques, schools and private homes." Attempts to add the following qualification, "becuase Israel believed they were used as military platforms" or phrasing to that effect, were reverted. Now you have to be fair and balanced here. If you say that one side attacked civilian infrastructure, then provide an explanation as to why it was targetd. It is well known and established that Hamas hit civilian targets. Just look at how many Israeli civilians were killed and injured as a result of indiscriminate rocket attacks since 2002. Clinics, schools and synogouges were also hit and I have sources for this. Second, I think it's a two-way street here and both sided have to be fully presented for the article to obtain a level of jounalistic integrity that nearly all editors desire. We don't want the article degenerating into a platform for one side or the other.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blanchardb"


 * So let the article say just that. However, because it is such a touchy subject, that makes it even more important to have the article based on sourceable facts and not mere affirmations. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with you. I will reinsert the edit but this time, will also provide a source or perhaps several sources, to make everyone happy. I think this is the correct way to go about it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blanchardb"
 * I added sourced and documented material in the preview section but I am sure that it will generate a complaint and will be reverted before you even get a chance to see it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC

Not Constructive
Your indefatigable efforts on Gaza_War to insert and expand only content that you favor for POV reasons, and to remove or qualify content you dislike for POV reasons is not constructive and is becoming tiresome. Please try to participate as a neutral editor. Also just because you can find a source for a piece of information does not mean it belongs in the article. Yours is a new and apparently single-purpose account, I suggest you curtail your combative approach. Please review policy. RomaC (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unlike you, I generally don't revert. I just add sourced and relevant content. On occasion, I'll tweak something here and there. I find it interesting that you were quick to criticize me when you perceived an insult to Mr. Anon Unsigned but its okay to accuse me of being a Zionist agent working for the Israeli government and its Okay to indict an entire community because of their alleged ethnicity. These are some of the constructive messages your buddies left on the discussion page. Yet you remain silent. I thought better of you--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. You are a mere month on Wikipedia, apparently. As has been pointed out to you by others, it can be a pain in the neck for experienced, pro-Wikipedia editors to deal with a man on a mission, but you remain inexorable so, yeah, grapple on as you will. Oh, you ought to strike or rephrase your "Zionist agent" implication above. But I expect you won't, rather you'll argue until I finally stop bothering to respond. Finally to repeat myself: one editor declaring content is "relevant" and finding a source for it does not necessarily mean the content belongs in an article. I've seen heated edit wars on this point at articles as apparently benign as The Prisoner, it is natural they will happen on an article about which many editors have strongly-held and passionate views. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Disengaging from disputes
(duplicate message to both editors) Please take a moment to step back from this dispute. The only thing you will accomplish by editwarring and/or reacting to each other is gaining a reputation and possibly a block. The most important thing to remember about Wikipedia is, "There is no deadline." Here are a couple of things that might help:  Try not to engage in the same dispute on the same article more that once or twice a day. Let other editors weigh in. Never direct your argument at a particular editor. Dispute facts, not 'POV'. Never allow yourself to be baited into making a personal attack, because YOU will be the one who gets admonished by the powers that be. The admins aren't there to make the articles accurate, and rarely have time to learn enough about a subject to judge context and undue weight issues, all they see is breaking rules, ie. reverting and incivility. Articles like the Gaza War change and shift constantly, and what it looks like right now is not as important as what will be gained and protected by forming a strong consensus for it. So, please, be the bigger person, work for long-term consensus respectfully on the talkpage (even if you don't think the other editor deserves it), and discover other pages that interest you. I started Wikipedia with some of the same issues and another wise editor gave me some invaluable advice here. Good luck! untwirl (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits
Hey JiutjitsuGuy,

You made some edits recently to the Yom Kippur War article which I thought we had agreed on. Specifically the aircraft losses on the first day. We've already proved that Schiff wrote his book less than a year after the war, and one would expect it to be strewn with errors. Its not the authors mistake, but it cant be avoided when a book is published so soon after the conflict. Hammad published his account much later, and did so after five years of research, five years! He also uses Israeli sources extensively, including Herzog, Adan, and Sharon. Evidently Hammad's book would be far superior in accuracy than Schiff's. His ethnicity doesn't matter; although it means he could be biased, it doesn't mean we can mention his numbers under Egyptian claims. Egyptian claims are those made by an official of the military or government or by a participant of the war. This applies to the IAF website, which is a primary source stating claims. Also, letting the reader decide which source is correct is not the way this encyclopaedia works. Finally, organised fighting mostly ended on October 26, although it continued afterwards. For example, the Israelis made an attack on Suez on October 28, 4 days after the ceasefire. As for Herzog, the largest claim I have seen thus far was 264, but to claim that this excluded armor destroyed by IAF is exaggerating. Many sources place total losses at 250 tanks.

I'm going to revert most your edits. --Sherif9282 (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to I didn't live up to your expectation and reverted so late. :)
 * Memories are fresh? Historical revisionism? I doubt it. You yourself said Israeli society was very open, why would someone conduct historical revisionism in that case?
 * At the time Schiff published his book, hardly any general or participant had published his memoirs yet. Archives and documents on the war had not yet been classified. Basically alot of information was in the dark, and especially for Schiff as an Israeli, information on the war from the Arab side was closer to zilch. I think it is the case that most of the participants kept diaries of the war, so even if they were afflicted with amnesia their experiences would still be recorded. Fresh memories has nothing to do with the reliability of a source. I think it is common sense that the more recent source is usually the more accurate. I mean, would a book written in 1946 about the North African Campaign be considered more reliable because memories are "fresh" and historical revisionism has not stepped in than, say, a book published in 1988? Schiff's book being published in January 1974, the Agranat Commission hadn't even completed its research or published its findings!
 * As to commandos. I can't remove the Sunday Times sourced statement. However, the commandos were certainly more than a nuisance. Gawrych states that they were successful in delaying Israeli reserves from Adan's unit arriving from the north and they inflicted considerable casualties. He includes his sources for that statement: Hammad, Elazar, Adan (superior commander of the unit that was ambushed), and Edgar O'Ballance in No Victor, No Vanquished. This multitude of sources does prove that the commandos were more than simply a nuisance. Anyway, I'm going to mention the aforementioned event in the article without removing the Sunday Times statement. To quote a statement by Adan, also included in Gawrych's paper: "Natke's experience fighting the stubborn Egyptian commandos who tried to cut off the road around Romani showed again that this was not the Egyptian Army we had crushed in four days in 1967. We were now dealing with a well-trained enemy, fighting with skill and dedication." Now hearing this from an Israeli general, do still think the Sunday Times sourced statement is true?
 * I'm going to leave your edits, with the exception of those sourced to Schiff. He is not reliable. We'll talk through the rest.
 * What do you mean by Preview and Fact Box. --Sherif9282 (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

goldstone revert
Hi Jiujitsuguy, the reason I removed it was the first part was only sourced to Arutz Sheva, a source that I find to of questionable reliability, and the second part did not seem all that important to include in the article on the conflict itself. The Goldstone report has its own article now, split off from the International Law and the Gaza War one at United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. The information could go there, but it does not need to be in the main Gaza War article.  nableezy  - 21:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not in this article. Maybe in the article on the actual report, but I would still question whether or not it should be included. But in this article that is such a minute detail that it is undue weight to include it.  nableezy  - 22:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * well, if you look below your message you'll see I have had some problems with another user, but it is best not to personalize these things.  nableezy  - 04:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with saying that, as a matter of fact I made that edit, and it has also been rejected by a few editors. I gave sources with Hamas calling it "the gaza massacre" in both Arabic and English, that was not enough. Then I found a source that explicitly says "known as the 'Gaza massacre' in the Arab world", not enough. Then I find another that explicitly says "known as the 'Gaza Massacre'" in the Arab world, still not enough. Nothing short of removing a common Arabic name for the events is good enough for a few editors. I have no problem with saying "called the 'Gaza massacre'i dont even care if it is capitalized by Hamas". And if you are cool with that could you please make that known? Either way really, if you want to remove it and can actually provide a reasonable argument for it say something, but if you think it can stay say so.  nableezy  - 05:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Hi there. I have filed a complaint regarding you at [] Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Gaza War
I hope your editing dont end up in a editwar and a protected article again. Remember that less than 4 reverts might constitute editwarring. Specially now when the ANI-case is up. 3 reverts is bad.Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please disengage--Gaza War
Please disengage from the article or you MAY get BLOCKED. As a fellow editor I don't want to see that. I suggest you to edit some other articles instead. B-) Be cool. -- Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 03:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)