Zuchinni one

I'm a vision scientist and felt it was important to correct the content of this article. The way it was worded made it appear as if impossible colors were a well established phenomenon. While there are cases of synesthetes who see 'martian' colors, there is no conclusive evidence that a normal person will see them ... especially in the given paradigm.

Starcraft 2

Hey. I noticed that you introduced a section on Starcraft 2 regarding criticisms. Although the forum posts you link to do have fans exhibiting this sort of anger towards the beta, I'm afraid that this is not a Reliable source, and hence does not verify the statements you are trying to make. Although these statements may be true, until they appear in a reliable source they should not be used in the article. The interview is a reliable source, but it does not in any way show that he confirmed 'the community's worst fears'. Although I understand your good intentions, all possibly controversial facts need to be sourced. If you need any help at all leave a message here, or on my talk page. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not sure whether the poll on teamliquid currently on the main page could be considered reliable. However, it's fairly well put forth in Wikipedia guidelines that forums are not reliable sources. As to the interview, although it confirms numerous things such as numerous accounts would be required to play over multiple gateways, it does not provide a source for the origin of the fans' angst. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:criticism section

Thank you for your message. The fact that you have asked politely shows that you have much potential for Wikipedia work, which is encouraging. I think if you can handle such a debate this well you could admin in a year or two if you like.

On the matter of the section in question: you have not done anything wrong insofar as Wikipedia policy or guidelines are related yet, so the section can be added to the article, but there are a few things that you should do first. The initial step that I am imposing on all parties privy to the matter is discussion; in the absence of the ability to edit the page I am asking that those for and against the section reach consensus on the talk page for its inclusion or exclusion. Consensus is an important part of Wikipedia's procedure because it reflects the will of those who wish to add something and the will of those who wish it to remain out of the article. For now, the best advice I can give to discussion the matter politely with the other editors on the talk page to help determine if the section should be in the article at all.

To further you position, I will also state that any information added to the article needs to be sourced. In accordance with our reliable sources policy, you information must come from reliable third party sources (among other things, this means no forums), and in accordance with our policy on verifiability, the information must also be verifiable to all parties monitoring the article.

At the moment, my personal take is that there is not enough information to justify the inclusion of a full criticism section; however, I would be open to the idea of adding these points to the development section since they are properly issues that have arising during development. It may do you some good to petition for this path instead and see if consensus builds in favor of adding your info there. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza flotilla clash#Rename to 2010 Gaza flotilla incident

Comment. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

aside: Good spot on that other edit: seems to be a habit? Replied on my talk, thank you! David. Harami2000 (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I agree it is long. Just not sure how to fix it! I would say start a discussion on the talk page but not sure how long changes can stay in effect or if it would spiral into bickering. Personally, I think a paragraph on the background mentioning the Free Gaza Movement and other groups, number of boats, reasoning. Another paragraph saying some details + Israel says x while Free Gaza says y. Then a paragraph on deaths, injuries, evac of wounded and arrests, mention of criticism. Might sound like a lot but that can probably be done in less than a dozen lines.Cptnono (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone archived it. There should be a link at upper right. Looks like it is set to 24hrs without activity or when the page gets too long.Cptnono (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This probably should stay in the lede. A small mention the international reaction (which is a very important part of the article) should likely be in the intro paragraph. But the controversy article shouldn't be linked - there should be an international response section, summarizing the response, and the the main article linked via {{main}}. Prodego ^talk 06:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What changes?

Could you be more specific? -- Kendrick7^talk 11:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, it might be easier in the future if you just tagged whatever sentences you are upset about with {{dubious}} with a pipe to the relevant talk page section, rather than making vague allegations on my talk page. Thanks! -- Kendrick7^talk 11:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That's weird. I only made changes to the lead in that edit! I'm honestly not sure how those other changes showed up or where they came from. I had some strange hiccups this morning too where WP let me stomp another user's edit without warning.[1][2] -- Kendrick7^talk 11:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, BTW. I'll have to complain over at the tech pump, maybe they know what is going on. -- Kendrick7^talk 11:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I never got around to complaining (I'm not even supposed to be here today). Hopefully this is something the engineers have fixed by now, but if I get weird behavior on another current event article, I will holler at them. In fact, I'm only back to create a shortcut just now.... -- Kendrick7^talk 07:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Map

Why exactly is the MAP OR or what is the issue with it? I removed the UK. Please explain.Bless sins (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging with me. Only if a country condemns "Israeli" actions (or Israeli violence) is it listed.

Also, NPOV argument doesn't hold, since other users are free modify the map, or add another one. (Also, in this case, no one has come out and supported Israel explicitly, not even the US).

Please continue to respond.Bless sins (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, will the map be perfect at all times? Absolutely not. There may be times when a map is not updated or incorrect, just as there may be times when an article is not updated or incorrect. But that is the nature of wikipedia.Bless sins (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I really like chatting with you. Unfortunately, it seems communication is not as clear as I like it to be. I don't see where you have explained that the map violates WP:OR. Perhaps you have and I missed it. I know you mentioned that it violates WP:OR for UK, but UK has since been removed.

You wanted clarification on condemnation: only countries that condemned actions undertaken by Israel are shaded in red. Any country that makes an ambiguous condemnation should not be shaded as such (and if it is correct me). Also, condemnations against the activists can be added too: just give me a couple of countries so that I can start that off.Bless sins (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I also realized you mention the reaction by the UN Security Council. Firstly, that's irrelevant to the map, as the map is only about individual countries (not even the EU, Arab League and OIC are represented). But, supposing the UN Security Council was a country, such a reaction would not be shaded as "criticized and/or condemned Israeli actions".Bless sins (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Most countries (in fact almost all countries shaded on the map) "condemned" Israeli action. But still, what if we use the term "protested".

Also, I don't see much relevance of shading in countries that called for an inquiry, almost every country that commented on the event called for an inquiry. So such a shading would merely be "these countries have commented on the event" and hence not very useful at all.

How about two shading categories: 1) countries that "protested Israeli actions", 2) countries that deplored the loss of life without necessarily "protesting Israeli actions"? That should make the map more neutral.Bless sins (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• BTW, the UK prime minister condemned the Israeli raid - [3] according to a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bless, check out this link added in the main discussion page [[4]] the person who added it said that these kinds of maps never work on wikipedia and the problems are listed. I'm in agreement with them. Zuchinni one (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies...

...for singling you out for the AGF treatment. I popped over to the talk page of the user you mentioned, but saw that they'd been advised already about the 1RR restriction.

To be honest, I think the overall conduct at Talk:Gaza flotilla clash is extremely good, considering the highly-charged atmosphere this incident clash raid thing has generated in the wider world! And your response to my AGF comment is indicative of that, and is to be commended.

Best wishes, TFOWR^{is this too long?} 12:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No Problem

But tweak rather then make a wholesale revert, let's not use the passive, I mean "X did something to Y" is better than flipping it to "Y had this done to them by X". In this case the article is about IDF storming/boarding/intercepting the GFF, isn't it? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. What I mean by passive voice is that the article is not about the history/background of the flotilla (which RS all agree had plenty of humanitarian aid onboard, but that's ok we can leave that), but about the event that started when the IDF stormed/intercepted/boarded it and all hell broke loose. So the article lead should reflect this, i.e., not when a flotilla of six ships ... were seized by Israeli naval forces, but rather when Israeli naval forces seized a flotilla of six ships -- that's what I mean. Kindly consider self-reverting that, it is best if you improve rather than remove another editor's contributions :) Also that way you don't exhaust your daily ration of one reversion. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, glad you seem to agree. Pro-Wikipedia editors must stick together in the tumultuous hours of a current event! Will you make the adjustment per our exchange? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts are that interpretations and original research do not belong in the lead. The group had ships loaded with aid (no dispute on that in RS), they wanted to take it to Gaza (no dispute on that in RS). Speculating as to motivations is something that can be addressed in the body of the lead if RS report such speculation. RomaC (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla clash

"without placing blame on either party involved"? works for me. But is it really necessary to say this?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I think that its ok as worded.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Revert

Hi, I didn't see anything controversial about my edit but thanks for the heads-up. Could you direct me to the ongoing discussion on the talk page? Thanks,--Nosfartu (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was going to propose the wording which you have just settled upon. Thanks, --Nosfartu (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As you don't have a User Page I'd be obliged if you didn't post on my pages again. I'd also point out that the "not a soapbox" policy applies to you as well. You are all over the Gaza Flotilla Massacre talkpage. Sarah777 (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Awesome!

Is this really your first dabbling on Wikipedia? I was actually going to compliment you on your efforts on the talk page to keep things neutral while fostering some good discussion. I have been grossly uncivil to others in the past so seeing that I might be getting better is appreciated. Thank you and excellent work yourself.Cptnono (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It happens. Like SHL says below, looks like you are having a good time. I also find my self drawn to political articles which can be frustrating so there might be a little bit of masochism involved. SHL also brings up a good point with other topics. The Israeli-Palestinian topic are can bring out the worse in people so it looks like you are doing just fine.Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks

...although I personally find working on I-P conflict related articles quite difficult and unpleasant at times, such is life. The contrast between constructing current event articles in real time when they cover things like the Haiti earthquake (i.e. where a team of dedicated editors scrupulously follow policy and all work for the same goal) and articles about events in the Israel-Palestine conflict is very striking indeed. Oh well. You seem to be enjoying it which is the main thing. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Re/ Gaza flotilla article: Background section

I just shortened some new superflous additions by some other editor, but I'm not particularly interested in entering the debate. However, if you think it would be better that way, please let me know. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 06:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep up the good work in the Gaza flotilla article

You're doing a very good job there. Don't stop it. I hope you will be back when your block expires. Licory (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I'm in the least bit upset about the block and I'm glad that tariq is helping me to understand the best way to deal with articles like this. Overall this community has been great! Zuchinni one (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of twelve hours for violation of 1RR at Gaza flotilla raid. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 20:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I know you're going to be far from happy, but I can't let you off the hook simply because you came to my talk page to report another user for edit-warring. To answer your question, I don't get the impression he has violated the 1RR on the article, especially because the re-addition of "armada of hate" comes at a different part of the article rather than in the lead. On the other hand, with your multiple reverts from about twelve hours ago, which alone would have earned you a block had I been online, this latest revert is too far. Sorry, but I can't play favorites. -- tariqabjotu 20:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tariq. Actually I'm not at all unhappy. I'm glad that the admins are watching this article closely. In cases where I made changes it was because users had reverted consensus that was reached in the discussion page. When that happened I contacted them via their talk page and referred them to the relevant discussion. I hope that I have been neutral and followed the wiki guidelines. If not then please let me know where I can improve :) Zuchinni one (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In light of the discussion via e-mail (which, for anyone else reading, was an continuation/extension of the comments made above), I have unblocked you. -- tariqabjotu 20:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the unblock. In light of your helpful advice though I am going to refrain from making any edits for a while. Instead I'll just participate in the discussion and maybe direct users to sections of the discussion that concern their edits. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Israel-Palestine is a really tough subject to edit in at the moment. You may want to read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles, and look at Template:Palestine-Israel enforcement. Regards, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla and opening shots

Sorry to take this to your talk page; I hadn't intended to, but my comments on the article talk page seem to have gone into the archives already. Again I have changed the sentence so that it reports what the source said - about warning shots, not claiming direct attacks on passengers for which no RS was quoted. I hope that you agree with this edit; I can't really see any good argument against it. Please enlighten me if you can! Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Map

I am considering it actually. Unfortunately, it is too soon. There is not enough consensus and I would hate to kick off an edit war on a page that is already restricted to 1rr. The best option is to wait and see if anyone responds to the couple recent messages. Then we need to go through country by country double checking. If there is any question I say it shouldn't be shaded. Cptnono (talk) 07:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment on naming convention "Activist" v "Passenger / People" and the term "Pro-Palestinian"

I was thinking of submitting the following RFC but I would like your opinion:

REQUEST FOR COMMENT:

Requesting comment on what term(s) to use when referring to the people on the boats seized by Israel. There has been a lot of edit warring and we don't seem to be able to reach a consensus on whether to call them 'Activists' or 'People/Passengers'.

Also, in regards to the "pro-Palestinian" label, it is not clear that all the people on board were necessarily pro-Palestinian since this was repeatedly described as a humanitarian mission. Thus they may have had a neutral stance on the I-P conflict.

One example of the problem is that if we label all the passengers as pro-Palestinian activists does that mean the journalists on board are pro-Palestinian activists too? If so then are their reports POV or NPOV and should they be used as sources?

There is additional information here:

Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_2#Activists_or_passengers.3F

Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Activists_or_passengers.3F

Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#pro-Palestinian.28.3F.29_activists

Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Use_of_the_word_.22activist.28s.29.22

Please vote for the best word to use for those aboard the ship:

• Passengers / People

• Activists

Also please support or oppose the use of Pro-Palestinian:

• Support

• Oppose

Zuchinni one (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, hit the edit button and saw I'd got an orange "you have a message" bar ;-)

I think this is too simplistic, in that there are times it's entirely reasonable to use the term "activists" (i.e. when citing a source that's talking about the flotilla organisers, crew etc. Most of the time, though, the article is talking about the people on the boat(s). When that's the case, definitely we should avoid "activist" (since "people on the boat" includes journalists and other non-activist observers).

Regarding "pro-Palestinian" the same criteria applies - if a source is talking about "pro Palestinian activists" it's OK to say that, but we absolutely can not assume or suggest that the rest of the passengers were "pro-Palestinian".

Anyway, that's just my "tuppence ha'penny-worth" - I'd be interested to hear what other editors think.

TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 20:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, have you thought about advertising this at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid? No reason why you should, but it would get a huge amount of interest, I'd have thought? TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 20:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ballistics

Your Q. seemed off-topic for Gaza case so I am answering here.

Many characteristics of the gunshot wound reveal details about incident. I have to say that I am not an expert but just have general knowledge. I do not have the metric knowledge you requested.

Main article Ballistics

Forensic examination and ballistics reveals many aspects of Weapon injuries. Gunshot wounds usually classified as contact, near-contact, intermediate, and distant wounds.

• A contact wound results when the muzzle is held against the body. This occurs in close contacts. Gun powder blackens the immediate edge of the wound.
• In near-contact wounds, the muzzle is not in contact with the skin, but is very close. The powder grains tattoo the skin around the wound.
• In intermediate-range wounds, the gun is away from the skin but close enough that it still produces a wide powder tattooing.
• Distant gunshot wounds leave no marks other than those produced by the bullet perforating the skin.

It is very unlikely that a person wounded in the head when he is in a contact or near contact conflict with a soldier. The gun holder usually fires from belly position. So when the source says Cevdet Kılıçlar was photographing, and location of wound say he was shot at head the two data are in concordance.

The bullet makes a track between entrance and exit wounds. They can be differentiated. Track also gives data about whether they where close or not and angle of shooting.

--Nevit (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that ballistics can tell us a lot. I just think we need to wait for a full report and to also ascertain what is meant by close and far. Is close 1 meter or 3+ meters? The conflict was also in close quarters, as per the videos, so does that change the meaning of close shots? Could it be that given the conditions of the raid only close shots were available because it was a pretty wild melee? Zuchinni one (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

So what now?

[5] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Flotilla

Noted criticism, I think the photo is fine how it is now, but arent readers supposed to decide what a picture shows? And if its the israeli account, why dont we include what the activists think it shows?

About the 8000 tons thing, I've changed it to be clear that its thought to be 8000 tons and thought to be withheld. I think that brings it in line with what is known from that source. ValenShephard 03:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

I have heavily compromised, and stuck to what can be verified within the source. No guesses. The article says 'about 8000 tons' has been withehld by israel in line with the blockade. this needs to be mentioned, and so I have. Nothing controversial or contentious is there.--ValenShephard 04:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

What is there now is hard to dispute. One of the disputes was 'what' the cargo which is withheld is, which the source wasnt definate on, so I've removed that. I dont see what is left to cause controvesy. Source clearly says 8000 tons has been withheld, so I've written that. when more facts come in, when we find out if that 8000 tons will be held or taken to Gaza, then we can change it. --ValenShephard 04:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

The source that says all has been delivered is refering to materials and goods which have been allowed by Israel, not physically all the aid. What that source is refering to is all the aid legally allowed through by the blockade, which doesnt include those 8000 tons. Two differnt issues. My source it talking about physical amounts and cannot be disputed.--ValenShephard 04:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid it does, sorry if you dont want to accept it. Check my rebuttal to your argument in the talk page.--ValenShephard 04:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

Signing

I thought I was doing that? I write something for example: hello.ValenShephard 05:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC) That is me writing hello then . then ValenShephard 05:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC). Its not working? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

Hello, Zuchinni one. You have new messages at TFOWR's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 11:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Location of raid

From that map, it looks to me like it was pretty far from both the Gaza and Israeli coasts. My primary concern was that someone had inserted that it was off the coast of Israel in several places, while the sources cited said that it was off the coast of Gaza; my concern was compounded by the fact that it hinted as an attempt to imply that the raid did not take place in international waters. My personal preference would be to not list it as being off of any specific coast (it was also off the coasts of Cyprus, Egypt, Lebanon, etc.). If we can find reliable sources that say how many kilometers the raid took place from either coast, that might be a good option too. ← George ^talk 22:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess I would suggest just removing them until you can find sources that give more specifics. At some point I would think that someone would give a distance, or maybe a lat/long that could be measured. Cheers. ← George ^talk 00:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent change of 30 ft

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&action=history

Thank you for your attention and taking the time to respond to my edit. Please note that my comment is certainly not original research, I am basing it on the actual video of the caption. Please see the relevant part for more info. I am also not sure what 'RS' stands for. --386-DX (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not my personal belief, nor it is my interpretation of the video footage. I am simply referring to the contents of the video footage from which the captioned image is taken. In addition, I was unable to find any reliable sources to support the claim that the soldier in that particular image was thrown from 30 feet above. The only source is a vague claim by Ben Yishai, who is also basing it on his personal interpretation of the same footage. If you have any reliable resources confirming the height of the deck shown in the video, please feel free to refer them to me, and I'll be more than happy to revert my edit. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 386-DX (talk • contribs) 01:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

re lead section

I re-inserted the previous long-standing paragraph, not my redaction. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 20:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to make myself clearer: speculative was the previous editor's rationale for replacing the long-standing info for another report's claim (a claim backed by no other RS to date). On the contrary, I cannot judge the speculations from the sources themselves, but it seems to me that the long-standing edition is quite pertinent to the lead. However, I wouldn't mind someone else considers the speculations from the source too faible. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 20:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The rationale for this edit, when the info was first introduced appears to be quite speculative. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 20:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

mavi marmara

hi i hope the purpose of your starting the discussion was to improve the article and not to pillory me :)--Severino (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Re/Advice

Thanks for our advice, and even more for your words. I know about this limit, but I think that the massive amount of unsourced pov-pushing should be reverted at once. Maybe we should take that into explicit consideration and debate about it on talkpage. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 01:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diplomacy

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Thank you for your tireless work helping to maintain neutrality and civility in the article Gaza flotilla raid.Marokwitz (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

He definitely deserves it. Wonderful work ! --Maashatra11 (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

BBC confirms? No.

Changed title from (BBC confirms use of live ammo by passengers? No.) for ease of linking Zuchinni one (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Re your recent edit, please get consensus for such a major change. How can this BBC report "confirm" that passengers attacked with live rounds when the preponderance of RS say this is an IDF claim disputed by passengers? I've left the BBC ref in but reverted to the presentation of both sides' statements on the question. RomaC (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Please show where the source confirms this. I can find no such confirmation, only a report that a reported imbedded with the IDF says one soldier made the claim: Ben Yishai also quotes one commando as saying that the Israeli forces fired at someone holding a rifle, but no such rifle has been produced. He says that two soldiers were wounded after "rioters apparently fired at them". This claim is already in the article, one third-hand claim by an anonymous IDF commando does not change the fact that passengers and GFF deny the accusation. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The text you cite, "They got hold of one handgun, he says, when one soldier, seen on the video, was thrown from the upper deck on to the lower." does not support your edit. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

First, even the IDF-imbedded reporter does not say shots were fired only that a firearm was taken from a commando. Second, "...and reporters present" does not mean every single reporter, any more than "Passengers say that the Israelis opened fire before boarding" or "soldiers were ambushed by passengers" or "Passengers admitted fighting with the Israeli commandos" means every single passenger or every single commando. You know this. Mind that veneer of neutrality. RomaC (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the edit still does not reflect the source. It was IDF and the soldier who said guns were taken away from soldiers: "The Israelis claim that the activists got hold of two pistols and must have fired them as their magazines were found to be empty when recovered." For example if a New York Times journalist quotes an IDF spokesman as saying "X occured", we don't say "according to the New York Times or according to this journalist, X occurred." Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it seems you have inserted misleading information that is not backed up by the source. Please refrain from doing so. Thanks ManasShaikh (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the encouragement! Also, thank you for your contributions to the article. Best wishes, --DoostdarWKP (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from myself too - nobody's ever given me a barnstar before, and I appreciate your contributions to the article. Happy editing! Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Close range shootings

Hi, the discussion we had over close range shooting (ref Gaza flotilla raid) belongs at the talk page of the article more than anywhere else. I have copied the discussion there. ManasShaikh (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar and your kind comments :) --386-DX (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Random question

Actually, I've got the same question you asked me. Assuming you are from Israel; could you tell me why the country became increasingly right-wing and radically religious over the last decade? As a country; you suffered much worse days, had much more difficult times, and went through much bigger and harder wars. Why prefer increasing violence now, when you finally have a real chance to resolve your issues? --386-DX (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:talk

Hi Mr Zuchinni i just wanted to say a lot of most my edts were becase of selfrevert after talk with the others and that i thoght that was a god thing--Brendumb (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza raid article

Hi,

Thanks for your comment. You raise three issues, which I'll address in order.

Martyrs: The source explicitly clarified to it's readers that the term martyr shouldn't be understood as intent or expectation to enter battle, since that's how Western readers will easily understand it. If we then say just "martyr" in the article, that's not supported by the source and fails WP:V. Alternatively, we could say martyr and then explain what that means, but that's not even close to the center of the article so I figured it's simpler to just say what the meaning is.

Outrage: I've provided sources for the term outrage. I don't recall a list of sources for "condemnation". As to which term is "NPOV", may I suggest that you've misunderstood that policy. There are no specific words that are "POV" or "NPOV", rather whether information complies with WP:NPOV is judged based on rules laid down in that policy. In detail, various viewpoints must be represented in proportion to their occurrence in reliable sources. Whether "outrage" is NPOV depends solely on whether it reflects what WP:RS as a whole tend to say about the subject. In fact as we're saying only that the reactions "included widespread outrage", it suffices that a set of sources is presented that states that outrage was a reaction in several places. If WP:RS typically use the term "outrage" and our article only says "condemnation", then the article fails WP:NPOV and must be either edited or deleted.

1RR: A "revert" could be considered to be any edit, since it replaces one version of the text with another. However I understand the 1RR rule to mean not that editors would be restricted to one edit per day, but that they're restricted to one specific undoing of another editor's recent edit.

Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response. It appears we're basically in agreement concerning the first point aside from the edit tag. I agree that it can be considered misleading and in retrospect I could have worded it more clearly. On the other hand, it's also readable correctly as I did add information to the article that was lacking even if the volume of text may have been reduced. Concerning the second point, we're not that far apart either. The discussion about "outrage" hasn't been very active on Talk, and I still contend that "including outrage" is a formulation that's easily supported by the listed sources. Saying "outrage and condemnation" or "condemnation and outrage" would also be possible, but content-wise wordier and add nothing compared to "including outrage", IMHO. We do appear to have a slightly different idea of what 1RR means, but we probably can live with that ;) I don't intend to be very active on this article and probably will contribute on average less than one edit overall per day. I certainly don't intend to cause disruption or violate 1RR. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Misleading edit comments

I do my best to avoid looking at individual edits on Gaza flotilla raid (I open the article once and then refresh it), however if editors are leaving misleading edit summaries that's pretty outrageous. Good call on posting the talk page message.

If you see any more, give me a shout (with a diff!) and I'll have a quiet word with the editor concerned.

Cheers, TFOWR 16:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

...and good call on the friendly reminders, too. I was aware that that needed doing, I was just hoping someone other than me would do it ;-) So: thanks! TFOWR 16:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: See Also

The Gaza Freedom Flotilla was six ships, sailing from Turkey, that attempted to break the Israeli naval blockade on the Gaza Strip, in order to deliver humanitarian aid and building supplies, but was intercepted by Israeli forces; clashes ensued, nine activists were killed. The Karine A was a single ship, sailing from Iran, that attempted to deliver weapons to Gaza, but was intercepted by Israeli forces.

As far as I can tell, the only similarities are that the Israelis seized both cargos (though the cargos themselves differed), and they were heading to the Gaza Strip (although one was running a blockade, while the other wasn't). The differences far outweigh the similarities - where they departed from, where they were captured, how many ships were involved, what their cargo was, what their goals were, the obstacles they had to overcome, the casualties inflicted; the international reaction. None of these events has any more to do with the Gaza flotilla raid than almost any random act of ship-boarding or piracy. ← George ^talk 06:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that sort of relationship is just not a good thing to include in a See Also section, not for this article anyways. Maybe in an article about the blockade itself (e.g., Israeli motivations for the blockade). I would take a very limited approach on the See Also section for this article, limiting it to other articles in which activists tried to run a blockade. I understand that Israelis may point to the Karine A as part of the reason for the blockade, but, to play devil's advocate, the activists might point to historical cases of genocide as reasons why they felt they needed to get humanitarian aid into Gaza. Does that mean we should link to articles on those? I don't think so. ← George ^talk 17:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The real problem is that what you're describing is including the Israeli narrative, while excluding the narrative presented by the activists. They're both exceedingly weak, but treating them unequally can be viewed as endorsing one side's position over the other's, which we have to be careful to not do. ← George ^talk 07:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So, a couple things. First, I don't think that the Karine A was a case of "a ship that was trying to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza to deliver weapons." I believe (and I haven't double checked, so my memory could be faulty here) that the Karine A incident pre-dated Israel's blockade of Gaza. That's why I was saying that the Karine A would make more sense in the See Also (or background) section of the article on the blockade itself. It's relationship to the raid is indirect, but it was directly related to the blockade itself (ships carrying weapons lead to a naval blockade of Gaza which leads to a flotilla trying to run the blockade). Which reminds me, why isn't the blockade article linked to anywhere in the article? That would make more sense in a See Also section, but I'm more surprised it's not linked to from the background.

I actually don't view the "Attacks on Humanitarian workers" link as either side's narrative. I view it as the "world view" narrative. That is, most reliable sources (from all over the world) considered the passengers on the ships to be members of a humanitarian group—not just the members of that group themselves. That said, I'm not sure I would support inclusion of the "Attacks on Humanitarian works" link on the grounds that I'm not sure that the raid constituted an attack. How is "attack" being defined in regards to that article? If the deaths were accidental, or made in self defense, would it still be considered an attack? Does boarding the ship in international waters make it an attack by default? I really don't know the answers to those questions, and wouldn't oppose the link being removed as well.

For what it's worth, I do think the Karine A is more related than the SS Exodus, which makes absolutely no sense to me, and I'm less opposed to its inclusion than I am to inclusion of the SS Exodus, so I'd be interested to get other peoples' takes on it. ← George ^talk 20:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I would lean towards removing the "Attacks on Humanitarian workers" link, until editors can establish a consensus for its inclusion. Although I do think that the term "humanitarian aid worker" is probably accurate for at least some of the activists, in that it's used by quite a few reliable sources, and the groups in question are generally considered NGOs (per the definition of humanitarian workers). Minor point though. Cheers. ← George ^talk 23:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Arrested vs Detained vs Captured

As per the discussion I have changed it to detained but nobody has explained to me why detained is better than captured. Both are better than arrested which were in the article. Is it because more newspapers use the term detained than captured? I have been editing wikipedia for about 10 months so I haven't learned all the ropes yet. So I am interested in the answer, that's all. So why do you prefer detained? I have also put this question in the talk page of the article. AadaamS (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

see also lifeline 3

The section you refer to says nothing about that piece of comentary. If you check the article you'll note that there was a riot in Gaza (ie obviously not involving members of the flotilla) so I trust you'll revert that bit of unsourced pov? Thanx Misarxist (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Per that article (I'd missed it) but there's two different riots, the one you mention, and the one I mentioned in Rafah, Gaza from which apparently an Egyptian policeman is shot. Ie the shooting is nothing to do the the flotilla members. Misarxist (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Another option is leave out the commentary (I only added it in the first place to make sure editors knew why it was there so it didn't disappear in the debate over the other links. Misarxist (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:image

It was a dictionary definition of disparage, and it was so loaded from the neutrality angle it could not stand. It conveyed a decidedly one-sided view, which would have instantly skewed the reception section's neutrality for a reader before they even read the section. An image like that has no place in an encyclopedia page. -- Sabre (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Splitting into positive and negative reviews is a bad the way to write a reception section, as it presents the possibility of dropping undue weight on certain opinions. Neutrality is more than giving a good point and then counter-balancing it with a bad point. A proper reception section structures itself by dealing with a particular aspect of the game, such as gameplay, sound, story, etc, talking about the critical response to each of these issues. Take a look around some of the featured or good articles on WP:VG, or, for some direct examples, Elite Force and Halo Wars. In any case, the image is not appropriate under any circumstances for the same reason one showing Jesus cuddling SC2 would be, it simply isn't neutral. Plus, its also non-free, and getting a decent fair use argument for using it would be impossible. -- Sabre (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Should he want to fix it, its available from the article history; that's what its there for. Having flawed content like that stuck in the current version, even if hidden, isn't the way to do it. -- Sabre (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've had to clean it up; try not to mass quote from a source like that, its far preferable to concisely summarise in our own words what a source says. Anyway, if it is a huge controversy, would you mind providing stronger references from more mainstream sources? One special interest blog alone reporting it isn't sufficient. -- Sabre (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Soft Sailor review

Hi Soetermans,

There was already a discussion in the talk page about the soft sailor review and it there seems to be agreement that it is at least as notable as some other currently included reviews. Could you please restore that part of your revert?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=StarCraft_II:_Wings_of_Liberty&diff=376411566&oldid=376407735

Thanks,

Zuchinni one (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem! Done. --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 15:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

StarCraft 2 Overheating

I posted a message in the StarCraft II discussion page that I hope will help you to understand my motivations in making the edits I made. sdornan (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really want to get involved, I'm not too familiar with hardware issues to comment properly. I'm also disengaging somewhat from the article until a) all the post-release fuss completely dies down and b) my collaborator with whom the StarCraft featured topic was got going is in a position to help get the article back on track for GA and FA.

All I can say is that looking across the thread, there's a risk of getting original researchy with how this is being discussed (which you've already noted on the talk page): no-one should be trying to prove which side is right on this site, but merely restating what sources may say on the matter. The beef of the current text (other than the painfully unnecessary WP:NOTHOWTO last paragraph & quote) seems fine to me. If you want a wider opinion, try posting at WT:VG. -- Sabre (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone include the actual dangers of different types of radiation

It would be very nice for this article to indicate in some way, not only the different types of radiation, but also which types of radiation dangerous and what is considered a dangerous dosage level.

My understanding was that basically it's only Gamma radiation that can be extremely dangerous, but I'm not an expert.

Zuchinni one (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the article on radioactive decay. Most of the information you ask for is in the article on ionizing radiation. See also the "see also" articles in that article, at the end. In response to your request, I've included the mentioned article as the "main" article in the "hazards" section here in radioactive decay. Thanks for pointing out that it's not immediately obvious where to go if you want to follow this more deeply. This article is more about the process than the products of decay, and there is more info on the hazards in the articles for the products. For example, on each type of radiation listed in the article on radiation. SBHarris 22:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor rally

The recent edit you made to Restoring Honor rally constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. The section is currently the subject of a two month long dispute that is currently under formal mediation. Please do not ignore the warnings against major or controversial changes. Thank you. BS24 (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

See my reply on your page HERE. Zuchinni one (talk)

You're right, perhaps I shouldn't have accused you of vandalism. But this 12-editor dispute is very heated and has been going on for two months now. It wasn't your intention, but your edit interferes with our mediation. I hope you understand. Thanks. BS24 (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Zuchinni, I encourage you to participate the mediation! I think everyone will welcome your input. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it is far away from a final decision. The discussion in the mediation didn't even start yet. At the moment, the only thing which has happened is that all current participates have presented their opening statements. If you have the time and interest into this discussion, then I encourage you to express your interest to the mediator User_talk:Wgfinley, and then he will handle it accordingly. It would be a pity if some interested person who could contribute valuable input does not participate. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

BS24

BS24 is on indefinite block, but likely to return as a sock.[6] The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

File:MLG LAN signs.jpg

As a reminder, please remember to add a proper source to images you have uploaded. Non-free images will require a 'fair use rationale,' a brief explanation justifying why the image should be included in an article. If you accidentally used the incorrect licence tag when uploading the image, please remove the non-free vg tag and replace it with a free/open license tag. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any help. Thanks! --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  02:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You did a good job updating the fair use rationale and source box. The license tag seems to be in some grey-area, but I think I find the right non-free tag. Hopefully this should work. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  04:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't call good faith edits 'vandalism'

This edit summary was pretty rude - please don't accuse editors working in good faith (as they've explained on the talk page) of 'vandalism'. Nick-D (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Repeatedly Removing a TAG ... which was put in place to improve an article prevents other users from realizing the state of the article, implies that it is good, and prevents people from knowing that they can contribute to improve things. That is vandalism pure and simple because it undermines everything wikipedia is about. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If you keep that kind of attitude up it may well lead to another admin blocking you from editing. The non-existence of a tag in no way implies that the article is fine (no Wikipedia article is perfect, and the limitations of Wikipedia are well known). Calling other editors vandals is considered highly offensive. Nick-D (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it is ... which is why I take it very seriously. And I stand by what I said. Zuchinni one (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

File:MLG LAN signs.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MLG LAN signs.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

File:An Example of The Kinetic Depth Effect.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:An Example of The Kinetic Depth Effect.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 23:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Zuchinni one. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Zuchinni one. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: JetClosing (February 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by CNMall41 were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:JetClosing and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:JetClosing, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CNMall41 (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Zuchinni one! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CNMall41 (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:JetClosing

Hello, Zuchinni one. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "JetClosing".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Common Opal (Opalized Wood).png

The file File:Common Opal (Opalized Wood).png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)