User talk:Jaakobou/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

---

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dave Brown's Goya Ariel Sharon.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Dave Brown's Goya Ariel Sharon.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Re [1]

If you're prepared to document the claim that I "repeatedly misquote HRW pieces," do so. If you're not, withdraw it. I'm serious here, Jaakobou. I'm not going to tolerate this kind of mudslinging, which you constantly use to obfuscate and distract from issues. Coming off a weeklong topic ban with this kind of dubious accusation is hardly going to encourage admins to tolerate continued disruption. <eleland/talkedits> 04:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I currently don't intend to file anything. However, there was no mistake in both my comment that this is not a first incident (Talal, Sharon), and also in this being another clear incident where you misrepresented a HRW source. Correcting editor's repeated errors (such as this incident) is not disruptive to the project, to the contrary even. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I just noticed your comment that you accuse me of making a "lamebrained attempt to portray every Arab in the Jenin region as a terrorist." [2], this comment is a not in the least bit amusing personal attack. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Your vague reference "Talal, Sharon" is completely worthless, as is your reference to this latest "incident," since I never claimed that the given HRW source quoted the IDF spokesperson's office. That is your personal misreading of my comments. Again, I am not going to let you get away with vague accusations about my "misrepresentations." If you have something specific, provide it. If you do not, withdraw the accusation. I am not going to allow you to continue editing tendentiously and use unfounded accusations against other editors as a smoke-screen for it. <eleland/talkedits> 07:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) pps; Jaakobou, claiming Jenin = terror seemed to be the only purpose of your remark. I provided a reference whereby Palestinian Red Crescent Society medics from the Jenin area were quoted saying something; you countered with a reference that said nothing about PRCS, but simply that Jenin was known as the "Martyrs' Capital" among Palestinians, as if that invalidated the PRCS testimony. Otherwise, what was the point of that link? You can't go around making outrageous insinuations, then act affronted and cite WP:NPA when you're called on them. <eleland/talkedits> 07:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Both your use of source and your response were improper. End of story. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE

I've ratted on you here. Cheers and good luck, pedro gonnet - talk - 28.03.2008 07:53

A suggestion

Why don't you try to avoid reverts and edit wars all together ? I think you will find your ability to edit wikipedia improving if you will avoid such conflicts. If they revert you - let it be so somene else will jump in if your edit is justified or will not if it is not. edit war will not get you far. and FYI: [3] Zeq (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with how you perceive the BLP violation situation. My ability to edit wikipedia will improve once a few problematic tag-team editors will be recognized as such and their communal activity will be dealt with under the new arbcom final decisions.

btw 1, I fail to see the relevance of the FYI link.

btw 2, thank you for trying to advise me on how to work better on wiki.

cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not refering at all to BLP or any specific article or preceived violation. What I suggested is that you write any addition to any wikipedai article witha goal in mind that it will not be reverted. Write it NPOV. Write it from both side of the argument. If you do a really good job and someone revert you - at that point "the law" is on your side. Zeq (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did and your comment implied otherwise. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No. It is your understanding of my comment. I did not imply since I was making a general suggestion and you responded for a specific case I was not even familiar with. take it easy. Zeq (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just almost blocked for an "edit warring" accusation. Hence, your timing of the general note that I should avoid edit warring was a bit 'poop'. I don't have an edit war problem and I do make an effort to write with neutrality in full consideration. Have a groovy week. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. sorry for my bad timimg as I was not refering to any specific edit. I just saw the discussion with El C and made a geral comment to you about how can edits be better. I also asked El C not to apply admin power as he might be imvolved. He erfused and plaese now see this: User_talk:PhilKnight#El_C. Have a great week as well. Zeq (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP

I'll gladly take a look on the talk page and offer my adivce/opinions. We might not have seen eye to eye with everything, but I certainly appreciate your opinion - you certainly have clue. I hope that maybe we can put our past differences of opinion behind us.

On a side note - I see you've been making some excellent featured contributions. It's great to see and they're certainly great for the project. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks

An editor has nominated Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Time discrepancy

{{helpme}} issue resolved. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed a time discrepancy between the dates presented on my user page and my talk page (scroll to top). Any suggestions on fixing the issue? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Signatures on talk pages are always in UTC, while the clock on your user page appears to be set to UTC+4 (Israeli time?) You can't change the time zone of your signatures, since we all need to be on the same page when it comes to time. You can change the time zone of your clock to UTC, or you could have two clocks, one for UTC and one for local time. <eleland/talkedits> 12:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

nvm <eleland/talkedits> 12:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Purging the cache of the page fixes it. see WP:PURGE. i'll stop bugging you now. <eleland/talkedits> 12:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the right linkage. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Blisodot-logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Blisodot-logo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fixed now. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Saeb-erekat.jpg

An image on a page you are involved in editing, Image:Saeb-erekat.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. If you have obtained proper permission to use the image then it should be forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume you left me a message re: Pallywood?

Please look at the source again. Someone has been inserting the word "pro-Israel" all over that page, and trying to bias it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Npov#Fairness_of_tone strongly discourages randomly inserting words like that, or tagging "conservative" all over the page. I don't disagree with all of your edits but I do ask that you come to the talk page and list what you want to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maha Pizza (talk • contribs) 13:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Me and ChrisO have a mild understanding that we're at a disagreement on article philosophy (I'm more of an inclusion-ist, he's more of a deletion-ist) but we're not really fighting hard over it, mostly since the article is somewhat reasonable (last time I checked) even if it's missing a lot of less mainstream (and poorly sourced) material.

Currently, I'm not highly involved on Pallywood, mostly because I am preoccupied with a few other troublesome articles/situations (some of them more active, some less) - you can probably notice the "Unresolved scraps: Pallywood intro" part where I've decided that it's not worth the trouble as long as there's not enough sources to support my stance and it comes down to two different philosophies with pro's and con's on each.

On topic, there's nothing wrong with the words "conservative" (unless maybe if you're a liberal) and with "pro-Israel" either (I don't care much for the watch-dogs descriptive). We can't deny that the vast majority of sources that use the term are indeed in the conservative/pro-Israel camp. However, if you think something violates WP:WEASEL due to over-emphasis, make note of it and follow WP:DR while attempting to make a difference.

Hope that helps some - feel free to catch me again, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I would describe myself as being more of an immediatist, with a large element of precisionism. But I'd just like to say, Jaakobou, that I very much appreciate the calm and cooperative way that you've been approaching this article lately. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, my pleasure. Any chance you'll find some time to get around to my 'footnote' request or should I have a go at it -- and probably get a customary revert from one of my many pals? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm not entirely clear what you mean on the article talk page. Could you clarify for me what it is that you're asking me to do? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, me and the third editor (forgot who it was) were interested in some clarification/wikilink from the "we've seen pictures of a fake burial ceremony" to either a small paragraph mentioning the IDF Drone or an article about it. I figure it's notable enough and that wikipedia readers would be interested in more information on the subject once the man mentions this. We've had a 3O suggestion on how to do this and I was hoping that you will make some attempt at inserting some type of reference.

Hope that clears it up, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I see what you meant on the quotation, as I had been following a different link. I have gone back to the article and looked over the parts to remove where I feel NPOV and WEASEL were violated in trying to "hammer" what are used as vitriolic words in many circles.

I have a complaint with ChrisO in that I feel he is very close to deliberately misconstruing the policies he is quoting at me. In addition, he has been just undoing whatever I did without reading the edits, which means he removed an extremely solid (CNN Transcript) source I had added to the Johnny Sutton article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maha Pizza (talk • contribs) 22:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, for the page, Is this what you were looking for on the palestinian fake funeral? It is currently linked from Battle of Jenin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maha Pizza (talk • contribs) 22:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Saeb Erekat. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this note. Regardless of what I believe to be a WP:DISRUPT situation, I have no intention on edit warring and have opened a WP:MEDCAB case -- 2008-04-08_Saeb_Erekat -- which will, hopefully, resolve the conflict on this article.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

How's this mediation going? Durova^Charge! 18:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 13 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bli Sodot, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats! --Gatoclass (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Durova^Charge! 18:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Good page, Jaakobou. Well done.Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou There's a problem with the sentence:

The show's hosts Hani Nachmias, Oshik Levi, Natan Natanzon, and Hanan Goldblat, and several other actors who'd participated on the show such as Shula Hen, Ofra Haza, Galia Isay, and Mati Sari.' A verb is lacking

If only the first four were hosts, then write. 'The show's hosts were Hani, Nachmias, Oshik Levi, Natan Natanzon, and Hanan Goldblatt. Several other actors also participated in/appeared(regularly) on/ the program, such as (better most notably) Shula Hen, Ofra Haza, Galia isay, and Mati Sari'

If all were hosts then, something like. 'The show's hosts were...and several other actors.'

'who'd' is colloquial and should not be used in formal articles.Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, best to avoid contractions for formal writing in article space. Fine work, though. :) Durova^Charge! 03:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Infidel

Yes, it has more than a Roman Catholic meaning, as in it is a word in the English dictionary. The version you referred to however is limited to ONLY the dictionary definition. We have the wikitionary for such a treatment of words, and the link is also duly provided for in that version and the disambiguation page. The version I apply does however include a treatment for both the Modern "English usage" definition of the term as well as the Traditional Roman Catholic term, i.e. it has everything in the dictionary term version and more. Infidel is not a word only in the English language usage, furthermore WP:NOT and the existence of the wikitionary also makes a case against dictionary terms in the wikipedia.

Infidels roots are as an ecclesiastical term in Christian theology. The term has had a significant implication in canon law through medieval history and has influenced historical issues such as the Colonization of the Americas as well as debates such as just war, inter-christian sectarian issues as well as influencing decretal laws governing interaction with non-Christian communities such as European Jewry. Clearly there is a very significant amount of non-dictionary related material to justify an article on wikipedia limited to purely a dictionary definition.--Tigeroo (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with your statement that "Infidels roots are as an ecclesiastical term in Christian theology" since 'Infidels' existed long before Christianity. I will probably join the discussions more seriously when I can muster some time, but in the meantime, I suggest you try WP:DR rather than edit warring. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, been trying to get others to join in the discussion. We have had a RfC which showed dissatisfaction with a dictionary centric rendition, and I have linked RS and Administrator threads on the topic the Cat Enc RS for Catholic terminology, but seem to making little headway with the other user who just WP:IDIDNOTHEAR.

Infidels before Christianity, you are right and not too far off the track, the term has had similarities in earlier conceptions of the other as well, Gentiles in the Judaic tradition, barbaroi in the Greek tradition, kafir in the Islamic etc. Every society has had the other non and that would not be a bad section to have in the article as well, the term "infideles" however continues to be use today in today in the Church in Latin, Infidel is the migrated term in English from the same root via Middle French, hope that helps on that point. If you know something different feel free to add it in. Thanks.--Tigeroo (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really following your argument fully, it's possibly because I'm really tired at the moment. As I've noted before, I'll possibly get into this when I have a bit more time.

On a side note, Gentile is not the same as Infidel in Hebrew-Biblical terms. Also, the term Infidel from Hebrew is usually applied by saying someone is a great sinner rather than by using the term 'infidel/heretic' (Hebrew: כופר, "Koffer") directly. Anyways, I'm glad there's some agreement that infidels existed before Christianity. Hope this conflict will be sorted out in a way that satisfies everyone involved.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at Gilad Shalit

You are currently involved in an edit war at Gilad Shalit. Please remember that such behaviour does not benefit Wikipedia in any way, and in fact you may be blocked for it (especially, but not always, if you have made four or more reverts in 24 hours).

Therefore, please remember: if you are having a dispute with somebody over an article, you must follow the dispute resolution process - that is, discuss your differences with the other parties. Sometimes, that is all it takes: leave a message on their talk page, and come to an agreement civilly and peacefully. Once again, bear in mind that revert warring is not acceptable and you may be blocked for it: you should consider this a final warning on the matter. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,
Anthøny 11:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Anthony,

I made a revert on a WP:DISRUPT following prolonged discussions so I am in disagreement to the assumption that I have been "involved" in edit warring. The situation is on Gilad Shalit with an anon. IP who's ignored notes and reverts by User:Drork ([4], [5]), User:Jaakobou ([6]) and User:Xavexgoem ([7]).

During a mediation -- following prolonged discussions (and RfC) -- over the use of the word 'hostage' to describe the situation in which 'Gilad Shalit' is being held, editor Pedro Gonnet (talk · contribs) has reverted the article to a version that has 'captive' instead of 'hostage'. I've not reverted him and continued discussions on the mediation page.

After presenting 18 high quality sources with Pedro Gonnet presenting a google based hypothesis, Pedro announced he's taking a pause for 3 weeks and never returned to discussions. This prompted the appearance of 3rd party editors, mostly anons making reverts to Pedro Gonnet's favored version with WP:DISRUPT justifications (if any).

• "that was kind of slick, but I'm not completely gone quite yet..." Pedro Gonnet, 08:59, 6 February 2008
• "revert per talk" - 70.109.223.188 (talk · contribs), 15:19, 6 February 2008
• "he was "legitimately" captured" Le Anh-Huy, 09:34, 20 March 2008
• NO COMMENT 65.32.231.185 (talk · contribs), 22:14, 7 April 2008
• "He's a soldier, NOT a civilian. He was captured in battle." 65.32.231.185 (talk · contribs), 21:12, 9 April 2008
• NO COMMENT 82.33.1.131 (talk · contribs) (Timb0h⁽ⁱ⁾), 08:31, 16 April 2008

I disagree that my 3 edits in the span of 10 days (7-16 April: [8], [9], [10]) on anon. IPs -- who display WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:DISRUPT after already prolonged discussions (more than 5 months) -- represent edit warring.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC) fix link 13:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC) added forgotten link 13:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC) fix wikilink. 21:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC) clarification of time span. 21:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC) one 07:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gilad Shalit. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 17:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

MfD nominations by JzG

• User:Jaakobou/Celebrations, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jaakobou/Celebrations
• User:Jaakobou/Temp2, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jaakobou/Temp2
• User:Jaakobou/1929 Hebron Massacre, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jaakobou/1929 Hebron Massacre
• User:Jaakobou/Battle of Jenin, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jaakobou/Battle of Jenin

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User_pages_deletions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Jaakobou, in at least one case you say you are done with the article and have copied it to your local machine; if you've copied content in any of these and are done with them, would you please tag them {{db-user}}? T think that would help de-escalate the minor drama. For the record, if you'd asked for the deleted content by email, I hope I'd have done so, though of course I am a stubborn bastard so might not have done at the time. I've also taken the liberty of pruning down the Twinkle summaries for the MfDs, as that is certainly a bit WP:DTTR-ish. Finally, I am impressed with what Durova said of you and the efforts you've made since the ArbCom case. Nobody is required to cease holding opinions, just as long as their opinions do not overwhelm neutrality in content edits. I'd not noted the FA work, and I apologise for not reviewing my opinions of you in the light of what is very clearly a significant change in the way you interact with others - my bad. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 14:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Appreciate the note and already placed the {{db-user}} on a few of them. I will continue my review tomorrow maybe, I'm actually in the middle of a pressure filled week so I hope it will be ok if we stretch this issue by a week. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

On forking

Having read your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jaakobou/Temp2, I have a suggestion for avoiding future misunderstandings and suspicion. If you find content that has been removed in what you consider to be a POV way, you can either link to a diff from before the removal, or keep just the removed / original text of the relevant section(s), with a clear explanation that this is material which was removed in a content dispute, you are not intending to edit war, but it represents statements you would like to see back in the article when you have sources. Would that work for you? I think it would help people to see the efforts that you are undoubtedly making to keep well within both the letter and spirit of WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Sounds like a reasonable suggestion. Feel free to add that very disclaimer text on the pages... worst case, I'll change them a bit later... anyways, I really spent too much time on wiki today.

Laterz, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you have been very decent about this, and I apologise for not understanding what it was you wanted when you first came to my talk page. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving on

Comment - I think we've finished going over these (above) and we can move on to the others. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Israel

If you're mentioning the geographical location of Israel in the intro, you can say WB and Gaza are adjacent to Israel. Then you can later talk about PNA administration and Israeli occupation in the body. However, if you include the information that WB & Gaza are partially administered by PNA in the intro, then you also need to say that they are occupied by Israel in the intro. In addition, the fact that there are no longer any Israeli settlers in Gaza doesn't mean that Israel does not control Gaza's borders, supplies, etc. Saghias (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's not make this into a political debate on who controls the borders (Hamas+Egypt) and who protects his borders from a declared "Jihad" (Israel) and about the meaning of "Resistance Jihad" and "Occupation" in the middle east.

I reverted false information. If you want to change the paragraph on this featured article, you should try the talk page once your information is originally noted as inaccurate - and it was clearly inaccurate.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

I'm just a little intrigued by this barnstar you've awarded JzG. I'm always happy to see people receive these and I was just curious to the 'why'. So eh, would you mind sharing?
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just an accumulation of service and good contributions in the face of tendentious opposition. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Any samples? Maybe I can learn a thing or two. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in particular, but look at his contributions to the arbitration process or the admin noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Very long

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, did some archiving.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Erekat

Hmmm. Having looked at your preferred version and the current version, there does need to be some kind of compromise between the two. Your one has too much detail (the sentence "Israeli voices and conservative commentators leveled accusations that the international press preferred the Jenin "massacre hoax" to the facts causing harm to Israel's image, and accused the Palestinians and Erekat of lying." doesn't seem to be very helpful - the context is already there that he lied, and the bit on the Jewish state could be summed up more efficiently), but in contrast the current version has too little explanation. Unfortunately I'm just about to go on holiday for a fortnight, and I don't have the time to prepare a compromise version. If, when I come back, the section is still at its current length/detail, I'll have a go (you might want to remind me around 7/8 May). пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was actually very pleased with a compromise achieved in September 2006 by me and Rama. But since September 2007 and until now, Eleland and others have claimed the event wasn't noticeable and should be deleted entirely. After 7 months of fact checking and source finding (including arguments over reliable sources). I'm fairly sure I'm not willing to go back to a version that barely has sources and proper referencing to the media lynching. Anyways, I just had the thought to give a try to conflict resolutions in a different angle than MEDCOM and possibly bury old hatchets at the same time.

Maybe I'll note you back around May. Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC) cl 17:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

*sigh*

Hello again, Jaakobou. I just noticed your cross-posting of a thread you started on User talk:Jpgordon about how evil I am and how I need to be blocked. This is about the fourth or fifth time you've posted assertions about my conduct without contacting me first, or even informing me about it. Enough with the kangaroo court proceedings, please. Have the courtesy to inform me the next time. <eleland/talkedits> 15:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that last message didn't go nearly far enough. I notice that you accuse me of promoting a blood libel. This is a vile personal attack which has nothing to do with dispute resolution. I'm asking you to withdraw it immediately. You don't need to apologize, since I don't believe you're capable of sincerity, but damned if I'm going to let that attack stand. <eleland/talkedits> 16:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure to where I accused you of promoting a blood libel. I apologize for neglecting to notify you of my note to Jpgordon each and every time you made an uncivil personal attack, I kinda got tired of asking you to stop leading the group of people making personal attacks on me. If you notice, once you took it down a notch and stopped supporting PalestineRememebered (talk · contribs)'s Jenin Massacre! Massacre! Massacre! agenda (sample: [11]), the others stopped almost entirely.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC) minor 18:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(offtopic) I'm not certain a Kangaroo court means what you were trying to say but I don't make a habit of taking English pot shots when statements become difficult to understand. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? See you soon on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. <eleland/talkedits> 18:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've decided against WP:AE; a free-for-all will accomplish nothing. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jaakobou. <eleland/talkedits> 20:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Image recovery

(offtopic) Help on recovering User_talk:Jaakobou#Copyright_problems_with_Image:Tunnels_uncovered_in_Rafah.jpg, would be appreciated. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have proof that the images are released under a free license? Stifle (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Images released by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs are released under fair use guidelines. Using the Tunnels uncovered in Rafah operation should be linked in the Operation's article. It's basic fair use and the image possibly had an incomplete fair use rationale, but other than that (best I'm aware) - it should not have been deleted.

Thanks for looking into it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't be used under fair use due to failing to comply with WP:NFCC #1. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning. I'm not aware that there a "free equivalent is available", but maybe you know something I don't? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A free equivalent could be created. Sorry, should have been clearer. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this material copyrighted so that creating a copy and calling it free is in fact a copyright violation? I don't understand why the image is not allowed while a replacement is not available. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like some arrows on a map. Seems replaceable enough... Stifle (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being rude, but the deletion of this image is somewhat frustrating to me. To clarify, anyone putting some arrows on a map would be copying the arrows made by the Israeli Foreign Ministry and I'm not aware of any copyright free replacements existing. So I have to ask if you would mind raising this image to discussion in front of a larger audience? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The place for that would be Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Opened here: Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Image:Tunnels_uncovered_in_Rafah.jpg. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Static version before it was archived: link. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

reverts

I understand it wasn't reverted for grins, but how hard would it have been to say something different, rather than just revert the title sentence? And I guess I don't understand how the sentence I have is less in accordance with the cited sources than the sentence that was there previously. I may be wrong---let me repeat that, it is TOTALLY possible that I'm screwing up here, I'm not just saying that. But I don't see how the original wording was justified in light of the sources and the basic impression it gave about an indefinite number of communities. Protonk (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that original wording was not perfect considering the material in the article, but I still had to revert back to it since your edit included a clear-cut error. I think we resolved this dispute quickly and reasonably though.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Got your e-mail, what did you need? Grsz^talk 04:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Re A bit unfair

I think it's a bit unfair to leave such a comment on the edit summary; It's not like you've been following my progress since the Arbcom back in January (2008).
Anyways, I'm sure no mal-intent was involved and hope we'll be more cooperative and less judgmental in the future (See JzG and the Trout).
Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but I have had no idea that such an edit summary could be felt as bothering. That wasn't a judgment Jaakobou - that is a fact to me as I don't recall you agreed on something before. Why do you feel that it was directed to you? It applies to the other side as well. Right?... because that was what i meant. And if you could make JzG smile then you have no problems with me :)

Seriously, my concerns are exactly the ones I shared with you there and I don't think I was blind in not noticing both sides wrongdoings. How do you guys handle that stress? Listen to my advice and try to dedicate more time to listen to others. And of course, if anyone of you need any help I can assist of course but I don't like doing that in a noisy environment. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

An idea worth trying?

Hi, here's a thought that might do some good. Today I was chatting with an editor from Serbia. Mentioned the Serbian-Croatian ethnic disputes on en:Wiki and he surprised me by telling me the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias actually get along pretty well. Basically what happened was some guys packed into a car, drove to Zagreb, and shook some hands. Then some other guys packed into another car, drove to Belgrade, and shook some hands. Once they saw that they were all pretty normal people, things calmed down a lot.

Maybe there's a way we can replicate that. Would you be willing to try a voice chat on Skype? I've noticed that when Wikipedia editors get into a conference call, with voices instead of just text, it's easier to find common ground. Wishing you well, Durova^Charge! 06:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea is kinda cute, but I'm not sure I'm open to it before there's a real change in on-wiki culture towards civility and following policy.

Thanks for thinking out of the box though. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC) clarify Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I've taken up the issue of your repeated admin- and block-shopping here.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 29.04.2008 10:13

I saw it. I think it's kind of cute that you of all people accuse me of admin/block shopping. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Your response

I was asking about bans here.Kitty53 (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I'm asking for info. I'm not having any problems, I just want to learn more about Wikipedia!:)Kitty53 (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but mostly, I'm asking why people get banned.Kitty53 (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocking

Why do people get blocked on Wikipedia, anyway? Everytime I am told I'll be blocked for some reason, I feel threatened. Please respond on my talk page.Kitty53 (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

AE thread

I have closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Eleland issues persist. Please read the closing note. If you have any questions or if there any problems, please feel free to drop a line on my talk page or send me an email. Vassyana (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 1 week. Please refer to this AN/I thread. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe FaysselF violated WP:AGF on assertion of this block on me. * "talking about how other POVs are evil and yours is helping wiki neutrality as you put it?" - FayssalF, 14:02, 28 April 2008 * "i don't recall i saw you agreeing on something but i hope you do someday" FayssalF, 14:24, 28 April 2008 Comment - I did not say anyone's POV was evil and I certainly reached multiple agreements in my time on wiki. (Samples)

Further explanation on block istelf:
I've returned a disputed notice to Saeb Erekat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)) one time while PalestineRememeberd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) called a Rama to make a tag-team revert for him.

My previous dispute resolution on said article included a recent MEDCAB I opened and also a request for an admin to mediate. Said admin agreed a dispute is clear.

I have not violated any of the Arbcom final decisions -- Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Final_decision -- in this dispute despite, recently, previous tag-teaming by Eleland (talk · contribs) and Nickhh (talk · contribs) imposing their "wrong" version onto the page. Instead of edit warring, I added a "dispute" tag and pursued dispute resolution.

Suddenly I get blocked a week for once again, tag-teaming without ANY discussion -- see Saeb Erekat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- by both PalestineRemmebered and Rama.

Next time when a tag-team ignores me and enforces their version, an admin may try and block me for a month for not violating any policy!

Disclaimer 1: Yes, PR was blocked also, but he breached policy and is under a last chance pre-indef block forced mentorship while I recently contributed some featured content. Rama was quickly unblocked by FayssalF.

Disclaimer 2: I was banned from Israel related articles for a week less than 2 months ago for a one time civility infraction (I don't have an incivility problem). I apologized and retracted my comment an hour and a half after it was made; received a topic ban still, and have not repeated my transgression.

I don't believe my activity to resolve the content on this article suggests that I'm being disruptive or in violation of Arbcom decisions and request an unblock. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)|

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jaakobou (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

reason copied above as formatting broke template

Decline reason:

Unblock declined. discretionary sanctions appropriately implemented in this manner. "AGF is not a suicide pact" would apply here. — MBisanz ^talk 16:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Removed FayssalF related notes. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I have made a proposal re your mentorship here --NSH001 (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Haim Farhi Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you for creating a Wiki Page on Haim Farhi. I always wanted to do it myself and your work made it easier for me to have the history of Haim Farhi known. AlainFarhi (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)