User talk:Wikifan12345/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Latuff image

The picture was considered a BLP violation (see the talk page) and it was protected from being posted. Adambro improperly deleted the protective measures, which may have been an abuse of his administrative rights. I have restored the protection. As the image is a BLP violation, we do not show it on EnWiki; we link to it in the footnotes. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It is acceptable for the commons; it is a WP:BLP violation for EnWiki. The Commons does not have a BLP policy. Please ee the talk page. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I posted a response in the dispute. I did not refer to talk before adding the image. Apologies. Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize 8-) -- Avi (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

U. N. Peacekeeping

I would be glad to help out. Although I don't always have as much time available as I have had the last couple of weeks.Historicist (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from accusations

I am not a meat puppet of anyone. Can you please either make an official complaint in an appropriate forum or strike your comment. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Meatpuppeting is not libelous. All I'm saying is you and that other editor seem to have very similar profiles that is hurting the article. I would prefer you move your edits to talk instead of wiping out cited information while dubiously claiming it is OR. I felt a caution was more than polite but if you prefer I could file a concern at the appropriate board. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Please "file a concern at the appropriate board." Calling us meatpuppets during an AfD is not appropriate, and indeed it is a personal attack. I said nothing about your accusation being libelous.PelleSmith (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I encourage you to move your dubious edits to talk for accurate summaries or I will have to seek an administrator's opinion. I really don't want to do this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting for you to "seek an administrator's opinion". Please do. Of course doing so requires actually intending to in the first place. There are a handful of admins listed here who might be of help in your endeavor. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP

This is a violation of WP:BLP -- Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. The living person claims he was miquoted and you change the entry, based on sourcing from a blog, to factually state that he was "quoted"?PelleSmith (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Daniel pipers quotes x as saying x. There is no need to say claim, that is weasilish. The person can still say he was misquoted. Daniel Pipers is reputable figure anyways. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read the text I quoted. Danielpipes.org is in the "never use" category as a source for factual claims about living people, period. End of story. The language you changed, although perhaps sloppy, indicated that Pipes "claimed" to quote him directly. Clearly stating that something is a claim attributable to another person is not "weaselish" when it comes to WP:BLP. It's policy.PelleSmith (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Pipers quoted x as saying x. The content does say "X said x, this is a fact." the paragraph is very explicit in ensuring the quote was supposed recorded by Pipers and x claimed his speech was misconstrued. Like OR and Criticism, you really don't understand the fundamentals of policy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not meant as an insult but is English your first language? I ask because presented below is word for word what you wrote and you seem not to understand what these words mean in relation to each other: "Daniel Pipes quotes CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad talk to a crowd of Californian Muslims in July 1998 ..." If we state that Daniel Pipes "quotes" someone it means primarily that Daniel Pipes is accurately representing what this person said. In other words it does not mean he was "misquoting" them. If you think that using "quotes" in this way makes no such judgment on accuracy, as if it could just as easily mean misquote then I can't really help you because there is a comprehension problem. You insinuated earlier that I was not owning up to my edits. Time to say that into the mirror. This is a BLP violation clear as day.PelleSmith (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes is quoting x of saying x. Look at the source, he puts Ahmad's words in quotations. The word "quote" is not synonymous with accuracy. I could claim to quote you and then you could provide a diff saying my quotation was false - but I still "quoted" you. Get it? This is pure semantics. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you just aim that at your own foot? You just wrote "I could claim to quote you ...". Exactly! Bravo! To relay that meaning one has to use the word you just used. "Claim". Congratulations for proving my point.PelleSmith (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh? I quoted you = I claimed to quote you. Same difference. It's redundant. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Assuming good faith made me wonder the above about your relationship with the English language. Please ask someone else, since you clearly don't trust me. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Other people's comments

Do not remove other people's comments from article talk pages as you did here. It is against policy.PelleSmith (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not against policy when you are using a talk page to send a message to an individual. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't do this [1]. The issue was appropriate to discussion on that talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

JTA

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) is an international news agency serving Jewish community newspapers and media around the world. I don't know how you would think this qualifies as a "special interest group"--99.162.51.158 (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a special interests group. You've been continually couching in not-notable criticisms which have led to severe weight and balancing issues. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to show it is a "special interests group" or is this your original analysis?--99.162.51.158 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You claimed the source was an RS - it is not. It serves the needs of the Jewish diaspora. Special-interest group is not a demeaning term so I don't understand your reasoning. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

JTA is the definitive, trusted global source of breaking news, investigative reporting, in-depth analysis, opinion and features on current events and issues of interest to the Jewish people. They have correspondents in New York, Washington, Jerusalem, Moscow and dozens of other cities around the globe. JTA serves as an international news, feature and photo service for over 100 Jewish publications and Web sites worldwide that depend on JTA for Jewish news outside of their local community. JTA has earned its reputation for journalistic integrity, outstanding reporting and insightful analysis.--99.162.51.158 (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you try to clarify for me then please? I have started a topic on the article's talk page, this may be the best area to resolve the issue so that others may provide their input too. The tag can be left up to alerts readers and other editors of the issue.--99.162.51.158 (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I don't have a lot time at the moment but I'll probably be able to craft a "clarification" within the next few days. In the meantime, would you feel comfortable reverting the article before the dispute, at least temporarily? Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: ADL

It is quite clear that the ADL's main focus is fighting antisemitism (and secondary, fighting other forms of racism) and this has little to do with Israel. I agree with your remarks about 'pro-Jewish'. Where did a user try to insert that phrase? Please provide a diff, because this is borderline-racist and the user needs to be told off. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page

I replied to you on my talk page. Frankly it grows more and more tiring to explain the same basic issues to you over and over and over again. Can we at least keep it on the article talk page from now on? I'll stay away from yours and you stay away from mine. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

3RR

If you want to get a pleasant response from me, I'd suggest your langauge around here [2] is poor.

"contiguous" has its usual meaning: two reverts done together by the same user count as one revert.

I haven't ruled on that report (as you can see, the result field is blank). Anyone else is free to look.

William M. Connolley (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I revised my original message. Is that not allowed? User has over 6 individual reverts, and likely 9+ if 2 changes in one revert was counted. All I'm saying is if you've been pretty quick to block everyone and here I report someone and suddenly there's discretion. You responded to everyone else's block report and consciously avoid mine, then said it was stale the next day. At this point I know only people have had issues with you before, but I assumed good faith when I filed the edit war report. Is this worth it William? Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan I'm not sure you understand what a revert entails. I have 6 total edits in the 24 hour period. Two of those edits are "reverts" of the same material, but that is as far as it goes. I have also stated at the report that I if my editing on this page is problematic then I a encourage an admin to tell me how I should change my behavior because I will.PelleSmith (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

6 of the edits were reverting my edits. You've reverted every single one of my additions, claiming they were OR or BLP violations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Do not edit my user page

Wikifan do not edit my user page as you did here. If you really think I ought to change it given the reality of my activity then a nice message or email would do the trick.PelleSmith (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's rather deceitful to be an active user while tagging your user page and talk discussion with retired. Fine. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

For your information I was rather unsuccessfully trying to be an inactive user, and I was when I tagged it. Either way it does not give you the right to edit the page like that.PelleSmith (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I said fine. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up. I posted on the talk page of the sub-page you created in which you make accusations against me. Please do not revert this, as you have no ownership rights of that page. Out of respect I did not post on the page itself, instead used the talk.PelleSmith (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

I have sought help at this noticeboard regarding your behavior in the ongoing dispute with myself and Csloat. See Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Wikifan12345. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your latest comment on that page.PelleSmith (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WRMEA

Look, Wikifan, obviously this needs treating sensitively, but clearly WMREA has a certain Arabist (which I haven't sourced yet) and left Israeli view, though mixed in with a others as well, and gets criticised mostly by organisations who actively promote right-wing Israeli views. That needs to be explained, it's an important part of the story. Also, don't obsess about who wrote what - focus on content. Rd232 ^talk 01:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The way it's being explained is POV and not substantiated by reliable sources. You don't need to reduce the validity of the claims by washing all of them as "partisan" "pro-Israel" "pro-Jewish" etc..etc...Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. Other people wrote those words. What I've put now is "Criticism of WRMEA has been particularly strong and consistent from US organizations dedicated to advocating for Israel and criticising what they see as "anti-Israel" positions in the media.". Really, that's as innocuous a summary of what can be read in the individual organisation articles as you can hope for. Anything less is failing WP:NPOV. Rd232 ^talk 02:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That isn't necessary. The other version was fine. We don't need to question the motivations of the references or claim they are all blanketed under a fear of Israel criticism. Much of the attacks are referring to the hostility, conspiracy-theorist, and antisemitic origins - while tending to revolve around Israel. totally weasel and POV. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The other version wasn't fine in many ways (look at my edit summaries), and clarifying where organisations are coming from isn't "questioning their motivations", it's essential context. It's not like these are neutral academics (if such a thing exists for this topic). The rest of your comment I don't understand. Anyway I'm going to bed. Rd232 ^talk 02:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not context when the assessment is yours. Casting all the criticisms as "Defending Israel/Zionist protectors" is utterly bizarre. Just write what the references actually say, to put all these criticisms as sourced from a paranoid fear of Israeli critics is original research. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Aggravating, aggravating - again with the putting words in my mouth. And what assessment? Currently all the article says is "Criticism of WRMEA has been particularly strong and consistent from US organizations dedicated to advocating for Israel and criticising what they see as "anti-Israel" positions in the media." It says exactly that (more clearly and explicitly) in each org article. (Go check if you don't believe me!) You want to have "This criticism is the gospel truth written by aliens from Mars who have no views on Israel whatsoever and which therefore do not colour what they say on an Israel-related topic"? Listen to yourself, and consider an alternative case, say of a Turkish institution saying the Armenian genocide didn't happen. Would you really argue we couldn't mention the institution was Turkish (when WP:NPOV clearly requires that we do)? Rd232 ^talk 09:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Curious - a few personal questions

Wikifan, you never told me where are you from. Besides, what does Natasha Mozgovaja do on your page? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I had this feeling you're not from Israel. Don't know even why. I won't bother you further, just a piece of advice - beware, Natasha has children of her own... --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

RE:Question

Take the code found here, and simply replace all instances of "Climie.ca" with "Wikifan12345". The rows correspond to the picture and link to each of the pages, so you can add and remove icons so long as you maintain the first image with the first link, the second image with the second link, etc. Cam ^(Chat) 15:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Blind revert

Symptoms of a blind revert:

• Edit summary does not match content: You say the picture is consistent with the paragraph as if there is only one picture. There are two depictions there and one's a video, not an image, next to what clearly is an irrelevant paragraph. Either you didn't mean to revert the video, or you weren't paying attention. Actually, even if you didn't mean to revert the video, you weren't paying attention.
• Tunnel vision on one word: How is that propaganda? There were multiple explanations for the issue there, and you harped on that one. Not to mention I presented an alternative, but you completely ignored it.
• Reference to irrelevant article: "Have you seen the Gaza War article?" Yes, and neither of those two files are in it. Again, I presented an alternative, which you ignored.

I'm now on the Discuss phase of Bold, Blind Revert, Discuss; see Talk:Israel. -- tariqabjotu 11:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Relax. Again, the additions are very minor and I really don't understand why they offend you. You claiming the pictures/video/whatever constitutes propaganda is contrary to the source material general. On the other hand, wikipedia hosts hundreds of pictures of Palestinians that have proven to be staged or falsely credited to be the result of Jewish aggression. It's late, 440 in the morning where I am. I'll provide a more thorough respond later if I still care. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say they "offend" me, and please don't give me this there are Palestinian blah-blah-blah BS as if that has anything to do with this very content. I'm not talking about those pictures, whatever and wherever they are; respond to the points I raised, and nothing more. If it's so late at night that you have time to do no more than blind revert, you shouldn't have done anything. -- tariqabjotu 11:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah okay. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

A personal appeal

I would like to urge you to change your position on the name change for Anti-Israel lobby in the United States. I understand your desire for an article that deals with organizations that oppose Israel, and not just lobby for change in US policy. But this article, sadly, is not it. In its current eviscerated state, it isn't really about anything, but is just a kind of random collection of sentences. And without a name change, that isn't going to improve.

Our only hope of getting a decent article up on the pedia is to change the name. Even if the new article is not exactly what you want, it will be a lot closer than the current drivvel. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, it seems the survey is for a move...right? I won't object to a change but I still consider "anti-Israel lobby" is a more fair term. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In any case, we will have to have a redirect, because "anti-Israel lobby" is the term people will look for. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10