User talk:Kinetochore

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Kinetochore! I am Brewcrewer and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

Can I get one of those cookies? They look good. Just wanted to say hello and mention that I have appreciated some of the editing you have done recently and some of the issues you brought up at the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict page. That page has been slow & hard go and has a lot of problems, but if editors like you stay with it, we shall eventually bring it up to some kind of standard. :) Now about that cookie... Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Words

Been waiting for your opinion all day (well half a day your time). Take a look at the weasel word discussion if you have the chance. Is there anything that jumps out at you as needing to get fixed? If you start listing a few I'm sure people will start addressing the concerns. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#Weasel_words.3F Cptnono (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I have fixed (pointed out to be fixed) two instances of weasel words in the last couple of days (both incorrectly attributed quotations), right now I am more concerned with inappropriate/selective quotations than with weasel words. If you have consensus to remove the weasel words tag, it wouldn't kill me. It isn't the article's biggest concern right now.Kinetochore (talk) 08:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops!

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Marek.69 ^talk 22:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, so the eight thorough reasons I listed on the talk page, in addition to calls of plagerism by other users, wasn't enough for you?Kinetochore (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And my edit summaries pointed to the talk page too.Kinetochore (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it looked like a partial page blank at first glance. Please ignore my message. :) Marek.69 ^talk 03:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Hi Kinetochore, I just wanted to say, our disagreements aside, I think you have been a very good editor that has made some very strong arguments. I have even agreed with you on a few of them, like not putting an essay about Israel using Gaza as an experimental laboratory for new weapons in the article. I just want to make sure that any discussions we have dont get too personal, it has happened in the past with others and clouded the future discussions, so I make this intended preemptive strike ;) as a good will hello. Peace, Nableezy (talk) 07:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good will message. I am glad you approve of my editing overall. I hope that our discussions will continue to be contructive, as they have been. Peace.Kinetochore (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

latest edits

Hi Kinetochore, I wanted to discuss the two latest edits with you, this and this. I dont really have much of a problem with the other recent ones, but these two I do have some issues with. For the 'life was paralyzed' I just dont like the wording as it doesnt sound 'encyclopedic'. There should certainly be comment on the effects on the Israelis in southern Israel, but we can do better than the vague 'life was paralyzed', and we can do better than the 'fear and panic were widespread' in the corresponding Gaza section. I think we need to say how life was paralyzed, but that is just really personal preference on prose so if you disagree it isn't too big a deal for me. As regards to 'frequent critic of Israel' we have generally stayed away from categorizing the various people, like we don't say how incredibly biased the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, all we need to do is wikilink to the person or organization in question and let the reader follow if they want more information. Let me know what you think, Nableezy (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that neither description sounds encyclopedic - both provide a sort of abstract summary of the situation. However, sources have used these descriptions in various articles. In any case, if you would like to remove the 'life was paralyzed' effect, since it is not specific enough, I must insist that the 'fear and panic are widespread' effect also be removed, for the same reason. Regarding Finkelstein, I disagree that it would be inappropriate to describe him as a frequent critic of Israel - it is true, and relevant when considering the merit of his main arguments (which are only briefly summarized in the article). Similarly, if we were to quote Alan Dershowitz, he could be described in the article as a staunch supporter of Israel, to inform the readers of his bias. Kinetochore (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think either needs to removed, they both need to be improved. We just need to find better descriptions in the sources. I'll look around see what I can find. Far as the other part, there has been general agreement to keep qualifications on the source, ie calling him pro/anti whatever, just in the article about the person in question. If we do it that way we are better able to keep the battles in the page to a minimum. I see why you disagree, and it truly warms my heart that you are consistent in your reasoning. Id say bring it up on the talk because we have discussed this in the past (not with Finkelstein but with Falk). Consensus can obviously change, so if you have an argument for the qualifier Id say the talk page is the best place to go. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing cause of death

Hi Kino, can I ask why you made this edit to remove the cause of death information? Also your edit summary (If this info remains in the lead, then, for balance, I will add in the details of all the injuries of Israeli soldiers (where/how they were stabbed, what injuries they suffered), almost seems like a threat -- no need for that, if you believe details on the IDF injuries would provide balance please make your case on the article Talk. In the meantime might you self-revert your removal of this content. It seems to me anyway that RS have focused more on the deaths of the passengers than injuries to the commandos. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to make it sound like a threat. I wanted to get across that its inclusion in the lead would necessitate the inclusion of details about the injuries of the opposite side, to prevent violation of WP:NPOV. But, really, none of these details belong in the lead. Regards, Kinetochore (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your level-headed reply. The issue here reminds me of the hypothesis (excuse the hyperbole) of the Enola Gay bombardier sustaining a blister on his finger during the mission, of course Wiki would not present an equal number of pictures of the blister and the devastation to Hiroshima to establish neutrality or balance. In this article, the deaths of the passengers are far more notable than injuries to commandos, do you not agree? I believe encyclopedic information on the deaths certainly belongs in the lead, not in detail, but in a sentence. The dead were shot at close range, that's germane information on how they died. Their deaths are the main reason we have an article on this event. Information on injuries to passengers and commandos can go in the body of the article. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza War

Talk:Gaza War#In the lead: Israel hit X controversial target(s) Care to respond?Cptnono (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

Hello, there is a 1 revert rule in place on all articles in the Arab-Israeli topic area. Please see WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction. nableezy - 00:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only reverted once - is this just a warning not to revert again? If so, thank you.Kinetochore (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I misread the history, you are right, you reverted once. I for some reason read it as twice. nableezy - 01:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]