User talk:Shevashalosh/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Shevashalosh. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
A disputed category of "Terror" was added against waht was disscusted on talk page of PM Shamir's Organization
{{helpme}}
(this message is for any admin)
I've found out that in addition to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir being categorized as "Terrorist", the article referring to his organization (Lehi (group))has been categorized under "Category: Jewish terrorism" and "Category:Defunct organizations designated as terrorist", as well as the Disambiguation page of Lehi says:
- Lehi (group), a Jewish/Zionist terrorist group that operated in the British Mandate of Palestine (Also known as the Stern Gang)
I had edited both pages, including other issues, that meanwhile were resolved (on the talk page), but Meanwhile the disputed categories have also been reverted (in both pages by the same person, who categories such disputations on other articles as well) without further explanations.
I moved the discussion to the article's talk page as needed, and just by looking at the talk page of this article, you can see at list 2 discussions (prior to mine), that discussed the issue of categorizing the article under some form of "Terror" – all ending with no one getting to agree on this matter – it remained a disputed issue.
Further, I have opened another disscution on the matter, so I could find out why somebody placed a disputed category of "Terror" despite the fact that no one agrees upon it and no consensus was reached !? (See talk page of the article)
I couldn't get a reasonable explanation and No consensus was reached yet again.
This unilateral step was done (Initially) on:
12:35, 20 May 2008 MeteorMaker ("Organizations designated as terrorist" and "Jewish terrorism" added.)
I'd like to ask you to remove those categories in dispute, until a broader discussion that can produce a consensus will be held."
--Shevashalosh (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Shevashalosh, as the Israeli government at one point seems to have designated Lehi as a terrorist group, it seems to me that there aren't grounds for admin invention. Keep making your case on the Talk page, and maybe you can bring consensus to the way you want to see it. Good luck!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- My complaint was not about this (though they were not the Israeli Gov), but rather that it was he added this despite what was discussed on talk page, when people did not think this way - there for - you need to start from the beginning (on such a disputed matter) - and first revert- only after decide upon it.
- By any case thanks for your response, SarekOfVulcan. I guess what's needed is arbitration; I'll make the case there.
- --Shevashalosh (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- The ArbCom will only decide user conduct issues, not content issues. You'd have been luck running through the rest of the dispute resolution process first. (I know because I've taken a case to ArbCom too early before and gotten rejected.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- --Shevashalosh (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- I will read what you refered me to, yet there is a middle road. Since it was done on one person's belahf and despite what was disscued in previous discusstions, you can change it to category "Rebel Group" Instaed, and he he Insists up on putting something against what people understood from the artilce (as seen in previous discussions) - then let him bring it up in on talk page.
- Putting something (one person's opinion) against what people understood from the article only makes wiki looks not to have a NPOV.
your note
You are absolutely correct about Deir Yassin. Unfortunately, this blood libel is still believed to be true because its widespread in many pro palestinian web-sites. A recent study by Uri Milstein completely refuted the myth once and for all, but certain wikipedians were determined not to highlight this fact. It is a shame and I agree with you. Unfortunately, you will sometimes encounter users who are bent on WP:POV regardless of the rules to enforce antisemitic ideas, but you should be calm and polite and respond with the moderate tools of wikipedia. As for your comments about Lehi, i think it should be resolved in the discussion page, and no changes to the lead should be made until then. [1] Amoruso (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh no. no reason not to be polite. The point is I don't know what's next. So ok, we disscuss and discuss on talk page - what then ? - if he would brought the disputed category to discuss before putting it on, then you could discuss, but because he decided to go against what people understand from the article, even with it's currenet misleading condition, then how can one's mind turn to be a consensus aginst the others?
- People don't seriously think they are considered as a terror group (as reflected in the discussions on talk page), and at the end of the day, this is what matters to wiki's policy, and this is why I belive that at the end of the process, the categories will be removed and the usage of the "t" word, fully spread in the article will be changed to "they operated against the brits" instead (as well as many such sentances).
- what's next?
- Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. The problem IMO is not necessary the categories but the excessive use of the word terrorism, for example in the next paragraph after the lead - that's usually changed to "militant" in other articles. Also what's finally been removed is the out of context suggestion that the Israel government described it as "terrorist". That was removed and is not in consensus. The article is pretty ok in general except that word in the first paragraph after the lead that I didn't even notice. Amoruso (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- You mean the "t" word of course, in the second paragraph of the opening statement ?
- Yes, it was probably entered by a vandal in the past and no one noticed it. Amoruso (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is what got me started in the first place. I was realy wodering why in our first discussion you haven't note it, but I get it now that you didn't see it.
WikiProject Judaism Newsletter
 The WikiProject Judaism Newsletter
| |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||
This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) on 04:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As a result of the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to Israel, Palestine, and related conflicts. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
- Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
- The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
- Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
- Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.
PhilKnight (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Editing concerns
Your conduct here was below the standards of behavior expected. In future, please use talk pages to comment on article content, not on other contributors. PhilKnight (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I was a bit out of line. I should have kept it to my self.
Reply
Sorry fow slow response, sadly time I have to spend here has been very limited lately. Regarding the dispute - my advise would be, when dispute arises, outside opinion is always welcome. If just two parties are involved, you can ask for third opinion (WP:3O). But usually it is not enough so broader involvement in heavily disputed areas is often needed. You can ask for outside involvement not only at Israel portal, but also at these notice boards WP:FTN, WP:RS/N. But remember, before asking for outside help, do Your homework first. Do the research, prepare Your case, always have sources at hand and strictly follow these policies WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:V and everything should be fine. In longer term. In short term even if You're doing everything right very often it's just just not enough. Sadly in some Wiki areas there quite a lot of editors that do not follow the rules, and it takes quite a lot of time and patience to deal with them. If You should have any questions or need help in future feel free to ask me. I do not promise to get involved in content disputes myself, but I'll gladly advise how to deal with problems that Wikipedians have when editing disputed topic. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- ThanX for all advices, I'll write them down, it's in a kind of process right now and being monitered by admin Gwen - so I'll be waiting.
3RR breach
You're in breach of the three-revert rule on Lehi (group). I suggest you undo your last revert.
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's ok, its being monitered by adim Gwen. You have given no explantions now and before to even one of your reverts, despite my posted disscussions - asking for answears to some sense in ilogical sentance.
If you alone have a license from an admin to breach 3RR, I'd like to see it. I reverted you because I don't care for your blanking, and don't agree with your characterisation of that blanking.
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please make your remarks on talk page - as I have waited for some answears - and got none logical axplanation to this illogical sentance. You are waisting your time here and on edit of Lehi - not participating on consensus we try to reach on the matter.
Image without license
Unspecified source for Image:LehiRibbon.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:LehiRibbon.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 22:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
lehi ribbon image file
Seems ok (?) Cheers, Amoruso (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
3rr
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
July 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Irgun. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deir Yassin massacre
Hi, about Deir Yassin massacre, please take your suggestion to the talk page. Thanks. Imad marie (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a fight, but please don't delete Jewish side, this is further violation of NPOV. The Jewish side is absent. --Shevashalosh (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Google finds the phrase "Deir Yassin battle" fewer than 20 places. You can't make up names for articles based on your whim. Also, get consensus for controversial article moves. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Shabazz Blank
Moving an article without consensus is vandalism, please cease doing that to Deir Yassin Massacre thank you. RomaC (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please Read all previous summaries. thank you. --Shevashalosh (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter whether you are the only editor who knows The Truth™. Stop moving and editing the article against consensus. Discuss your proposed changes on the Talk page. — Malik Shabazz (talk • contribs) 02:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
July 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Deir Yassin massacre. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. — Malik Shabazz (talk • contribs) 01:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC
Moving an article without consensus is vandalism, please cease doing that to Deir Yassin Massacre thank you. RomaC (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please Read all previous summaries. thank you. --Shevashalosh (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter whether you are the only editor who knows The Truth™. Stop moving and editing the article against consensus. Discuss your proposed changes on the Talk page. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
no, I'm always blanking it to archive it - and keep it my talk pge clean - is there a problem with it ? caus now it apear twise ? both here and in archive?? --Shevashalosh (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- There shouldn't be any problem. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I mistakenlly blanked the archive as well this time, caus since you posted the a message above it, maby this looked weird to him, i'll try again.
--Shevashalosh (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
July 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Deir Yassin massacre. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Olmert and the peace process
Hi 73, I have removed the new section you just added to Ehud Olmert. It seems to me to be political commentary and it is not sourced. We need to be very careful not to mix interpretation into the description of the events; see WP:NOT#OR. If you can find a source for statements such as "The American administrations plans to work to achieve a final status deal until the end of the year... has been diminished", then perhaps it should go back in, but otherwise this is just speculation.
Otherwise, I like the contributions you've made to the article, keep up the good work! --Zvika (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- help me out here zvika! help me find the sources! this is a very important point, if not the most important one! Peopel want to know what is basiclly the impact on the peace process.
- second, it is obvious by the schedule - september, anew leader and most probebly a new Prime minster - untill at list October there will be a forming of new gov (or at list attempts to do so), then In November - the American presidential elections, marking the end of this current adminstration's term - pretty clear what commentators say all over news papers ! you just need to help me find the sources...
- ThanX in advance! and waiting for your sources, --Shevashalosh (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- here is Ehud Barak comment, just an hour ago [2] - he is obviously not interested in elections right now, due to his aproval rating in the polls - and will join Kadima coalition. --Shevashalosh (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- PA officials: 'Zero' chance of peace deal by year's end (16 hours ago): [3] --Shevashalosh (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Israeli Ynet news paper (yesterday): Arab media: Peace process suspended in light of Olmert's announcement [4] --Shevashalosh (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's continue this discussion on Talk:Ehud Olmert, so that others can participate as well. --Zvika (talk) 05:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
When did Olmert become PM?
See my comments at that article. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- We can't have him assuming office on January 4 (as the Infobox says); as Sharon remained in office until April 14. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- You have a point there. But this is only practicallity, cinse Olmert was also Prime Minister, indeed he was so called "caretaker" prime minister, yet a Prime Minister.
- I'll think about it and consolt with zvika as well, and then give you a proper answer. --Shevashalosh (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've tweaked you edit a little; feel free to tweaked it even further (if necessary). GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- You are doing alraght ;-), - but is it clear now ? --Shevashalosh (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we've got it. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Great! --Shevashalosh (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep; clearer. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- ThanX! --Shevashalosh (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Judaism Newsletter
| |||||||||||
.jpg)
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.
- Newsletter delivery by xenobot 02:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Shevashalosh. That certainly is much clearer & easier to read; thanks. PS- I blame CNN for causing my confusion, as they erroneously referred to Olmert as Deputy Prime Minister before Sharon's ailment. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- that's a common mistake (it is mentioned in Deputy Leader of Israel)
- I'm glad you enjoyed! --Shevashalosh (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not fully certain of how that's done on English Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thanX --Shevashalosh (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Olmert Infobox
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I'm not exactly sure. I have moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel where other editors can comment. -- Nudve (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ok thanX. if you find an answer soon, where this template is located - and to ad "additional parameter title" - get back to me - and I can be very helpfull on this dubject!
- thanX. --Shevashalosh (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Blood Libel at Deir Yassin
Hi,
Thank you for this article. That is an interesting way of introducing Milstein work without too much controversy.
I would just point out it is extremally important you don't mix your own pov or feeling with Milstein's and that you don't push your "words" in his mouth but fit with what he precisely says. Eg, could you please confirm he talks about "genocide" as the way Palestinians picture the Deir Yassin events.
...
Ceedjee (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Shevashalosh,
- I saw you reverted everything as a whole.
- Note I had not deleted the word "genocide". Just asked a ref not provided.
- My lead was more clear than yours and with less spelling and grammatical mistakes.
- Finally it is up to you but you should ask some support to write this article for the structure and the English...
- I had aslo put a link to this article in the article Deir Yassin massacre but somebody deleted this.
- Good luck. Ceedjee (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
See ref of his site, it specificlly states "genocide". --Shevashalosh (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)