Hi. Funny actually as I was considering making one of Jerusalem but that was the very reason I didn't because of politics. and might cause disputes. I can create one without boundaries and of specific areas of Jerusalem but as I am unaware of where the political boundaries are I can't really do that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Servers are bad at the moment but I've made one of Old Jerusalem at Template:Location map Old Jerusalem. If they're better tomorrow I'll do one of the whole city.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
See Jaffa Gate. PLease add it to other articles and add more details in the infoboxes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Not sure whether you are Israel or Palestine but I made one for Gaza. See Al Deira Hotel.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh don't worry I will make one of the whole of Jerusalem. The server wouldn't let me this evening but allowed the Gaza one. I'll try again tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. No idea why the server works at times and others it doesn't.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, google maps are copyrighted, that's the best I can do.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The maps though are supposed to show an outline of where in the city is, ignore the Hebrew text..♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll make one of Eastern Jerusalem (northeastern).♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
See Cave of the Ramban. I tried to block out as much Hebrew text as possible. Should be OK for a few landmarks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
In my experience drawing borders on maps ignites edit wars and bickering with disagreements over where the boundaries are. At the end of the day land is land and people are people.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
You have a Paint or photoshop programme on your PC? Feel free to draw a line yourself. I have no idea about politics and am not a position to know where the division is.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not formally logging this, because I'm not imposing this under any sort of discretionary sanction. I'm simply informing you that per your recent edits, if you speak to or refer to JJG outside of the context of a currently outstanding AE request, you will be blocked. The reason for this should be quite clear. If you want to appeal this, please take it straight to AN/ANI and leave me a note on my talk page if you wish. NW (Talk) 05:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
|
What he does elsewhere on the Internet is his business and, given how touchy you are about disclosure of your previous username, I would be very careful not to do anything that might be construed as "outing" by others if I were in your position. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- What you did was disgraceful. You start these huge ANI threads when an editor reveals what country you are editing from but then you go ahead and reveal a person's real life identity because he "published an article." It was a cheap shot that is beyond the pale and I have no clue why in the hell such a problematic editor as yourself is still allowed to edit Wikipedia. Unbelievable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't link to it to "reveal a person's real life identity", but to show what he have said. He had published it at a well known newspaper and several websites and signed it, it didn't seem as something he didn't want to be revealed, if he didnt want it revealed then why did he publish it and sign it with his name? He never said he didn't want it revealed. Now I know and wont link to it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- FYI: WP:OUTING --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- You have crossed all red lines. You've taken this to a new low. You get all bent out of shape when someone mentions your previous account name but you feel its okay to reveal my real life identity? You are so disingenuous. You did this on purpose and given the contentious nature of the subject matter, I am now genuinely concerned. WTF is wrong with you man?!--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- You had published an article about Wikipedia at a major newspaper and signed your name, if you cared about this then why did you do that? You never said that you didn't want it revealed, if you had told me I wouldn't have linked to it, and I wont now. I respect privacy. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- You have zero respect for anyone's privacy but your own. I have a real name and edit anonymously under a wikipedia account. You have somehow been able to link my real name with my username and now your splashing it all over, at least twice. If you don't understand the difference between the real and virtual worlds, then you should be banned by the community. I still cant get over the fact that you're so concerned about anyone revealing your previous account name but you freely reveal my real name and real identity. You've sunk to new lows SD.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- I respect your privacy, your article publication about Wikipedia in a major newspaper with your name led me to believe that it didn't matter for you if I linked to it. Now I know. If you had told me I wouldn't have linked to it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- You respect nothing. If I wanted everyone on wikipedia to know my real name, I would have edited under my real name! Somehow you were able to link my real name with my username and then you went a step further by plastering it on the AE thread as well as HJ Mitchell's page. Your behavior in this affair is repulsive and shows that you'll do anything and everything to save your own skin and rid yourself of what you consider to be an opponent. This outrageous behavior on your part transcends the I-A topic area.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- It was never about your name, but about what you said in the article you published in a newspaper, you somehow wanted me to explain and be sanctioned for something several times, and I wanted to show that it wouldn't be fair to be sanctioned for the same thing over and over, the same thing you shouldn't have to explain and be sanctioned over and over for what you said.
- As I said, since you published an article about Wikipedia in a big newspaper and signed it, I didn't think it mattered for you. Now I know.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- You've been around here long enough that you know the policies concering WP:OUTING and considering that you raised a huge stink about it when someone revealed your previous account name (which wasn't even your real name) you would know that revealing someone's real name and identity on Wikipedia is obscene. You shouldn't just be topic banned, you should be community banned for violating the community's norms.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't know that if someone voluntarily published an article in a big newspaper and signed it with his name, that this wouldn't already be out and open, and that there would be a privacy concern, considering that the person published it in a big newspaper and voluntarily revealed his name. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you daft? You linked an article which someone published under his real life name with his wikipedia id, which is nowhere in that article. This is textbook outing. The shocking thing is that people are wasting time debating if you should be topic banned when behaviour like this should lead to complete ban from wikipedia. Rym torch (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. You should be apologizing profusely and promising it won't happen again, instead of trying to justify why you did it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Have you read my comments above? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- SD. You've done this to me before and I cringed when you did it but hoped that no one would notice so I left it alone. I thought that if I brought more attention to it, more people would know my real identity so I figured it would be best to let the matter go and hopefully it would fall into obscurity. But you've now outed me again for a third time and I wont let the matter go. You are a recidivist offender and I hope the community bans you for your latest outrage. Worst of all you are defending your actions which is baffling to me. WTF is wrong with you?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Something about this is sort of confusing. Bear in mind, I have no idea what article you had written, and I agree it is wrong for SD to link to an article that would have your name. But the question still remains, if you are so outraged about your name being linked to WP account by SD linking to article you had written, why would you disclose your WP name in the first place on the article?
- And people ought to stop telling SD that he can't explain his actions, he said he won't do it again, but every person says has the right to say why he did it. If he is saying it won't happen again in the future, then he obviously couldn't be defending something he has said was wrong, but to try to silence a person from explaining why is frivolous and childish. Personally, I think these are a serious of cheap shops taken at a vulnerable time at SD. But I think we deserve a reason as to why JJG linked his WP account to the article so his outrage can be justified. -asad (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Asad112, to my best understanding, in the article(s) mentioned above the author do not disclose his wikipedia user name. I don't know how SD linked between them, but they definitely did a lot of work to do so, and by posting this information here they have violated almost every single line of WP:OUTING rule. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK, so my understanding that JJG disclosed his name in the article is incorrect? Just trying to understand, even though I guess it is really none of my business. -asad (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
If you do not understand outing by now then you never will. Much like your abuse of multiple accounts. Don't argue with me when you know what the answer is. Other people have responded so keeping it up does nothing but waste server space and people's times. It was not your place to link the editor with the real life person. Multiple editors have tried to say this and you still do not get it. That is why you should banned and I look forward to laughing when it eventually happens. You came so close to being a decent editor with the whole patience during the settlement thing but I now realize you were just biding your time until it as advantageousness to make your point. Good luck on Wikipedia. I hope you get banned again and come back with a beter understanding but if not... well that is just as ell considering your current attitude. Cptnono (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Now this is getting silly. -asad (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
|
JJG has been topic-banned and the consensus seems to be that there is no solid basis for any formal sanction against yourself, so I'm about to close the current AE request against you. You should consider this something like a "last chance"—I don't want to sanction you or anybody else, I'm sure we all have better things to do. I would caution you, though, that if a third party files an AE request against you, with genuine evidence of disruption that postdates this message, you'll be facing a lengthy topic ban. To put it concisely: please make a genuine effort to keep your nose clean and take this opportunity to prove that you can be genuinely beneficial (not just non-detrimental) to the topic area. You can consider this an amnesty on anything you haven't been sanctioned for up to now. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, SD. Sorry to invade your private space, but your input would be welcome here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
