User talk:Jalapenos do exist/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jalapenos do exist. 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

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10... 100... 200

Hello, Jalapenos do exist, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Scapler and I would like to thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Introduction

5 The five pillars of Wikipedia

How to edit a page

Help

Tips

How to write a great article

Manual of Style

Fun stuff...

Be Bold

Assume Good faith

Keep cool

Ask an experienced editor to adopt you

Policy on neutral point of view

And here are several pages on things to avoid:

How not to spam

How to avoid copyright infringement

What Wikipedia is not

How not to get blocked, which should be no problem after reading this!

The Three-Revert-Rule and how to avoid breaking it

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) - if you click on the button it will automatically insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Also, please consider joining the the adopt-a-user project, where advanced editors can guide you in your first experiences here. Again, welcome!

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Fix spelling and grammar

More... • Learn how

Fix wikilinks

More... • Learn how

Update with new information

More... • Learn how

Expand short articles

More... • Learn how

Check and add references

More... • Learn how

Fix original research issues

More... • Learn how

Improve lead sections

More... • Learn how

Add an image

More... • Learn how

Translate and clean up

More... • Learn how

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

Click here to reply to this message.

Scapler (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. 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. Jake Wartenberg^Talk 18:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss run-of-the-mill editing issues on the appropriate article's talk page, and not here. Also, please do not revert edits without checking the talk page first. Had you done so in this case, you would have seen that there was a consensus that the relevant content needed to be drastically changed or removed; My edit followed the first option. Further, please read edit summaries, such as the one where I wrote "see talk page". Finally, please do not use terms such as "it appears..." when stating your own personal opinions, as it's just plain annoying. Happy editing. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jalapenos. Very nice article in here. Although I guess you and I are on too far sides of the spectrum, I absolutely respect your visible hard work. Peace, and congrats monsieur. --Darwish07 (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Darwish. I really appreciate that. We've disagreed in the past and will probably disagree in the future, but I've seen your work and I believe that you aim - and are succeeding - to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. I don't know if we're on two far sides of the spectrum, but I do have plenty of biases pulling me in various directions. I try to keep them in check by imagining what a real encyclopedia article would look like and editing with that it mind. I hope it's working. Thanks again, and happy editing. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Saepe Fidelis. An article I wrote pertaining to the Israel-Gaza conflict has been put up for deletion. I think the level of discourse on the deletion page is very low. You're an editor I hold in high regard, and I was wondering if you could give your input. I don't know what you'll think. I can't hide the fact that I hope you'll support keeping it, but if you oppose, at least I'll know that there were good reasons for deleting it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, I am glad to hear that you hold me in high regard. I certainly hold you in high regard as well.

Myself, I don't see the need for this article. It is so specific that a reader would be quite unlikely to come across it. But I don't feel very strongly about it one way or the other.

Best of luck, Saepe Fidelis (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. 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. El on ka 17:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the heads up; I recently stated on the talk page that I would not make any more reverts in the near future. The reverts in question counteracted removals of large sections of sourced material without discussion. I made repeated calls to the removing editor, both in my edit summaries and on the talk page, to discuss his removals on the talk page and seek consensus, but was ignored. I guess other editors of that article will have to take up the job of dealing with such behavior. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. :) And yes, if there's something obvious that needs to be done, other editors will probably help take care of it, especially on such a busy article. If you're concerned that another editor is being too disruptive, you also may wish to follow some of the steps at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Dealing with disruptive editors. A particularly useful option is to leave a direct note on the talkpage of the other editor, where you can express polite concerns and suggestions. Providing diffs is also very important, both to make it clear what you are talking about, and also because it's helpful for administrators to review the "paper trail" of what's been going on. As you've seen, the talkpage of the Gaza conflict article gets a lot of traffic, so sometimes things get lost in the rush. But messages on user talkpages can help cut through the clutter. --El on ka 17:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the info and for your time. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admn_attention_needed

Brunte (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We do not always agree, but if we had five of you on either side of the POVs this article would get to GA in no time. Brunte's wrong here, and your argument is compelling. Period. Well sourced, relevant material should not be removed without discussion, and should not be edit warred about. Do take care of your edits and let others join the fun, it is very hard to IAR 3RR specially due to WP:ARBPIA.--Cerejota (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you! I thought I was going crazy or entering some kind of weird twilight zone-esque shadow reality. Just out of curiosity, which side of the POVs do you think I'm on? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

New edits seem to be going here Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 4 and not showing in the deletion review atWikipedia:Deletion_review. Any ideas ? Also, booby. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It just takes a while to "load" onto the real page. Your comment is already there. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

ah right. heh, penos sounds a bit like...okay, settle down, stop that. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(Mmmph, snigger, snigger, hee hee!) :) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone, I don't know if its you or someone else, has been adding huge chunks which give undue weight to Israel's side of the story.

For example, there was more written about anti-semitic attacks than about the gaza humanitarian crisis. We don't need all the detail about that. So I removed. I am trying to keep the weight in the article correct.

Similarly more should be written about the humanitarian crisis than about Israeli's building bombing shelters, but it was the other way round.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, I was hoping against hope that you would actually read WP:CONSENSUS and see that the two things are not the same, or that you would understand that the way to fix perceived under-representation is by adding quality sourced information and not by removing it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_Honeymane ahhh Wiikkiiwriter, the kind of editor i can only hope to become one day Sean.hoyland - talk 07:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to see some real fun stuff, scroll two sections up on the noticeboard. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

On 01:52, 8 February 2009 you restored deleted material to the article 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. That material included 1 defunct reference "name=AJC/". Could you please tell me the version you took it from, so that I may fix this last reference in a long list of reffixes. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, here's the full reference. ^[1]. Thanks for all your hard work on the International reactions section. I just want to give you a heads up, though, in case you didn't know, that there was an entire article on the issue of antisemitic backlash. The article was deleted improperly after a stalemated deletion discussion, and is now in deletion review; it's looking like the deletion will get overturned, but it's close. In any case, if the article gets restored, I think the section on the subject in the International reactions article will be superfluous, since there's already a summary in the main 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict article. If the article doesn't get restored, much of the material that was in it could be useful for the section you're working on, and I can post it up for you if you want. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That's ok. Thanks a lot! Debresser (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to ask you where you added it from a week before it was deleted and you subsequently restored it. Now I know. That was a lot of searching though, before I understood what went on here. Debresser (talk)

Sorry I couldn't be of help earlier. :) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I already said this, but I appreciate the hard work you are doing at the Gaza Conflict and wonder at your energy & perseverance. You seem to always remain civil as well, which is a trick in itself :) You pay close attention to detail and stay focused. Very bueno! Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I appreciate that very, very much. Since I got complimented by both Darwish and you, does this mean I enjoy bipartisan support? :) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Jalapenos do exist. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

on bringing Antisemitic incidents occuring during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict back from the dead. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Now we need to turn it into a really good article, because it will get AfD'd again. There will of course be people who just don't like it who will want to delete it no matter what, but I'm hoping that next time no reasonable person will consider deleting it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Jalapenos do exist. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. First of all, I'm glad you appreciate my edit :)

Basically, I agree with the criteria. I was trying to choose only incidents that are anti-Jewish rather than anti-Israeli. The sources I cited also consider them antisemitic. Anyway, feel free to edit the section, and if I'll have any objections to your edits, I'll take it to the talk page. Cheers, Nudve (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi jalapenos. While reading Haaretz today, I found this article which might be relevant to your latest editing efforts about Judaism. good luck :-). --Darwish (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! 14:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

hey, jalapenos, i was wondering if you could take care of the linking problem that happened with the rename of the gaza aid article. the main article still links to int'l reactions article/humanitarian aid, which doesn't exist anymore. also, the intl reactions article doesn't link to or summarize the gaza aid page. i'd do it myself, but i'm not good with that kind of thing yet. untwirl(talk) 20:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

hey, me again - it looks like this still needs to be taken care of. since you created the new page i was hoping you could fix the linking and lack of summary problems. thanks in advance. :) untwirl(talk) 02:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

		The Modest Barnstar
		For a great edit on the Netherlands section in Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Naked statements are bad, complete context and information are better. --Cerejota (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Purim!

from Chesdovi

Hello, Jalapenos do exist. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Jalapenos do exist. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

...and this whole series would be brought to quality. When you include material, it is always well-reasoned and relevant, when you exclude it, there is always a coherent reason, when there is needless drama, you STFU even your side. If more editors were like you, I wouldn't even bother with ARBPIA. Of course, if pigs had wings... ;) Just needed to say this. :)--Cerejota (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

*Blush* Your repeated feeding of my insatiable ego, plus my own high esteem for you as an editor, remove any annoyance I might have had from your pigeonholing me as belonging to a side. Let us go forth and prevail, or something to that effect. :) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Onwards then, as Habaneros also exist!--Cerejota (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

*Awkward silence* They don't, but I guess I can't blame you for falling prey to the Conspiracy. Seems everyone has. Sigh. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

to my the two bottom sections of the talk page, as well as my requests for you to clean up the loose ends you left behind while creating the gaza aid page. thanks. untwirl(talk) 16:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

well, i do appreciate your responding, even if it didnt address any of the issues (other than personal ones you have toward me.) first and foremost, i am unaware of any "extremely rude and malicious" remarks i have made toward you in the past, or having written "lies about (you) on several occasions." in my estimation we have disagreed several times in the past - but if you really think i have done either of those things you should point me in their direction with a diff, and i will promptly strike and apologize unreservedly. my saying that you appear to have an inconsistent standard is not a personal attack, or even a lie - i quoted you directly and showed how i thought that standard wasnt being followed. i, for one, appreciate your reasoned and (usually) consistent approach to applying standards for inclusion to that article. however, it seems that your personal distaste for me has clouded your judgment in this instance. if i have misunderstood how you believe those standards should apply i am more than willing to reconsider my statement about your inconsistency. i will refrain from commenting on my opinion of your decidedly antagonistic stance with regards to me, and your favoring of one POV over another. i have tried to ignore your snide comments and focus on issues with editing. i'll take your comments on this matter in good faith, even though you do not grant me the same, and take time to review my own statements to see how i can avoid offending editors such as yourself in the future. hopefully you can accept my lack of malicious intent, even if we disagree on certain issues. as i said, i am willing to take your harsh criticism in stride and bear no grudge toward you for your attack on my character. untwirl(talk) 01:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Was a talentless anti-semite who raped his own daughter. So glad he died alone in poverty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.17.216 (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on the CD article. I will watchlist it, and hopefully get a chance to maybe expand it. I was recently reading with interest about the successful testing of the Iron Dome project. Thanks for doing it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion about his username here. Thanks. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 17:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For your tireless work on Durban Review Conference and various other articles. I award you this shiny barnstar. Your work does not go unappreciated. Thanks for making Wikipedia a better place for everyone! Cheers Kyle1278 22:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Your very welcome!Cheers Kyle1278 22:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I am very puzzled by your removal of the

tag from this article. Three people supported it, two people, including yourself opposed it, and you removed it within hours of its insertion. Is there a reason for this?93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised at your puzzlement. There is a simple reason I removed it, and I expressed it clearly on the talk page. You are welcome to continue the discussion there and explain why you returned it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For working on an article that you felt shouldn't even exist and helping to bring it up, even if temporarily, to encyclopedic standards. Nableezy (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

honestly, the next time around I might vote delete, though I think an idea from Ashley Kennedy might be a good one, an article on negative images in the conflict covering this as well. But you and Gilabrand did a very good job, instead of just letting the article remain the newspaper worthy account that it was you made a good encyclopedic account of the event. Peace and happiness, Nableezy (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC))

Since you were the only one involved aside from NMRNG, can you weigh in? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be on good terms with editors on both sides of the I-P conflict while still being interested in issues related to it. As such, I figured that inviting you to give a look and form an opinion on the Hamastan RfC would not lead to accusations of canvassing *crosses fingers*
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, cynics suck. Unfortunately... No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

take a look at Nableezy's talk page the section titled "Disputed casualties figure" please. Cryptonio (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I did. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice article! --Shuki (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I may try to DYK it, so if you see anything glaring that needs to be improved, please do so. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I just nominated it for DYK. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Very nicely written article.Historicist (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. There's still a lot to do though. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

for making the quip about making them look bad, but I do think you should not have said the opposite to Gato. But apologies, Nableezy (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Jalapenos do exist. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This independent survey is the most relevant information because it's the only reliable document about the election. Be so nice and discuss matters before you act rude. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where I acted rudely. Look, the Iranian presidential election, 2009 article has a whole section comparing surveys. Maybe you had a good reason for singling out this particular survey, putting it in an article that's not about the elections and devoting a whole section to it; but you didn't say what it was. So how about we take it to the talk page? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Why did you just overhaul the entire June 20 section without discussing it? I put a good amount of effort in writing the Neda portion. Also why did you add American responses to the dates? The article is about the Iranian election protests day-by-day. Any american responses, such as Congress passing resolution in support of the Iranian people, or Obama's reaction, should strictly be in the INternational responses section. Next time talk before you erase other people's work! RapidFire50 (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi RapidFire, thanks for your contributions; I'm looking forward to working with you in the future. In case you don't know, your work hasn't been erased: you can easily retrieve it by clicking the "history" tab. I overhauled the section because it was written entirely in the future tense, and discussed things that were "expected" to happen, some of which didn't. It was really just an update, which is why I didn't discuss it. You have a point regarding Obama's reaction, but int'l reactions are a developing process, so I do think major developments should be stated - briefly - in the timeline section. I did remove an extensive quote from an Iranian protester, because I think that kind of stuff will overload the article, especially the timeline section. But I probably should have discussed that removal first. Sorry. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Your indefatigable persuit of impoving Middle East related articles, many of the controversial, has made the website a better place. The Squicks (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

On 22 June, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2009 Iranian election protests, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 16:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, a quick proposal for more strikeouts on the AFD-page (takes some grammar-editing, but it'll be OK): (and a 2nd addition -DePiep (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC))

Delete. This is exactly what WP:NOTNEWS refers to. It is a ~~comically~~ unimportant affair which, for ~~about a week~~ in March 2009, was in ~~some~~ newspaper articles, all of which were based on a single article in Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Since then ~~it has disappeared from serious sources,~~ ~~remaining only in some anti-Israel blogs.~~ ~~All in all, Lindsay Lohan's latest outfit received more media attention than this.~~ The first AfD occurred while the newspaper articles were appearing, so some editors innocently fell victim to recentism, but at this point it's fairly clear what the motivation for keeping the article is. User:Jalapenos do exist12:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[Great reply (DePiep)]:

Oh dear This is why I stay away from I/P articles usually. Though there are probably good arguments to delete, Jalap's saying things like "remaining only in some anti-Israel blogs" and "at this point it's fairly clear what the motivation for keeping the article is" makes me just.. sigh. Oh dear.... Count this "Not really a vote" any way you want. Dendlai

[Now here "Jalapenos do exist" changes: from emotional to rational -- Whatever the motivation, his outcome will be the same (DePiep)]:

~~Even if people like me create a sense of despair in you,~~ you may find that they are reasonable people and that ~~dialogue w~~ith them is possible and even ~~fruitful~~. My statement about where this issue does and does not remain is a verifiable fact. You can check for yourself. As for my opinion on the motivation to keep this article, ~~perhaps my greater involvement in I/P articles (and in this particular article) has made me more cynical than you.~~ User:Jalapenos do exist|Jalapenos do exist

(End of quote) -DePiep (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jalapenos,

Could you take a look at the discussion in Talk:Palestine, etc? Harlan keeps confusing the claims, and misusing sources, but I'm a little short on time to handle this at the moment.

okedem (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Using the term "conquest" makes a judgment that King David actually "conquered" Jerusalem, rather than co-opting its management, as the Jebusite Hypothesis (in this Article) suggests. For that reason, "occupation" is a more neutral word and seems preferable, although perhaps still other words might be better (and if so, please suggest).

The lack of any information (even Biblical) asserting massacre of the inhabitants suggests peaceful occupation (or even making an offer that the management couldn't refuse--such as steak dinners forever for Zadoq/Araunah and his descendants in exchange for nominal substitution of "Yahweh" for "El Elyon" as alternative to massacre). Therefore, I propose to change "conquest" to "occupation" in a week or so if no contrary consensus emerges.

PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This edit is totally unacceptable. You have not participated in any discussion for weeks. The article has been significantly developed over this time and is completely different than what it was when it is nominated for AfD. Palestine is discussed as a state by a sufficient number of reliable sources. More than half of the world recognizes it as a state. We are not going to censor out their opinions on the matter simply because you do not like it. Reverting your action is not disruptive, but deleting/redirecting the article as you have without regard to the facts certainly is. Tiamut^talk 17:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, I explained the edit at length in the talk page, showing why it was procedurally the right thing to do in this situation. Right now you're just repeating what you've already said in the stalemated discussion (and was said in the original AfD). I could now repeat what I already said in the stalemated discussion (and was said in the original AfD) to refute just those claims, but that didn't convince you then and it's not going to convince you now, no matter how blindingly obvious I think it is. Whether the article has been developed is irrelevant, since the original consensus did not depend on the state of the article but on the (in/)appropriateness of having an article on this (non/)topic in the first place. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If you believe your position is self-evident and easily defensible, then you should open another AfD. The article has changed significantly since the last AfD nomination. The result of that was not delete but "redirect". After some discussions at WP:IPCOLL and on the talk page at Proposals for a Palestinian state, there was a rough consensus to reinstate the article. After its reinstatement, it was heavily developed. You have not participated in any discussions regarding the article for weeks. You cannot leave an announcement on the talk page that you are going to redirect, citing an old, outdated, and faulty AfD discussion and expect epople who spent hours of their time developing the article are just going to be fine with that. They are not. You cannot also dismiss the opinions of others who participated in discussions elsewhere following the AfD debate. In other words, you cannot turn back time.

Please stop reverting away the article. It is disruptive. Tiamut^talk 21:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think the AfD discussion was "faulty". If by "faulty" you mean that you disagree with the consensus outcome, then I can't help you, but if you mean that there was a procedural problem, then you can take it to Deletion Review and state your case. I'm genuinely sorry that you spent hours of your time on the article, but it was your choice to spend that time on an article which you knew the community had already decided should not exist, which you knew was reinstated inappropriately and tolerated in the spirit of compromise pending the outcome of a second discussion, and which you knew never received a new consensus to keep. There was never a "rough consensus" in various discussions on other pages to reinstate this article, as I assume you're aware, and as was acknowledged by John when he opened a discussion in the hope of achieving such a consensus. A second AfD is of course not the proper procedure in this situation - any editor would have the ability to unilaterally and unjustifiably overturn it just as John overturned the first - but if you want to open a Request for Comment, I would welcome that. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And Jalapenos, while you are lobbying for the deletion of State of Palestine, you spend your time writing about Jaljalat (who?). I don't think you are applying WP:N in a disinterested fashion in this case. Tiamut^talk 22:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll assume that this is a good faith question, which requires me to assume that you didn't read/didn't understand the opinions of anyone supporting redirect. Nobody is disputing that there is a notable political entity called the Palestinian National Authority in the notable Palestinian Territories of the notable geographic Region of Palestine, that this entity is populated by a notable group called Palestinians, and that there have been notable proposals for a Palestinian state. WP:N has nothing to do with this, and if you're worried that there's a conspiracy to erase the Palestinians, I suggest you look and see whether there was ever a serious attempt to erase those articles, take a deep breath and relax. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There is also a notable political entity known as Palestine, or the State of Palestine. It is represented as an observer in the UN. It send teams to compete in the Olympics. It has diplomatic relations with over 100 countries. Tiamut^talk 23:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The two of you have gotten along pretty well in the past, how about we all just chill for a bit. Jalapenos I understand why you are redirecting it, I disagree obviously, but you do raise issues that need to be properly addressed. But there are also valid reasons why it should not be a redirect and why the previous AfD would not apply to this article. Sooooo, lets all just relax and talk about it for a bit. If we remain deadlocked either way an RfC would be the next logical step (though from experience these RfC's only bring in the partisans, nobody in the wider community wants to get involved in these shitstorms, and for good reason). nableezy - 23:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty relaxed (suprising even for me), and of course I support talking about it, "it" being the procedural issue, since we've already heard everything the others have to say on the substantive question. But let's not forget that you guys are basically edit warring with me. I could have acted like you guys and immediately reverted when John Z reinstated the article to begin with, and I would have had good reason to - it was improper to reinstate first and then have a discussion - but I didn't, and it's frustrating that being the patient one makes me get the short end of the stick (that's what she said, I know). I agree with everything you say about the RfC: it's a crappy system, but it will probably be our best option. As for the possibility of Tiamut and I ever respecting each other again, it's been a lost cause since Lydda Death March. That saddens me, but such is life. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

All right, I will not revert another redirect. I feel that it is improper to redirect it for the reasons I stated on the talk page, but I still like you so I wont go any further with this. And I wouldnt lose hope of Tiamut and you becoming friendly again, the Lydda Death March page was something that a lot of people had issues with, myself included, as it seemed like the last hurrah of a group of editors about to be topic-banned (no I am not including you in the group, you know who I mean: it starts with a NoCal and ends with a Monkey) trying their hardest to push out an excellent contributor. But I am sure we can resolve this amicably, even if that one did not go so well. nableezy - 23:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You tried to revert away an article that others spent hours working on twice today. You are not a victim. You instigated the edit war here, by ignoring the comments made in response to your proposal on the talk page. None of them were supportive of what you did Jalapenos.

Thanks for acknowledging that you don't respect me. It explains a lot about why it is you respond to my posts in the way that you do. Tiamut^talk 23:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont think Jalapenos meant it like that Tiamut. nableezy - 23:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your help in smoothing things over Nableezy, but Jalapenos' behaviour at the talk page and the sectioning off of people's views who don't agree with his, plus Brewcrewer's coming in to accuse you and me tag-teaming, well, I have trouble believing they're not part of that same crew that begins with Nocal and ends with Monkey. Plus, the condescneding tone sounds all too familiar. Tiamut^talk 00:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

dont really want to get into an edit war with you so if you would mind engaging here I am sure we can find language that is acceptable to both of us. nableezy - 18:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Was this deletion of my comment unintentional? I assume it was.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I'm not sure how it happened, but I remember there was an edit conflict when I made that comment, and I guess I screwed something up with the copy-paste thing. Thanks for letting me know, and for the WP:AGF. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I assumed it might have something to do with an edit conflict. I think the whole edit conflict interface is confusing. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention aggravating. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Good day. Do think that discussion of your proposal for this infobox might not be a bad idea before putting it into twelve articles? I understand being bold but these are consensus-first, content-later articles, as evidenced by the many notices to that effect on their Talk pages. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC).

Please be careful to always assume good faith when reviewing edits from other users. Suggesting an edit is vandalism should always be done very reluctantly, particularly where more controversial articles and established users are involved. Vandalism is defined as "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". I find little evidence to suggest that the recent edits had malicious intent. Your opinion that "photo of injured child is emotive" is not a good enough reason to justify the removal of the infobox is simply that, your opinion, not a justification for describing an edit as vandalism or even borderline vandalism. My understanding of the timeline is that RomaC removed the content and then immediately started a discussion about it on the talk page. That hardly seems like the actions of someone intent on damaging Wikipedia. Regards. Adambro (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Adambro. For the record, I did not say that RomaC's edit was vandalism; I said it bordered on vandalism, and I stand by that statement. His action was similar to saying that there's a problem with a paragraph and then erasing the entire section. If he had a legitimate issue with the image, he could have replaced it or removed it. In fact, someone else recently did exactly that, and I did not oppose him, let alone charge him with bordering on vandalism. Despite RomaC's behavior and subsequent sundry accusations toward me, I assumed good faith in deed by making every attempt to discuss the issue with him, a fact that you should be aware of. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly satisfied that I had a good enough picture of the situation to comment. Adambro (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And I thank you again for it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I found your new article Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Gaza Strip) interesting and have nominated it for inclusion in WP: DYK. Thanks ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 08:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I happened to see that. Thank you, and I'm glad you find it interesting. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I see you started that one. Great. I hope u wouldn't mind that I start merging (if anything left to be merged) from Int_law article, in order to delete the redundancy from Int-Law asap. Regards. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be great. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You're late. Some updates: merge is complete; link to Int_law entry and back established (when Gaza War will be reopen, link will be there too); other editors started editing it actively. I don't know what are your obligations in real life (me myself is extremely busy), but I'd like you participate there actively. C u there (hopefully). --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 00:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

not sure you can just delete an article written by the newspaper journalist...--Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about the blog by the anonymous Economist journalist, of course I can. The blog is not at all notable. Additionally, it was included in such a way as to mislead the reader into thinking it had equal weight to the actual editorial stance of the publication. It looks like whoever did this was being intellectually dishonest. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

this is not 'the blog' like EOZ or something. it is the newspaper. journalist that works at the newspaper publishes his opinion in the newspaper. this is not the same as with blog. i somewhat agree that giving this piece equal weight is dishonest - it is like giving an article from Gideon Levy the same weight as editorial from Haaretz (both are lunatic) but not to the same extent), but still. Btw, speaking of Levy, turns out that the latest drop in the rank of the freedom of press is based heavily on him - what an irony. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean Israel's drop? What's the source? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

כך דירגנו את ישראל. tell me if you need English translation, i have it in my email. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You said in the RfC that you felt that the sourcing was not adequate to include "gaza massacre" in the lead and bolded. Do you think that this source which says Known in the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre, Operation Cast Lead left more than 1 000 Palestinians dead earlier this year. in The Sunday Times (South Africa) is sufficient? (Dont let the sidebar fool you, they put that opinion/blog sidebar on every article) nableezy - 22:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice that what the article itself calls the conflict is "Operation Cast Lead"? Sorry, dude, this one unremarkable article out of zillions isn't going to convince me to rename the Wiki article "Operation Cast Lead" and it's not going to convince me to put anything in bold in the lede. But if "Gaza Massacre" is really the primary proper name for the conflict in the Arab world by now, it shouldn't be hard to convince me of that. It's a common sense matter of looking through Arab media and googling. And if that's the case, the ST article will be a good thing to have on your side if someone tries to knock down your real evidence with some bullshit argument of OR. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. But consistency applies to so much more than standards, it applies to arguments. The biggest problem I see is that users (and I am not intending this to be directed at you, we have not had any real problems that I am aware of) use completely inconsistent arguments. The way I see it, if arguments were consistent among individual users you can get something approaching a NPOV article, which as it stands is nearly non-existent in this area. People wont make bullshit arguments against one side if they are made to apply that same argument to the other side. I showed how a certain user did exactly that in the same section of a talk page, not even a different article much less a different section, but the very same section making the exact opposite argument. The response: otherstuffexists. Regarding your request that I not summarily delete sections, I cant promise that. If I see something that I think is, no offense, bullshit I am going to delete it. But I'll only do it once, no longer the edit-warrior am I, but I still will make the initial edit if I think it should be made. Anyway, saw that addition to your user page and just wanted to add my bit. Peace and happiness, nableezy - 00:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. BTW, it was the interlocution with you that inspired me to formalize that rule, so thanks for that. I may change the rule to reflect your comment. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope I have not made disparate arguments about what to include. I put NGO Monitor and CAMERA on a lower level than AI and HRW and other groups. I personally think that they (AI and HRW) are reliable sources that can be used on their own, but NGO Monitor and CAMERA specifically are not and should only be used when cited by a secondary source, and if you want me to say why I say that I will. nableezy - 01:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think there was any problem in your position. I meant that talking to you made me think more seriously about my position. I agree that NGO Monitor and CAMERA shouldn't be used on their own (except maybe NGO Monitor in an exceptional situation where there's no room for interpretation and for some reason there is no better source available). I don't think that AI and HRW are reliable sources (I could explain why if anyone is interested), but I still use them when there's no room for interpretation and there's no other available source. I may be in the minority on that, but I think that even people who consider them reliable sources should accept that they're a primary reliable source, and partisan regarding the issues they deal with (not that they necessarily favor one country over another, but they are biased in favor of finding human rights abuses). It doesn't really matter so much, since they are obviously notable POVs, so just saying "HRW says X" avoids the problems. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Me for example try to adhere to exactly the same policy regarding NGOs whenever possible. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are real organisations researching the things they publish about. Some of these others (eg UN Watch) look like pressure groups having no function other than to create noise.

In the meantime, this revert is a serious distortion. The fact that Mary Robinson spoke out against the original UN motion to set up the Goldstone Report has been used to seriously distort her position - something she'd already protested about when her name was further taken in vain. I don't know how you came to make that edit, but it smacks of vandalism and I suggest you reverse it. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The version that I restored makes it clear that she objected to her condemnation of the mandate being taken too far, and that she expressed trust in Goldstone personally. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Would u be so kind as to provide your reasoning behind . It's being discussed on the talk page here? I actually, think it's alright for now, since it's much too early to decide what is or is not encyclpedic and what belongs or doesn't belong in the lede. But in order to keep your contribution in the lede at this stage, I think it would be best if u participated in the talk page discussion.--Firefly322 (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

you please move your comment from the Articles for deletion page? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No. That you appear to be operating a sock puppet on the AfD page is relevant to the discussion there. If you wish to defend yourself, the place to do so is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Supreme Deliciousness, though it looks like a pretty clear-cut case. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You can not go around on every single page and post that. I have no connection to Ani Medjool and for you to go around on all the pages posting it people might vote differently thanks to this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record; do you have a previous user-name on WP? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 10:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If this is about that guy you think is a sock, the place to raise such concerns is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. If at any point you allege that he is my sock, please notify me. Thanks, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Per Brewcrewer's suggestion, and to avoid the continuation of a slow motion long-term edit war over the notablity tag (of all things), I have nominated your article for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Gaza Strip). Tiamut^talk 13:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for you efforts to develop the page United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. Unfortunately I can't agree that all your recent edits have been done in good faith. For example, repeatedly removing the term "respected" from the lead appears to be disruptive. The term is well sourced (I've provided ~18 sources on the talk page), whereas WP:peacock applies to unsourced language: "unsourced or unexplained". Please consider this a friendly warning pursuant to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions. --Dailycare (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Was wondering if you would change your mind about this. There is not an overwhelming consensus in the sources or in the article plus talk page about "Israeli military victory." A) There are plenty of sources cited on the talk page that do not say simply "Israeli victory" and say "stalemate" or "draw" or something more complicated. No one denies the amazing Israeli military achievements. B) Many of the given ones do not actually say "Israeli victory" - they have variants of the standard, nuanced view, emphasize how the war was viewed much more negatively and soberly in Israel than among cheerleaders in the West, etc. It is easy to pile up citations if one cherrypicks quotes out of context c) My preferred option is to return to the status quo ante of many years: say nothing. It isn't normal practice to put a string of ten cites after blank space :), so the sources and arguments are in talk. Regards,John Z (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I've just stumbled across your user page, and I very much like your principle: "To the extent possible, write things the way they would be written in a real encyclopedia (Britannica, etc.)." I think I very much followed this appraoch intuitively. But OTOH, people have observed that Britannica sometimes takes NPOV coupled with political correctness too far. One friend remarked that you can read a Britannica article about Hitler and not find that he was a bad man. I think recently I observed you changing the 'militant group' to 'terrorist group' on a Wikipedia page. I think Britannica would say 'militant group'. What do you think? Cheers. BorisG (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Boris, that's an interesting comment. Actually, Britannica is pretty straightforward about calling groups or activities "terrorist" when that is what they are. See for example its article on terrorism, where it mentions quite a few groups by name. It doesn't have an article on the Popular Resistance Committees, but in its articles on similar groups such as Hamas, Fatah and the Palestine Liberation Organization, it notes that they have engaged in terrorism. Incidentally, in my edit I merely turned "militant group" back to "terrorist group"; the latter is the term used in the cited source (The Jerusalem Post), but a redlink user changed it, perhaps out of a misguided understanding of WP:TERRORIST. I basically agree with your reservation regarding Britannica and political correctness, but the difference between us is probably that I have lower expectations. I don't believe that Wikipedia can solve or avoid the problems that exist in mainstream academia, so I would be content if it had only those problems. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I agree the point I was making was relatively minor. There are far bigger problems given the average quality of articles on Wikipedia.BorisG (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

When you get a chance would you be able to put a note on the talk page explaining your edits ? It's not that I disgree with them. I haven't even really looked in detail. It's just that the article has been a slow burn edit war with a generous dose of SPA sockpuppets thrown in for good measure for months. It never seems to get past the R stage of the BRD cycle and your presence on the talk page might help given that you tend to use coherent arguments. It's the only article where I've given up on someone and concluded that the only option left to stop the tendentious editing was to get an editor blocked by filing sockpuppet investigation requests... I'm not convinced that they really went away but nevertheless something needs to be done to encourage people to use the D in BRD. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I left a comment for the anonymous editor on the talk page, and I'll see what I can do. But if this is the same kind of situation as it was before, that could lead to a dead end again. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from UN Watch. When removing text, please discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

Also, Wikipedia has a policy on reliable sources which you may find in detail here. Sources such as Digg and EuropeNews do not meet the reliable source threshhold, and may not be suitable for inclusion in the article. Information which is include in Wikipedia must be verifiable in reliable third-party sources. There has been more discussion about UN Watch and reliable sources here and |here.

Please be sure to refer to UN Watch's talk page for informational purposes and to discuss edits to the article.

Thanks, --71.156.85.18 (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh? See the article's talk page. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the article in question has been subject to a number of socks recently. There's a note on talk I was hoping you could answer though here. Thanks, --71.156.85.18 (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jalapenos do exist, thanks for creating some order over at Mahmoud al-Mabhouh! Much appreciated. Joshdboz (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't exactly create order, just added some material, but I'm glad you liked it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in Haiti, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in Haiti. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Pontificalibus (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure and ensure content is attributed correctly when you create new pages with content copied directly from exisiting articles. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Saw it. Those guidelines refer to the process of splitting an article, which is not what I did. The Haiti conspiracy theories article indeed needs splitting, but my article is almost entirely new, and the few paragraphs based on the conspiracies article are not at all "directly copied", though the citations are. In any case, if others think it beneficial, I believe there's a talk page template for this kind of situation, saying something like "part of this article was taken from x". I wouldn't object to using it. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I see you've asked for the deletion of the article you created and I can definitely understand your dismay about some of the motives for keeping the article. But while you were writing that request, I was giving my two cents on the whole thing which I invite you to read. I would actually encourage you to write a thorough article on the history of these rumours but in a context wider than simply Haiti. It would be a thankless task and a guaranteed source of headaches and wrestling with people all too happy to take these accusations seriously. Best, Pichpich (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. I'm also convinced by your argument that the true context of this theory is other Israeli and Jewish organ theft conspiracy theories, not other Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

is a reliable source. In fact, this very source in this very article was discussed at the RSN with nearly every uninvolved editor agreeing that it can be used as a source. Could you please restore what you removed from them? nableezy - 17:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Al-Ahram isn't a reliable source, and most of the uninvolved editors in that discussion who expressed a view on its overall reliability said that it isn't a reliable source. There was an opinion that it can be used for things that involve no judgment, such as quotes from interviewees. I might accept that view - I would have to check - but it doesn't apply to this case anyway. If what Jonathan Cook wrote there is true, it shouldn't be hard to find it in a real source. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What about WP:RS#News organizations is not met by al-Ahram? And I dont see where you get that people said it is not a reliable source. But we can go back there if you want. nableezy - 21:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS#News organizations doesn't provide criteria for deciding whether a news organization is reliable, so there's nothing about it that's "not met" by any news organization. I don't see where you get that people said it is a reliable source. I count one uninvolved editor (the last one) who said that it is, and several uninvolved editors who said that it isn't. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Since each of us sees different things, would you like to open another discussion? But which several? I count Blueboar saying it can be used if attributed, Dlabtot saying it is fine, Squidfryerchef saying it is fine, Jonund that it is fine in this context, and LK saying it is fine (not counting the names we know are "involved"), and on the other side L0bot saying there should be better sources. Who else that could be called "uninvolved" said something either way? And also, if you could say why you think it is unreliable. It is a mainstream news organization, they are all reliable as far as WP goes. nableezy - 21:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Assuming there aren't other existing discussions on Al-Ahram, I think opening a new one would be good. Especially since this in this one, it's clear that nobody from either side bothered to check whether it actually has a reputation for fact-checking and reliability.
Here's how I see the existing discussion.

user:Tiamut: involved; reliable.
user:L0b0t: uninvolved; unreliable.
user:brewcrewer: involved; unreliable.
user:86.157.70.95: involved; no opinion (but the article should get more benefit of the doubt).
user:Blueboar: uninvolved; reliable for its own opinion/ generally reliable (but problematic).
user:Nudve: involved; may not be reliable (but is a notable POV).
user:Nableezy: involved; reliable.
user:No More Mr Nice Guy: involved; unreliable.
User:Squidfryerchef: uninvolved; reliable for own opinions and interviews
user:Jonund: uninvolved; no opinion (but can be used for this info).
user:LK: uninvolved; reliable (though biased).

I originally misunderstood Blueboar's position, and I'm still not sure I understand it, since there seems to be tension between his different posts. I don't see Dlabtot saying that it's reliable, though he agreed with your comments regarding western media. It seems pretty clear to me that L0b0t is saying it shouldn't be used.
The reason Al-Ahram isn't a reliable source is because it often publishes things that aren't true. Here it says that "what the Jews want" can be determined by reading The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and the goal of the Freemasons is "to destroy the world and build it anew according to the Zionist policy". Here it says that a find of ancient coins disproves the mainstream scientific theory about the origin of coinage, when in fact what was found were scarabs and not coins. And here it endorses the view that the American "occupation force" in Iraq carried out various suicide bombings there. The fact that Al-Ahram is controlled by the government of a country without press freedom is also relevant, but mainly in terms of where the burden of proof lies.
I don't have a big problem with having Cook's claims in the article, as long as it's clear who's making the claims and where. (I think it's seriously WP:UNDUE, but that should be the biggest problem in all articles. I certainly don't doubt that if Al-Ahram publishes an article by Jonathan Cook, it is actually an article by Jonathan Cook.) This also seems to be what most of the uninvolved participants in the discussion had in mind. In any case, there's absolutely no reason to put it in the lead. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between publishing an opinion column and reporting that thing as true. On the first one Al-Ahram itself did not report that quote is true, it published a column that said that. I have no idea about the second one, and the third one is again an editorial. And, by the way, there is no dispute that America and the "coalition" forces are occupying Iraq. And I dont have much of an opinion about including it in the lead, but your edit summary was just about the reliability of the source, thats why I came to annoy you. nableezy - 23:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The first and third examples are opinion columns in which the writers make statements of fact that are false. A reliable publication would not print such things. Incidentally, the Cook article is also an opinion column, and if you acted consistently with my examples the way you're acting with Cook, you'd be asking me to return a sentence in the lead of the Freemasons article stating: The ultimate goal of the 'Free Masons' is to destroy the world and to build it anew according to the Zionist policy so that the Jews can control the world.[1] The second example is an embarrassment in which they take someone who obviously has no idea what he's talking about and print everything he says as fact. Imagine if this were used as a source for the articles Coin or Joseph. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I dont think Cook's column is an opinion column. nableezy - 00:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll say you annoyed me. Do you realize how much time it takes me to write smug responses to your questions? I was going to return the Cook claims to a non-lead part of the article, but I see that they're already there. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It is what I do best, nableezy - 03:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And Cook's article not an opinion column? It's written in the first person for chrissake. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You right, I missed that it is in the opinion section. In that case this particular source is only reliable for what Cook reports, not the actual information. But I still say you are wrong on news reports from al-Ahram. nableezy - 03:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just thinking about the article... while I still don't think it should have its own article, I think that it might have some value still. However, the only article I think it should exist in is the Aftonbladet–Israel controversy article as a section, as the rumour would not exist without the former (and I think the conspiracy theory article shouldn't exist either). What d'you say? Sceptre ^(talk) 21:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind me jumping in, I strongly support any attempt to do this right and I'm willing to help within my limited means and I'm happy to see that content being handled and maintained by competent and responsible editors. I'm not entirely sure that the best option is a section in the Aftonbladet article. Though I advocated for this solution earlier, it might not be ideal. First of all, the article is already fairly long. Moreover, one has to acknowledge the fact that these rumours are starting to get a life of their own, in part because of Yehuda Hiss's admission of malpractice. So the discussion might end up being slightly tangential in the Aftonbladet article. Just my 2 cents. Pichpich (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

We could reduce the size of the article vastly by cutting down the Jenny Tonge part. It really isn't as notable as you think; as a registered Lib Dem, even I hadn't heard of it until reading about it. All we need to say is that Tonge picked up on the rumour, talked about it in the Lords, and Clegg fired her from her post when he heard what he said. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sceptre, if you're a registered Lib Dem, you can't possibly be making sense. But seriously, I think the solution is to have an article on Jewish and Israeli organ theft conspiracy theories, with a section on Haiti, a summarized section on Aftonbladet, and sections on Iraq, Algeria, Croatia and so on. There are a million of 'em, and the only thing special about the Aftonbladet one is that it appeared in a western publication. I will try to do this at user:jalapenos do exist/sandbox/organ, and you're both very welcome to help. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

See, right off the bat I'd be opposed to such an article because, as we've seen, it opens up the woodwork for anti-Semitic editors. We need to deal with the rumours in a tempered fashion. So, the question is: did the organ theft rumours start before, or after Aftonbladet? Also, I think registered Labour voters are deluded; they're either self-serving fascists or deluded into thinking Labour is still a socialist party. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Way before, and there isn't even a clear line between classic blood libels against Jews and this phenomenon. Of course they got a boost from Aftonbladet. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... reading the Aftonbladet article, I can see that there was one case of organ harvesting, which could give credence to a Israel and organ harvesting article... I just don't want it to turn out like United States and state terrorism, or Israel and the apartheid analogy (the latter which has been dogged with POV problems since inception and only recently has been improved). Basically, the article would begin with:

The state of Israel has been accused of illegal organ harvesting several times in its history, in particular in the occupied territories^[cite] and during humanitarian missions to areas such as Iraq,^[cite] Haiti,^[cite] Algeria,^[cite] Turkey,^[cite] etc. Apart from one known instance during the late-1980s, the accusations have not been supported by evidence and are considered analogous to the historical theory of blood libel.

And then we have sections about Aftonbladet and possibly Haiti (as, truth be told, from the perspective of this article, Tonge's dismissal is notable). What do you think? Sceptre ^(talk) 08:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There was actually more than one instance where Israeli pathologists took organs from dead people without the family's permission -- see the Hiss interview and Israeli response in the article -- but the phenomenon of false claims of Israeli organ harvesting is older than any of these cases, and is a separate issue. As for your suggested lead, I have issues with a few of the details, but I agree with the overall approach. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the lead is malleable. We can add in older examples of the accusations, and we can make corrections as it goes along. The main thing is to emphasise that, apart from the times this actually happened (e.g. Hiss), it's analogous to blood libel; we should have plenty of sources for that. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

don't come in with your edit warring(ultimately inviting Brew and the Crew in to report people)...there is something called Google, the world can sourced the hell out of the underworld, we can source the holy freaking grail for all we give care, open your mouth and type, AGAIN, ever heard of GOOGLE? Cryptonio (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Tapuah junction stabbing, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapuah junction stabbing. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jmundo (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop using deceiving edit summaries to circumvent discussion on the talk page. Your edit warring and lack of discussion is disappointing. --Jmundo (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jalapenos do exist. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of List of rocket, mortar and other attacks by Israel in 2008, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Contains some content; recommend WP:PROD instead. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Marokwitz#IslamicJihadRockets.jpg. That's why the photo is so good. It's AP. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Jalapenos, you're doing a great job on that article. Just wanted to alert you (I'm sorry if you know this and it's condescending) that google hosted news, which you just cited in the article, only temporarily hosts article -- meaning that in a week or two that url will become a broken link.

Also, if you're trying to keep the most up to date statistics on rockets and mortars, I would subscribe to the weekly e-mails of the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, which provides comprehensive stats on the number of mortars and rockets launched each week. You can subscribe here: . Hope this helps and I wasn't being too presumptuous. Cheers. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that, and even if I did, you wouldn't be being condescending or presumptuous at all. Do you know what I can do to cite the articles without the links becoming broken? Thanks for the helpful info and for the compliment. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yea, no problem, my pleasure. For Google hosted news article, the article will be posted somewhere else on the web so I would just do a web search for the title of the article and you should find it somewhere else. I'm not sure if Google hosted news is still keeping the links temporary, but I have seen it as a comment complaint on certain Wikipedia forum. Glad to help. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I started compiling a list of sources to figure out a timeline with the intent of getting to work after stepping out side for a smoke. I came back and you had already started the work. Nice job. A few sources that I found interesting are on my user page (Sources to follow up on->FGM). Assume you have seen some poking around yourself but thought I would throw it out there for you.Cptnono (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll keep an eye on your user page. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Too late. It is already spiraling into garbage. The reactions list looks nice though.Cptnono (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. With this removal and no reason (Lihaas (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas, WP:DTTR. I support the edit and made the same edit. The lead should be kept free of contentious material until things calm down. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Just as jalapenos do, in fact exist, so do edit summaries, at least they can exist. I don't know if an Anti-Edit Summary Conspiracy exists, though I have susicicions (No article on Wikipedia? Hmm?) Help overthrow the conspiracy by providing edit summaries for your edits.
Viva la Revolution!, Edit Summaries Forever! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this, to avoid edit warring as you have completely ignored me until now, this is a polite request to actually read my edit summaries and this section before restoring inappropriate information to the article. Ale_Jrb ^talk 15:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You apparently missed the relevant section of the LA Times article. I responded to you on the talk page. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Please slow down and read what you are reverting. The info on repercussionary violence was not removed but was moved to the end of the para. The details are also wrong. The Turkish protesters tried to storm (not "strom") the Israeli consulate in Istanbul, not the embassy (there isn't one there). A little more care in your editing would be helpful. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The info on the violent Palestinian demonstration was in fact removed several times. I'm not sure if it was by you, but you are the most active editor on this article by far, so you should at least be aware of it. Incidentally, I'm not sure this level of activity is wise, considering you were admonished for Israel/Arab-related activity and then desysopped, and considering that this article is presumably under ARBPIA sanctions, but it's your choice. In any case, your comment on spelling is well taken. Thanks, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I can smell the making of an Antisemitic incidents occuring during Gaza flotilla incident in your classic series ;-). And of course, there would be a "democratic vote" whether to keep such an article whereby a surprisingly high number of people would vote Strong speedy keep Zencv^Whisper 22:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Please leave me alone. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jalapenos do exist,

I wanted to give you a formal warning and notice about the 1 Revert Rule (1RR) (see arbcom case) in place on Gaza flotilla raid. There have been a couple occasions where you have arguably broken the normal 3RR by reverting others edits multiple times in the 24 hour period. I know that you obviously have feelings about the issue and that there are others on the other side who do as well and both sides have not been perfect on this or other articles but we need to try and work together to make a good and neutral article. Generally this is best done by removing obviously bias and unsourced information but must be done carefully, especially when you have your own personal feelings. We need to try to make sure we do so without inserting our own bias into the article or making it worse by actively fighting with other editors about the content. I encourage you take part in conversations on the talk page more (for example the discussion on whether to include the intent of a couple activists to be martyrs) If you feel that something is being removed that shouldn't (ESPECIALLY if you have already restored the material one) I highly recommend that you bring it to the talk page and come to a consensus there before restoring it again. In that way you will either have someone else restore it because they agree or you will come to a consensus on whether it should be included or not and you won't have nearly as many issues with the 1RR. Obviously please let me know if you have other questions and I hope to see you continuing to edit the article. James (T C) 01:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi James, thanks for the notice. I've worked on quite a few Middle East related articles together with a wide range of people. I'm aware of Wikipedia practices and policies, and I always attempt to abide by them. I am participating in this article's discussions. As far as I know, I have not violated either the normal 3RR rule or the special 1RR rule. If, in the future, you feel that any specific thing that I do is inconsistent with any of Wikipedia's rules or customs, or either of my own self-imposed objectivity standards (described on my user page), please let me know. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Jalapenos, you just made a massive edit to the Gaza_flotilla_raid article without discussing anything in the talk pages. Please refrain from doing this. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Please revert the re-insertion of your changes to the lead as per Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Undoing_changes_in_the_lead_unless_discussed_first Zuchinni one (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In the talk page section you link to, I explain the reasons that the changes are necessary, including fact that new information is coming out quickly. You seem to ignore me and appeal to an imaginary consensus. Instead of arguing, why don't you just read the latest news? Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Be careful while I'm not here. Take care of yourself, and don't bring trouble to good ol' Zucchini. Salute. --IANVS (talk | cont) 02:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jalepenos,

It is well established that there were many journalists onboard, although I also don't understand the use of 'primarily'. But you should reinsert the journalists as passengers. Cheers, Zuchinni one (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your message about "false premises", I say again: this is how the article looked at the time I nominated it. I would appreciate it if you amend your message and not accuse me of lying in AfD. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I didn't accuse you of lying, nor do I think that you are lying. But I see your point that "false premises" could be interpreted the wrong way, so I'll change the comment. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you let me know when you've finished editing the lead on Gaza flotilla raid, so that I can restore some sort of NPOV on it afterwards? Cheers, Physchim62 (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Specifically:

In this edit, you need to rewrite the entire sentence to make it clear what the IHH denies; probably better to scrub the sentence, as it is WP:UNDUE for the lead;
for this edit, you need to state that the activists/passengers and also journalists aboard claim that there were two people dead before any IDF soldier was on deck.

Cheers, Physchim62 (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My edits were mainly updates following new developments, so I don't see why NPOV would be a concern here, but if you have any specific issues you can raise them on the talk page. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your statements regarding the two examples are incomprehensible. I suggest you read the edited texts again. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

JDE you made 15 controversial edits to the article in a couple of hours, without once appearing on the Talk page. So your advice that other editors discuss issues there does not seem consistent with your own behavior. RomaC (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose every Wikipedia edit is controversial in someone's view, but these edits were straightforwardly based on the idea of having accurate and timely information, so I don't see an inconsistency or an impropriety. Declaring ones intention of mass-reverting edits, before they have been made, based on the identity of the editor, is, I believe, a different matter. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --386-DX (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Say, Jalapenos, do you think someone making 3 reports to AN/I within 36 hours (two of which have been closed with no action so far) could be said to be displaying WP:BATTLE mentality since he seems to be ignoring similar editing patterns by people who he agrees with politically? Nah, I must be imagining things. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Error: The code letters for the affected topic area in this contentious topics alert are not declared. topic= is missing; please check the documentation and try again.

More information Use, Area of conflict ...

Use	Area of conflict	Decision linked to	Topic specific subpage
`a-a`	Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts	Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Armenia-Azerbaijan
`aa2`	Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts	Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Armenia-Azerbaijan
`a-i`	the Arab–Israeli conflict	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict
`ab`	abortion	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Abortion
`acu`	complementary and alternative medicine	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Complementary and Alternative Medicine
`ap`	post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/American politics
`tpm`	post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/American politics
`at`	the English Wikipedia article titles policy and Manual of Style	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Manual of Style and article titles
`mos`	the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Manual of Style and article titles
`b`	the Balkans or Eastern Europe	Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe
`e-e`	the Balkans or Eastern Europe	Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe
`blp`	articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles	Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons
`cam`	complementary and alternative medicine	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Complementary and Alternative Medicine
`cc`	climate change	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Climate change
`cid`	discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Infoboxes
`covid`	COVID-19, broadly construed	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/COVID-19
`fg`	Falun Gong	Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Falun Gong
`gc`	governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Gun control
`gg`	gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Gender and sexuality
`ggtf`	gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Gender and sexuality
`gap`	gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Gender and sexuality
`gas`	gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Gender and sexuality
`pa`	gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Gender and sexuality
`gmo`	genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Genetically modified organisms
`horn`	the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes)	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Horn of Africa
`ipa`	India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan	Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
`irp`	post-1978 Iranian politics	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Iranian politics
`iranpol`	post-1978 Iranian politics	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Iranian politics
`kurd`	the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Kurds and Kurdistan
`ps`	pseudoscience and fringe science	Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Pseudoscience and fringe science
`r-i`	the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Race and intelligence
`rne`	the results of any national or sub-national election	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Historical elections
`sl`	Sri Lanka	Special:Permalink/1219893542#Sri_Lanka_motion	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Sri Lanka
`tt`	the Troubles	Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/The Troubles
`ya`	Yasuke	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Yasuke

Close

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated List of Palestinian animal bomb attacks, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian animal bomb attacks. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated List of Palestinian ax attacks on Israelis, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian ax attacks on Israelis. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jmundo (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Time permitting, the second could be made into a DKY. I am beginning to view these AFD's as a form of harassment, nominations designed to make good editors wast time defending notable articles.AMuseo (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that many notable incidents of terrorism that took place in the 20th century, before Wikipedia, could use articles.AMuseo (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletions

I believe that the closing administrator's decision to simultaneously close three Israel-related articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting was incorrect. I am writing to you because I recall, correct me if this is a false memory) that you created one of these articles and edited the other two.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting there are ongoing peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The incident that you deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting is having a material impact on these talks, in particular, because pressure from settlers in the West Bank has caused the government of Israel to lift the ban on construction in West Bank settlements , , but also it is widely understood that Hamas launched the attacks in a deliberate effort to derail the peace talks , . there are dozens more article like these. Citing an incident with this kind of impact as a news story of merely temporary interest is incorrect.

The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting also continues to be in the news. , and, significantly, to be cited as an obstacle (or s a reason for obstructing) the peace process. As above, I can cite many recent article similar to these.

My objection to your deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba is that the title under which the article was deleted was, if I recall correctly, a move from a previous title that, like the article, treated the August rocket attacks as the most recent in a series of rocket attacks that jointly target (and cause destruction in) Aquaba, Jordan, and Eilat, Israel. This is not a trivail topic and, unfortunately, not a transient topic as there have been a seris of such attacks in recent years.

Single terror attacks, even failed ones, in Europe and the United States are routinely deemed worthy of Wikipedia articles. You bring WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to bear. I would argue, rather, that many articles on single incidents over many years have created a defacto Wikipedia standard whereby single incidents of terrorism, even failed terror attacks and incidents, merit articles. 2004 financial buildings plot, Wood Green ricin plot, Columbus Shopping Mall Bombing Plot, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack, 2005 Los Angeles bomb plot, Qantas Flight 1737, 2010 Ottawa terrorism plot. There are many more Wikipedia articles on individual incidents in which no one was killed, and about terrorism plots which were never were carried out. Wikipedia standards ought to be consistent. Rather than selectively delete terror incidents in Israel, I argue that we ought to accept articles about incidents of terrorism worldwide. How, after all, can we possibly argue that the 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt is WP notable, while the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting, and the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting are not?AMuseo (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

These three deletions are now being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 13.AMuseo (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The list that was deleted can be found here where hopefully we can rectify the deficiencies that resulted in its deletion.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, cool. Do you have any thoughts on how to do that? I think that the article is essentially an organizational list (you can see my response to Torchwood Who's good point on the AfD), and that its usefulness as such would be appreciated more if some more of the listed incidents got their own articles written. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. None of the incidents contained in this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_costly_or_deadly_hailstorms have an article about it, yet we do have a list. - BorisG (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but more articles would clearly help. Also, you gotta archive your talk page, it takes me two days to open it.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

How do I do that? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Help:Archiving a talk page.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Much better. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. Terrible story, but nice editing. I just saw the story about the arson. Flabbergasted. Sadly, I was not surprised, merely horrified. It is certainly time for an article on the Islamization of Gaza. Since you're following the Water Park Story, you may find material that you could add to Islamization of Gaza. I'll be back, but probably not editing much more today.AMuseo (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually planned to write the article when I read the news today, but then I saw that you already had. The article you refer to definitely needs to be written, though I think a title like Islamic coercion in the Gaza Strip might be better and avoid possible NPOV issues. If you haven't already seen it, I wrote an article on the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Gaza Strip), which has relevant material. Go back in the history to get the fullest version, as it has since been ravaged by apologists. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I will. Nice article Thanks for the tip. All I need is time. The article on Islamization of Gaza has already been tagged, not for deletion, just an I don't like it tag. The reason I came here, though, is that I saw your latest post at the AFD review on the three terrorism incident articles. Remarkable. Though it will not convince everyone. I begin to believe that no amount of coverage, and no amount of impact on political events, in fact no amount of notability would dissuade some editors from deleting every article that they do not like. Today, one is arguing that none of the sources in a new article are "openly sympathetic to Israel and/or conservative Christian evangelism and thus cannot be considered to be unbiased given the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." The sources in the article include that notorious vehicle of Zionism and evangelical Christianity, the Associated Press. I suppose the only thing to do is to keep making rational and well-supported arguments. Thanks for doing so again.AMuseo (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I linked some pages to your Committee for Propagation article. But I;m thinking of the Islamization of Gaza article. I may spend some more time there today, and nominate it for DKY. I hope that you will have time to join me.AMuseo (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has begun about whether the article June 2010 West Bank shooting, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. T. Canens (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The article September 2010 West Bank shooting has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

More suitable for wikinews per WP:NOTNEWS; no evidence of lasting notability (since the event occured today)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has begun about whether the article September 2010 West Bank shooting, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 2010 West Bank shooting until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

, fyi, In addition to the articles on individual terrorist atacks, I have started an article on the 2010 Hamas terror campaign.

I was looking at Killing of Rabbi Meir Hai. I added info from a recent article to the text. But I was surprised to see so few links. it should certainly be linked form a list of some kind. It was claimed by Al Aqsa. There is a List of al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades suicide attacks which redirects to List of Palestinian suicide attacks. But there should be a parallel list of stabbings. And one of Drive-by shootings. Or do such lists exist and I am somehow missing them? Killing of Rabbi Meir Hai needs also to be linked to a list of terror incidnets in 2009, but I think there should also be lists of stabbing and drive-by attacks. Thoughts?AMuseo (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more persuaded I become that Palestinian drive-by shootings" should be an article , as well as a list. They kill both Palestinian Arab political rivals and Jews this way quite regularly, after all. I may not have time for a few days. If you like the idea feel free to start an articleAMuseo (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think incidents of Palestinian political violence should be organized by type. I already made a list of animal bomb attacks, which got merged, and a list of ax attacks, which got deleted and is now being improved in Brewcrewer's sandbox - see the links above on this page. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're working on an article on ax attacks. One on stabbings is certainly needed. It is important and useful to put these incidents into context as tactics in campaigns of terror.AMuseo (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has begun about whether the article Killing of Rabbi Meir Hai, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Rabbi Meir Hai until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TM

Out of curiosity, is there a reason why you havent argued to keep September 2010 Gaza naval shooting? nableezy - 04:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and it's the same reason I haven't argued to keep September 2010 West Bank shooting, a similar article I created at about the same time. I'm not sure whether such short articles should be kept or merged. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated June 2010 West Bank shooting, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jmundo (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope that you will take a look at the wikibias website.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockvilleMD (talk • contribs) 15:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of polluting this space with the rantings of an apologist, I would like to ask you a question. Do you feel that each attack by Israel on or in Gaza or the West Bank merits an article? Does each attack by an Israeli settler on a Palestinian merit its own article? That is assuming that there are let's say 5 news articles about these attacks. nableezy - 22:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you give me a few examples so I know what we're talking about? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That will take some effort. For now lets assume the following hypothetical events: an Israeli helicopter fires a missile in Gaza killing a.) 3 "terrorists" b.) 2 civilians c.) 1 child. Assuming that there are at least 5 news reports about this event for each a, b, and c, should there be an article on that specific "event".

Next lets take a different hypothetical set: An Israeli settler shoots at Palestinians near a West Bank settlement. He kills a.) 1 armed Palestinian b.)1 unarmed Palestinians c.)1 child. Same assumption as above, should we have an article on each of these events? nableezy - 23:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant actual examples. Hypothetical examples are naturally ambiguous. But I think that as a rough, general guideline, all fatal acts of violence should ideally be on Wikipedia. If they are not tied to a specific set of other acts of violence, they should have their own article individually or collectively; so, for example, Israeli targeted killings. If they are a direct response to a specific prior act of violence or a specific set of prior acts, they should be mentioned in the article on the prior act(s); so, for example, I make it a point to consistently describe Israeli retaliations to specific Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2010. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I know you meant actual examples, but I really dont want to spend the time finding and citing them. Far too depressing and no real point because I dont think those articles belong so, even if I were to find 20 news articles on a single Israeli attack, I would not write articles on them. I dont have as big a problem with "series" articles like Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2010, though I dont think they merit articles, as I do with having an article on each individual rocket attack, or each stabbing, or each gunfight, or each "targeted assassination" or even each child killed by a sniper. If it were my choice, there would be an article on the Israel Gaza conflict and that article would contain a line "there were X rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel. Y of them landed in D city, causing E amount of damage and F casualties, among them G deaths (and so on for each city hit)." That would be near a line on the number of Israeli "incursions" and the damage and casualties caused. I dont see the point of repeating a bunch of news articles here and I cannot believe that any serious source, one that would call itself an "encyclopedia", would carry these kinds of articles. nableezy - 00:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably, part of the disagreement between us is just the classic difference between inclusionist and deletionist dispositions. That said, however, you should notice that I don't advocate creating separate articles for each Palestinian rocket attack on Israel; just for exceptional attacks, like the ones on Eilat. I would in principle support separate articles on each Israeli targeted assassination. Lastly, I think that your ideal article as you described it would be one-dimensional, lacking important aspects of the events, such as the motives, and thus unencyclopedic. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Since we are reminding each other of what we have not noticed, I have not said one word about the article on the Eilat attacks. The stabbings however are straight news stories in my opinion and would only belong in an article on the events of the year or the talks where the latest might be relevant. nableezy - 00:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, but it lacks any consideration of the world beyond the Middle East. There appears to be a WP:CONS that individual terrorism incidents are significant. This consensus is demonstrated by the fact that Wikipedia has hundreds of such articles, many about incidents as minor as the Columbus Shopping Mall Bombing Plot. There are hundreds of stable Wikipedia articles exist on minor plots see:Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States by year, Category:Terrorism in the United Kingdom including a large number on incidents of intended terrorism that never happened Category:Failed terrorist attempts, this makes it clear that I/P articles are in fact being treated differently than other articles. To wit: they are deleted and nominated for deletion whereas comparable articles about incidents of terrorism elsewhere in the world are not. Note, for example, that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting was nominated for deletion before I had even finished writing it. The 2010 Ottawa terrorism plot was not treated this way. Nor was the 2010 Newry car bombing. The quesiton is, why are articles about terrorism in Israel and the Palestinian territories regularly proposed for deletion and held to different standards Gaza Baptist Church than articles about the British Isles or the United States?02:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

But why do editors in the I-P topic area only create articles about attacks carried out by one of the parties to the conflict and not the other ? Under the discretionary sanctions editors are meant to "aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict." Focusing on attacks by one side in the conflict won't achieve that and imagining that others will correct the resulting systemic bias is unrealistic. Why not write one article about a notable attack by Palestinians and then write another about an attack by Israelis ? Both articles would have to be policy compliant anyway so what's the difference ? What is so difficult about a balanced approach to contributing with editors responsibly and actively making an effort to compensate for their own systemic bias ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If I write an article about Beethoven, does neutrality require me to write another article about Brahms? (And then another article about Schubert, etc.?) I don't follow your logic. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I do. It's a diversionary tactic. Since the writer cannot answer the issues you and I have raised, he is diverting the debate to a new, red herring topic. All Wikipeida editors write about topics that they fancy. This is not a problem. In fact, it is an asset since when we care about a topic, we are more likely to have the facts at our fingertips. The problems come with poor editing and poor logic, such as voting to keep articles that appear to favor one's personal political convictions, and to delete those that don't - and devil take the rules. Some editors will try everything in an AFD, shifting their arguments, false arguments, strawman arguments, personal attacks, outright untruths (I have pointed out 2 outright assertions of untruth in ADD's this week alone), and good red herring to get an article deleted when the only real argument they have is Wikipedia:I just don't like it.AMuseo (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Editors either share the aspirations as the sanctions or they don't. It's up to them. It's an aspiration not an obligation. Logic isn't required to understand that there is a dependency between the neutrality of the I-P topic area, its breath of coverage and the focus/actions of individual editors. It's true that all Wikipedia editors write about topics that they fancy but the statement "This is not a problem" is patently false and naive. There's no diversion here. I have no interest in the AFDs or else I would have voted and I have no need for tactics because this isn't a battle. There was simply the hope that you might consider broadening your focus to be more inline with the aspirations of the sanctions because these kind of recent event based articles will continue to be written, many will be proposed for deletion no matter whether that is what should happen and many will be kept. Each article impacts on the overall neutrality and breath of coverage of the I-P topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see you give this lecture to someone like harlan wilkerson for a change. There's a guy with immense knowledge about both sides of this issue who exclusively writes from one side only. But you seem to prefer to talk about this only with people who you find to be too pro-I in the pro-I/pro-P equation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I had hoped to have a reasoned discussion with you and I dont see why that cant continue. Ill ignore some spectator comments if you dont mind. But it just so happens that a concrete example of what I have been asking about recently occurred. Should there be a Wikipedia article on this? Using that, and this and this and a number of other news stories as sources? nableezy - 06:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There should be an article on the Silwan riots and violence, and this incident should be included in it. Maybe I'll write it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

But should there be a stand-alone article on a settlement security guard killing this Palestinian? Lets call it the September 2010 East Jerusalem shooting? nableezy - 01:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt I would advocate deleting that article, but I also doubt I would participate in creating that article if 2010 Silwan riots or similar weren't written. The Arab ambush which (according to the police investigation) culminated in the shooting seems to have been part and parcel of the general phenomenon of Silwan riots and violence, exceptional only in that it happened to culminate in a fatality. So I think it would be like having a stand-alone article for every fatal Palestinian rocket attack on Israel, where my attitude would be the same. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The real question is here is would Nableezy and the other pro-P editors who voted to delete the articles about the events that lead to Israelis being killed vote to delete an article about an event that resulted in a Palestinian being killed. I doubt it. Anyone have any examples to the contrary? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I obviously take issue with how you choose to frame this event. To you this is in the context of "riots in Silwan". If it were me I would expand that context to the "Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem and actions by Israeli settlers in that territory". That difference in how these things can be frames is what I think is the biggest problem with these articles. They each can be framed in a specific way that allows either "side" to present the issue in completely different ways. It ends up being a race to see who writes an article first. If I were to write the article now and discuss it in what I feel is the correct context I could then claim that an article that you make in what you feel is the correct context is a "POV fork" when they are actually both "POV forks". But here is another example. Should an article exist on this, using this, this, this, this, and this as sources? Your first reply to me is probably accurate, this comes down to an "inclusionist" vs "deletionist" mentality (at least for some of us, unnamed others will just vote based on the "party line"). This is how I see these things: every violent story from that region will have news stories written about it from Los Angeles to London to Jerusalem to Pyongyang. That doesnt make it anything more than a news story. We live in a time where every news story will be repeated around the world and then forgotten when the next story that gets people to click on the link happens. nableezy - 18:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Re first question: are you really suggesting that an article Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem and actions by Israeli settlers in that territory including the incident we're speaking of is comparable to an article 2010 Silwan riots including the incident we're speaking of? If so, I would say that our disagreement depends on what I consider a fundamental failure of common sense on your part and therefore I cannot respond. Re second question: Obviously even I as an inclusionist have a threshold. I can't say a priori whether the vandalism incident passes the threshold; I would have to look into the details. Not-thought-out gut response: an attack on a house of worship is notable if the place was destroyed or if there were serious injuries. In any case, it's more important that there be an article on the Mosque, and that article should include the incident. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting that for an article title. But I am suggesting that an article on the specific shooting can be framed in the context of the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem and the actions taken by settlers in that territory. My point was the how an issue is framed is a question of POV. I could say the shooting should be treated as its own topic, you could reply that it should discussed in the context of Palestinian riots, I could reply that those "riots" should be treated in the context of the occupation and resistance to the appropriation of occupied territory. It depends only on POV and as such can only lead to problems here on how it should be treated. nableezy - 21:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, POV affects how things are framed. No, that doesn't mean that all imaginable framings are equally valid. It's hard for me to get more specific than that without a concrete example. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

How would you judge what the level of validity is of a specific way of presenting an event? nableezy - 23:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Before we go any further, I want to make sure I understand your position. Is it that the fact that there were deaths or a house of worship is destroyed that makes the above supposed article a notable topic, or is it that there are news stories about it across the world? Are the Palestinian attacks notable because they are "terror attacks" and all "terror attacks" are by definition "notable"? Is each drone strike in Afghanistan or Pakistan notable? nableezy - 01:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So obviously there must be a few examples where you voted to delete an article you felt was pro-P, right? Apropos voting based on party lines, comedy of the absurd, etc. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If I give you those examples do you promise to stfu and let me have this conversation with somebody I respect without you butting in with retarded questions? nableezy - 21:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I will seriously consider your request. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Once you finish considering it let me know what the answer is. nableezy - 23:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll need to see your examples first. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Which I gather are not forthcoming. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war with you, I had meant for you to initiate discussion if you disagreed with my 2nd revert where I clearly explained why the reasoning in your 2nd addition was incorrect. The version you're adding is clearly pushing your anti-Palestinian POV - the Animal-borne bomb attacks article lists 5 attacks by Palestinians and 4 by others so saying it is a WP:SUMMARY is incorrect. Adding "mainly perpetrated by Palestinian militants" is not correct or neutral. Even if there were 10 attacks by Palestinians and 2 by others, it would still be a synthesis to say most were carried out by Palestinians. I also suspect that the Animal-borne bomb attacks does not contain all incidents of this by any stretch, andis likely that many other groups have used similar tactics, but they haven't been included in the article yet. Like I said, I'm not going to carry on warring, but I would respectfully ask that you self-revert unless you can provide a strong source for the fact that "Animal-borne bomb attacks are mostly perpetrated by Palestinians". Smartse (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right that we can't be sure that the collection of incidents we have on Wikipedia is reflective of the entire set of documented incidents, so I changed "mainly" to "many". There were other things you attempted to delete that these arguments have no bearing on. I don't have an anti-Palestinian POV. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for saying that you have an anti-Palestinian POV, I just can't see how anyone can think this is a neutral way to summarise the Animal-borne bomb attacks article. "Many" is still not appropriate - how many is "many"? To me many certainly means more than the five occurrences mentioned in the article. This basically boils down to the fact that I can't see how your text improves the article. I accidentally removed your addition of horses in my first revert, but then only removed the "mainly perpetrated" section in my second revert. Smartse (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the help at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nava Applebaum. The article is now on the front page as a DYK.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Good work on the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jalapenos!

I noticed some of your edits to the article 2010 cargo plane bomb plot on my watchlist. I just wanted to get your opinion on the actual purpose of the bombs -- whether they were meant to detonate on the cargo planes or whether they were targeting the Jewish synagogues to which they were addressed. One of the sources cited in the article, containing a statement from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, suggests that authorities believe that the bombs were supposed to detonate on the airplanes, rather than targeting the synagogues. Bomb was designed to explode on cargo plane - UK PM If that's the case, we may want to re-word the lead to make this clearer.

The other thing we should be careful of is undue weight in the lead. I originally had Al-Queda in the Arab Peninsula in the lead too, but I decided to move it down to the Responsibility section because there was not concrete evidence of this yet.

Anyways, just some thoughts. Please get back to me when you can. Happy editing! – Novem Lingvae (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Novem, I changed the motive based on the more recent assessments appearing in the media, among others in the Wall Street Journal article I cited. The British assessment that the bombs were supposed to explode on the airplanes seems to be outdated by now. The prime suspect of an attempted crime is certainly one of the most important elements in an article about the crime, so I think AQAP definitely belongs in the lead. Cheers, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any thoughts regarding the suggestion made by Sean.hoyland? Adambro (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw your sandbox on civilian/combatant casualties. Very interesting indeed, notable and well-sourced. You might wish to include comments and observations from from Col. Richard Kemp. In addition, next to B'Tselem’s figures, you might wish to add the following, However, B'Tselem’s figures are contradicted by Hamas, which admitted that its organization sustained casualties that were consistent with Israeli estimates. In any event, nice job.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I added Kemp (as cited by Dershowitz in the context of this topic) and the problem with the B'Tselem figures. If you'd like to work on the article while it's in the sandbox, any help would be much appreciated. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have explained the reason for my edit. You have reverted without any explanation on the talk page. Please do so. -- PBS (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

		The Excellent Userpage Award
		I just happened to stumble on your username and your userpage, and both were highly entertaining to me and made me laugh. If that's not worth a barnstar, what is? — Hun ter Ka hn 05:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

On 5 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Durban III, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Canada has vowed to boycott the United Nations Durban III conference, calling it a "charade" and a "hatefest"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi there - FYI, you have been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jalapenos do exist reported by User:Rami R (Result: ). Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about not notifying you myself. I actually had your talk page open on "new section", but I got a phone call that lasted 2.5 hours, at its conclusion I've come to the realization that real life is pressing. As such, I'm withdrawing from the related discussion and wikipedia in general for at least a week or two. Rami R 21:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

All the best in real life. I hope everything works out. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I've pretty much done all I'm going to do on the Civilian casualty ratio article for the time being. If the result is acceptable to you, I think this can be promoted now. If not, then I think it will have to be rejected, because the nom is already very late and I don't think we can hold it open any longer to resolve outstanding issues. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will leave a note to that effect at T:TDYK. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jalapenos do exist, I noticed you removed POV from the article. Could you please tell me, who was the one to introduce that POV there. I mean who added that "1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon" ? Thank you. I will check on your response here.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

My guess would be Gatoclass, but you can check the history. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was too lazy to check the history. I thought you would know, but I guess I will go ahead and check it now.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

On 14 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Civilian casualty ratio, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that according to a study by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the civilian casualty ratio in wars fought since the mid-20th century has been 10 civilian deaths for every soldier death? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Gatoclass (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if you're aware of this tool - - but it clearly shows that the claim made by Gatoclass against you regarding your editing patterns is false. You regularly do quite a bit of editing after midnight UTC. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Following the incident over the civilian casualty ratio article, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Gaming problem in the DYK of civilian casualty ratio. To be clear, this discussion is not intended to seek your sanctioning, though I do believe you should be sanctioned. The purpose of the discussion is to protect the integrity of the DYK process, the quality of main page content, and the reputations of DYK contributors. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, you are certainly welcome and entitled to do so. EdChem (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Under remedy 1 of Palestine-Israel articles arbitration request, I have, on my own discretion placed the following editing restriction on you, as also seen at Requests/Enforcment of restriction edit.

Jalapenos do exist is restricted to one revert per 24 hours, on any edit concerning Israel or Israelis, Palestine or Palestinians, or the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed, so long as that edit is within article space.
Reverts of clear vandalism is or problematic material on biographies of living people are exempted from this restriction as usual.
This restriction is to run for 3 months.

This restriction will be logged momentarily, and you have the usual options for dispute and appeal.--Tznkai (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

For fixing English in my new article. If I write another one, could I contact you for fixing it too? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In principle yes, but I can't commit in advance. I'm trying to spend less time on Wikipedia and more time on real life. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and you might want to consider submitting this one for DYK while there's still time. My impression is that it needs more work, e.g. more details in the description section and an explanation of the process by which it became a big hit in the reception section. But I'm saying this without having checked what additional information exists in reliable sources. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I did submit it to DYK, but my personal hound user:unomi once again is trolling on the nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Interested in your opinion. Roscelese (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clearing that up. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

On 3 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article When We Die As Martyrs, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the song "When We Die As Martyrs" is performed by the Arab children's choir Birds of Paradise? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jalapenos do exist, last time you helped me big with When we die as martyrs. Now I wrote another article. Could you please take a look at it, think about a new name, and help me out with this. Maybe you could include a piece about rats from here. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, well there should definitely be an article Conspiracy theories involving Israel. Academics have written a lot about this topic. That article should include both a discussion on the topic as a whole and a list of individual theories. Some of those theories should have stand-alone articles as well, depending on individual notability. I think that the vulture incident is notable enough for a stand-alone article, in fact I was planning to write that article myself. The shark theory, if I remember correctly, was discussed by the community and it was decided to keep it as part of the article on the actual incident. As for your article combining the vulture incident and the shark theory, I realize that discussions of the former in reliable sources consistently mention the latter, but I don't think that's a strong enough reason to combine two and only two separate incidents in the same article. The idea of having an article about "conspiracy theories involving Israeli use of animals" as a sub-topic of Conspiracy theories involving Israel seems promising. I think I remember seeing discussions of this as a distinct sub-topic. This may be kind of what you had in mind. But I think that that article would be sufficiently different from the article you recently wrote that it would be better to just start over than to carry out a massive expansion. So, bottom line, if you want to write an article on the vulture incident specifically and/or an article on conspiracy theories involving Israeli use of animals generally, I would probably be able to help with that. I hope I've answered your questions. Congratulations on the DYK of the last article, by the way. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and last night I moved the article to Conspiracy theories involving Israel, and I added a piece about flight 990 conspiracy theory to it. I am only not sure, if there should be an article about all conspiracy theories involving Israel or only the ones about animals to start with. I wrote an article about vulture and shark together because absolutely every source put those two together. I also wrote this article because the subject was really funny. When I've heard about poor bird I could not stop laughing, and wanted to share my laugh with wikipedia's readers. Writing the article that you are suggesting would be hard for me. It is way too big of the task. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

For fixing English in my new article. If I write another one, could I contact you for fixing it too? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In principle yes, but I can't commit in advance. I'm trying to spend less time on Wikipedia and more time on real life. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and you might want to consider submitting this one for DYK while there's still time. My impression is that it needs more work, e.g. more details in the description section and an explanation of the process by which it became a big hit in the reception section. But I'm saying this without having checked what additional information exists in reliable sources. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I did submit it to DYK, but my personal hound user:unomi once again is trolling on the nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Interested in your opinion. Roscelese (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clearing that up. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

On 3 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article When We Die As Martyrs, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the song "When We Die As Martyrs" is performed by the Arab children's choir Birds of Paradise? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jalapenos do exist, last time you helped me big with When we die as martyrs. Now I wrote another article. Could you please take a look at it, think about a new name, and help me out with this. Maybe you could include a piece about rats from here. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, well there should definitely be an article Conspiracy theories involving Israel. Academics have written a lot about this topic. That article should include both a discussion on the topic as a whole and a list of individual theories. Some of those theories should have stand-alone articles as well, depending on individual notability. I think that the vulture incident is notable enough for a stand-alone article, in fact I was planning to write that article myself. The shark theory, if I remember correctly, was discussed by the community and it was decided to keep it as part of the article on the actual incident. As for your article combining the vulture incident and the shark theory, I realize that discussions of the former in reliable sources consistently mention the latter, but I don't think that's a strong enough reason to combine two and only two separate incidents in the same article. The idea of having an article about "conspiracy theories involving Israeli use of animals" as a sub-topic of Conspiracy theories involving Israel seems promising. I think I remember seeing discussions of this as a distinct sub-topic. This may be kind of what you had in mind. But I think that that article would be sufficiently different from the article you recently wrote that it would be better to just start over than to carry out a massive expansion. So, bottom line, if you want to write an article on the vulture incident specifically and/or an article on conspiracy theories involving Israeli use of animals generally, I would probably be able to help with that. I hope I've answered your questions. Congratulations on the DYK of the last article, by the way. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and last night I moved the article to Conspiracy theories involving Israel, and I added a piece about flight 990 conspiracy theory to it. I am only not sure, if there should be an article about all conspiracy theories involving Israel or only the ones about animals to start with. I wrote an article about vulture and shark together because absolutely every source put those two together. I also wrote this article because the subject was really funny. When I've heard about poor bird I could not stop laughing, and wanted to share my laugh with wikipedia's readers. Writing the article that you are suggesting would be hard for me. It is way too big of the task. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Itamar attack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Itamar attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Strikerforce (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The article has been nominated for a mention in the ITN section.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, a number of your recent file uploads, such as File:Itamar attack 11.jpg, have been missing information regarding their copyright status. Please note that Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and that the copyright status of all media files uploaded to Wikipedia must be verifiable by others. If you have questions regarding copyright on Wikipedia, they can be raised at the copyright question page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the technical copyright status of the images. What I know is that the individuals who released the images onto the internet gave full permission to reproduce them, according to a public statement by a public figure. I recorded the details on the upload form. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the images in the interests of the victims' dignity. Shame on you for uploading them - it was a gross failure of judgment on your part. -- Y not? 04:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and in any case the family of the victims released the images and gave full permission to reproduce them. (Did you not read the recorded information, or do you presume that your personal opinion regarding the victims' dignity trumps that of their family?) Please restore the images immediately, in accordance with the stated positions of user:cptnono, user:NortyNort and me, and please refrain in the future from unilaterally deleting images for reasons that do not accord with Wikpedia policy. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Jalapenos do exist, uploading images to wikipedia is a complicated process. In order the images to be uploaded they should be released with a free license, and it should be proven. The best way of doing this is uploading the images to flickr, where it is easy to specify the license or, the copyright holders of the images should email to permissions on Commons to confirm the release of the images. If you have contact with the copyright holder, please email them and explain how to proceed. Please ask me questions, if you need some help. Could you please provide the link to the image you uploaded? I'd like to take a look what it says about the license. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mbz1. The info is all on the talk page of Itamar attack. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've nominated Itamar attack, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. BabbaQ (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC) --BabbaQ (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

. Gatoclass (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In this edit you've lifted content word-for-word from this source. The phrases "calling it despicable, immoral and inhuman", "where mosques used sermons pre-approved and disseminated by the government", and "called for a joint Israeli-Palestinian-American committee to look into claims of incitement in Palestinian schools" are all copy-pastes. I've no objections if you want to re-write the content (I've cut it down considerably in the meantime), but please take care to put things in your own words. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if your insinuation of copyright violation weren't ludicrous, it still wouldn't explain how your removal of most of the content, as opposed to changing the wording, could be considered good for the article. Please self-revert your deletion, and, in the future, try to gain consensus for your contentious edits through civil participation on the article's talk page and not by tossing around empty accusations. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Our copyright policy supports the immediate removal of copyright violations. There is no obligation to re-write the material. This seems to be a recurring issue with your edits (see another removal here). You can continue with the faux outrage all you like, but the fact is that you're lifting the work of others and that's one of the fastest ways to a block on this project. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, as a result of the recent request for arbitration enforcement concerning you, in view of Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, I am warning you not to misrepresent sources when contributing content to Wikipedia. Articles must represent what the cited sources say, not what you believe what the sources mean. See, in particular, WP:V and WP:NOR. Thanks, Sandstein 16:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you be more specific as to what I wrote that you believe misrepresented a source? That was never made clear, and if I made a mistake I want to know what it was so I can make sure not to repeat it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said at the AE page, you wrote that "Fatah, the group that controls the Palestinian National Authority, released a statement [claiming responsibility] by its militia", whereas the source reads: "PA officials in Ramallah expressed skepticism over a statement [claiming responsibility] released by Fatah’s militia ..." This attributes responsibility to the PA and Fatah in a way that the source does not. Sandstein 23:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. The source does attribute responsibility to Fatah, but it doesn't mention the PA except in the context of expressing skepticism. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

On 25 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Itamar attack, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that, in the Itamar attack, five members of a family were stabbed to death in their beds in the Israeli settlement of Itamar in the West Bank? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I found your edits on the page Gender apartheid in the course of trying to figure out what gives with the articles on apartheid. The apartheid analogy is being applied to a number of apartheid-like situations, but it seems as though there is an effort to keep these applications off Wikipedia. Glad to see someone taking a more objective approach to these issues.I.Casaubon (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, please reconsider some of your recent edits here. See if you think they can be made more NPOV. Also, I think the Location column is misleading, because it sometimes shows Israeli victims next to a Palestinian flag, like for Juliano Mer-Khamis and for casualties in the settlements. It would make more sense to have the flag correspond to the nationality of the victim. What do you think?—Biosketch (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm just following the status quo in which the practice is to cite the location of the incident, with flag, in the appropriate column. I have no particular opinion on the practice. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Not only ISM members who were killed by Israel deserve their own page? Chesdovi (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion at the moment whether Vittorio Arrigoni deserves his own page. I do think that the murder of Vittorio Arrigoni deserves its own page, but in the meantime I've only had time to summarize it in the Tawhid wal-Jihad article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi, um..if you want an article perhaps you should put the content in it rather than reverting and telling me "move it here then!". You see to me that is just dumb and rude, neither of which I like much. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Instead of bickering, how about you guys create an article on the murder of Vittorio Arrigoni together? I'll be glad to help. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Bickering is less effort and therefore has a lower environmental impact energy use-wise. Having said that, I saw quite a detailed Al Jazeera article that might be useful. I'll dig it out. Here you go.Sean.hoyland - talk 12:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jalapenos do exist, if you have a time, maybe you could help to copy edit my new article? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Good luck with it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Jalapenos do exist. You have new messages at Talk:Hamas school bus attack.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Again, especially because the information concerns a living person, the burden is on you to find reliable sources for this information. I've already suggested that you get an Arabic-speaking user to confirm PMW's translation of the program. Is there any particular reason you're so unwilling to make this smallest of efforts? As I said, if it really does say what PMW claims it says, you should have no qualms about getting someone to check the translation. Your unwillingness to do so only raises suspicions that the translation is exaggerated or inaccurate. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As I already said, PMW's translations are reliable and are used in academic papers, so there is no need to find an Arabic speaker to confirm the translation. Nevertheless, if it's important to you, you are welcome to do it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, the burden is on you, particularly because the information is about a living person. We cannot cite PMW, as an organization dedicated to discrediting Palestinians, as a source on a Palestinian politician. This isn't the first time that you've claimed their translations are used in scholarly works, but from my search of Google Scholar and Google Books, this is false. I've found a few uses, no more - not nearly enough to claim widespread reliability. And in the course of my search, I found a journal article describing how PMW "selectively translates material" in service of an anti-Palestinian agenda. Fancy that. We could cite the program, but we need a translation from a real source. Take it to RSN if you disagree. The burden is on you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You reached two reverts in 24 hours with your last one; please undo that. I won't be able to respond to any reply in a timely way since I have to rush out the door just now and won't be back online any time very soon. But please examine your history on the page to see for yourself. If you do want to reply, though, you can do so right here. Cheers, – OhioStandard (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but I double checked and I only made one revert in the past few days. If I'm wrong, I will of course self revert. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 07:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed your edits on "Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel", and checked your edit history. That's a lot of good work you're putting in. Thanks a lot. 46.38.161.41 (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Jalapenos do exist, I wrote an article Poison affair of Palestinian schoolgirls. I request your advise on how to improve it and what should I do to make it NPOV. Thanks.--Broccolo (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

At this point it looks like the most important thing to do for the article is to continue countering attempts to introduce bias into it. Good luck. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi regarding the BLP article Amin Abu Rashid there is a report at the BLP noticeboard , please go there and seek consensus , please do not replace the content without consensus and support there, thanks. Also your edit summary "evidently deleted for POV reasons" is attacking and plain wrong - I couldn't give a damn about the issue. Its policy and [[WP:BLP I removed the content for . Off2riorob (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Also please note I have added the WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES - Israeli/Palestinian template to the talkpage. See Talk:Amin_Abu_Rashid - Please respect its conditions, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll check the BLP noticeboard. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Youve gone a bit far with that article. To begin with, after saying he is the leader of the group, the very next thing you include in the lead is his ban from entering the UK, and then a prison sentence. In the rest of the article, there are other BLP violations, such as calling Jonathan Cook an "anti-Israel author". I dont have the time to deal with this right now, but could you please take a closer look at the edit you made? Thank you. nableezy - 13:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Good catch over at Anders Behring Breivik. I see you and Nableezy still have the old love afair ;). Am not sure if I want to touch that neck of the woods again tho. Leave it for the involved and the masochists :) --Cerejota (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing attempts to reintroduce the unsourced claims. They smell of conspiracy theories. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nah, they are being talked about in Norwegian media and in the blogosphere and the tabloids eat it up, but haven't become RS verifiable-level stuff yet. Am sad to say that at one point this claim will become a verified one if its a true one as it seems it is. Just not now and by those editor's sources - for such an extraordinary and possibly inflamatory claim you have to give me primo quality AAA sauce, like NYT or BBC. In an aside, it is not so strange, conservative elitism is Zionist for anti-islamic and even anti-semitic reasons, a school of thought you will admit exists and has existed for quite some time, ie Christian Zionism but also in other forms, like David Lloyd George etc.--Cerejota (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited 2012 Bangkok bombings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phuket (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi , I noticed that you use Grad(BM21) but in some cases (at least how globalsecurity) the rockets may be WS1 (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/12/hamas-chinese-a/ , http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/ws-1.htm , http://www.inss.org.il/heb/publications.php?cat=76&incat=&read=2625&print=1 , ) I think the best term would be Grad Class rocket. 109.226.6.200 (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bat Ayin ax attack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bat Ayin ax attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2012, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Arava, Uvda and Mujahideen Shura Council (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a consensus on the Talkpage not to include a list of people killed unless they are notable. There is a policy Wikipedia:Notability (people) for this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but the discussion you're referring to was about the situation when all casualties were mentioned, and the problem was that such a list can be (and was) abused for tendentious purposes. Like I said in the edit summary, killing militants is one of the aims of the operation, so a list of those killed constitutes information regarding its progress, just as a summary of militant buildings or sites destroyed does. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Militants are still people though, I would understand the notable commanders being added in prose but to have every single name added? The total number of militants killed is also shown in the infobox we dont need names of every single one killed its a list that can quickly spiral out of control. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If it spirals out of control as a result of too much information, it can be spun out and summarized like in any case where there's a glut of information a particular side of the subject. The point of WP:Memorial is precisely that, that Wikipedia isn't a memorial; but this isn't memorializing, it's providing information on the progress of the operation. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

How is listing those who died providing information on the progress of the operation? Another thing would be WP:POV where would be the list of those died on the Israeli side for example, in my opinion keep or not these lists cause more harm than good. There is also still the Wikipedia:Notability (people) factor and WP:BIO1E. Im sorry I just dont see this as very encyclopedic when it comes to wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, my own view is that information, as a rule, is good for Wikipedia. WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO1E are irrelevant because they're about standalone articles; any single piece of information in this article would be insufficiently notable for its own article but you would agree that we shouldn't remove everything. I'm not sure what you mean regarding WP:POV. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Knowledgekid87 that there is consensus on the talk page not to add the name of every casualty (militant or civilian). Only notable casualties, like Ahmed Jabari, should be mentioned by name. Naming only the militant casualties and ignoring civilian casualties is also a violation of WP:NPOV.VR _talk 06:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed some statements on Operation_Pillar_of_Cloud that were not supported by the source that were cited. Why did you restore these unsourced statements? PerDaniel (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what statements you're referring to. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the staement "The European Union, United States, United Kingdom, France and other Western countries expressed support for Israel's right to defend itself, and/or condemned the Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel.[34]". The source only mentions the russian reaction. PerDaniel (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The statement is sourced in the body of the article; see the "reactions" section. The lead has a summary without a separate inline citation per normal practice. I will, however, add separate inline citations to keep this from happening again. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the lead makes it sound like France has shown unequivocal support for Israel in this matter. In the "Reactions" section it says that "French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius acknowledged Israel's right to defend itself, but called for restraint", which is quite different from what the lead says. The source for this statement appears to be in hebrew, which makes it unreadable to the vast majority of users of english wikipedia, me included. I know that there is no requirement for sources to be in english, but I think that it would be a good idea to try to find sources in english.PerDaniel (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one who originally added France to the sentence in the lead, so I'm not the person to talk to about this. But, since you brought it up, I'll note that there is an English Reuters source for the French FM saying " Israel has the right to security, but it won't achieve it through violence", which seems equivalent to the statement sourced to the Hebrew article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jalapenos, I noticed that you edit a lot of articles about the Middle East and I'm organising a workshop for a group of researchers from the University of Oxford and the American University of Sharjah, about representation of the Middle East and North Africa region on Wikipedia. We held a workshop in Cairo for Wikipedians in October 2012 to discuss barriers to participation on Arabic Wikipedia. Our next workshop will be taking place in Amman, Jordan on the 26th-27th January 2013. We have funds to pay for participants' travel, accommodation and food. This workshop will concentrate more specifically on the representation of parts of the MENA region on Wikipedia and the ability of local editors to contribute to those representations. We are therefore looking for participants who edit articles about the MENA region (can be places, local historical or current events, local people etc.) We wanted to invite you because we noticed you have been involved in editing about contentious topics in the region and would really value your input. If you want to know more about this workshop, please contact me on wikiproject@oii.ox.ac.uk. Many thanks, Clarence (Project Manager)OIIOxford (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but I'll decline. Good luck, and I hope the workshop is constructive and enjoyable. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepsis II (talk • contribs) 15:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, any chance you have reverted my edit by mistake, with your following edit? if not what is the reason for your revert ? --Mor2 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This is weird. I see from the diff that I deleted a sentence, but I certainly didn't intend to. My best guess is that I did it by mistake when doing the copy-paste thing in an edit conflict. I have no objection to the sentence - I don't think anyone would, as it's fairly vanilla - and, given that its deletion was a mistake, I don't think it would be considered a revert if you re-add it. Sorry for the inconvenience. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mujahedeen Shura Council (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tapuah Junction stabbing (2013), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Collaborator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. p b p 22:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you help me with this? I don't know who are the current Head of the Government Deputies.--Michael Zeev (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Lebanese rocket attacks on Israel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Katyusha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, did you intend to work more on this? Bearian (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 kidnapping of Israeli teens may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

articles/0,7340,L-4530169,00.html Hamas angered by PA help in search for missing teens], Reuters (published in Ynet News 14-06-2014</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits at the page are in violations of ARBPIA 1rr restrictions applicable to all topics related to the Israel Palestine conflict. I notice that you have been officially notified of the sanctions and previously warned for edit warring in violation of the restrictions. Given these previous warnings and because, in my view, your edit pattern at the page is fundamentally at odds with our WP:NPOV policy, unless you self revert I am going to make a report at the appropriate board looking for sanctions. Dlv999 (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The edits violate neither WP:1RR nor WP:NPOV. I note that you are a serially combative user who has been blocked for edit warring. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Jalapenos_do_exist_reported_by_User:Dlv999_.28Result:_.29 Regards Dlv999 (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 kidnapping of Israeli teens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page America (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/rockets2011.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AlanS (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2001 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AlanS (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2007 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AlanS (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2010 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AlanS (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AlanS (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2014 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AlanS (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision (WP:ARBPIA), for violating WP:1RR on the page 2014 kidnapping of Israeli teens, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

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).

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

Request reason:

The block is a response to two supposed reverts that would violate WP:1RR. Edit #1 is not a revert, but a modification of an addition by another user which preserves its essence. Edit #2 preserves one out of the two ideas introduced by the user, so I don't see it as a revert either, but I suppose this could be contested. I made both edits to uphold WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Three further points. 1. Until the block, I had contributed a large part, if not most, of the content of the article. Most of this content deals with bland diplomatic statements and is relatively non-contentious 2. The article deals with a current event, and the block obviously impairs my ability to keep the article up to date. 3. The requester of the block, who is serially combative and has himself been blocked for edit warring , has expressed discomfort with the content of the page but has contributed virtually no content of his own . Together, these facts suggest that the block request is gamesmanship aimed at hindering timely development of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalapenos do exist (talk • contribs) 17:23, 15 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Decline reason:

(1) Here are two edits, roughly two and a half hours apart, each of which removes significant content placed by one or more other editors: . Those are two reverts. (2) The fact that you have written a significant part of the article, and another editor hasn't, does not somehow give you more authority over the article than the other editor, or give you the right to ignore Wikipedia policies. (3) Ad hominem attacks on another person will not increase the likelihood of your being unblocked, as your unblock request is assessed on the basis of what you have done, irrespective of the merits or demerits of anyone else's action. Indeed, using an unblock request as an opportunity to throw accusations at another editor is, if anything, likely to decrease the likelihood of being unblocked, as further disruptive editing is further reason for being blocked. (4) Yes, of course yoour block "impairs [your] ability" to edit the article your editing of which led to the block.

The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2014 (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.

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Middle East Forum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestinian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I noticed you edited a couple of weeks ago after a couple of years of not being around. Come back. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jalapenos do exist. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tapuah Junction stabbing (2010) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapuah Junction stabbing (2010) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

We miss you. Hope all is well. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:UN Watch logo.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

[1]
AJC Alarmed by Manifestations of Anti-Semitism in Greek Media, American Jewish Committee, January 8, 2009

[AJC-1] [1]
AJC Alarmed by Manifestations of Anti-Semitism in Greek Media, American Jewish Committee, January 8, 2009

[1]

Edit Summary

Welcome

January 2009

Very nice work

Request

February 2009

Info and oppertunity to respond

WTF?

Reply

Enjoy

Restored deleted material

Just wanted to say....

Talkback

Congrats

Talkback

re: Antisemitic incidents during the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict

Relevant Haaretz article

gaza aid article

The Modest Barnstar

Happy Purim!

Talkback

Talkback

Two of you on either side...

please respond

Marlon Brando

Nice work

Re:Your comment on User_talk:Okedem

Shiny!

Removal of Global tag from Durban_Review_Conference

barnstar

Hyperionsteel - Thanks.

Hey

Invitation

No need to worry

can you...

Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations

sorry

Talkback

Iran election protests

Thanks for your contributions on the Iranian election pages and elsewhere!

ITN for 2009 Iranian election protests

IDF and T-shirts

Palestine

Jebusite

Totally out of line

talk

Talk page comment deleted

Your new infobox template

Qassam rocket

DYK nomination

Goldstone report

gaza war

serious request

Takbeer statement

could

previous user?

Deletion nomination

Disruptive editing/Goldstone report page

Yom Kippur War

Encycopedic style

UN Watch

Recent edits

Thanks

Articles for deletion nomination of Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in Haiti

Copying content

IDF in Haiti

Al-Ahram

Organ harvesting, pt. 2

...

Articles for deletion nomination of Tapuah junction stabbing

Edit summaries/Talk:Tapuah_junction_stabbing

Speedy deletion declined: List of rocket, mortar and other attacks by Israel in 2008

Just so you know

List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2010

Free Gaza

May 2010

Gaza flotilla clash

New article

Gaza_flotilla_raid

Please use the Discussion page for the Gaza flotilla raid